[phil_20686]

---

So you lead the heart ace, and you get the three of hearts from partner and the ten from declarer. What do you play now?

The three is reverse attitude.

[ahydra]

But what does the three mean?

ahydra

[aguahombre]

so, it is the stiff three or he has the queen, going with your conditions. Seems right to continue high. Declarer's ten is mildly amusing. All we know is he doesn't have QT tight, unless partner is falsecarding.

[mikeh]

I don't understand the logic behind playing attitude in this situation: partner has preempted at favourable in another suit, and we're playing a method designed to tell me he has Qxx in hearts?

Why wouldn't we play count? Or, my preference, lead the honour that asks partner to unblock or, should he not have an honour to unblock, to give count?

Admittedly, if partner has a stiff, I won't be able to read it, especially if declarer knows enough to falsecard.

Playing the OP agreement, I suppose I plunk down the K next...surely partner knows to play the Q from Qxx? Meanwhile, I avoid the embarrassment of his having Qx and me leading low.

[billw55]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-15, 08:40, said:

Declarer's 3NT is mildly amusing.

fixed

I guess he must have running diamonds and the ♠A. So why didn't he run to 4♦? Not sure but if he has ♥QTxx we aren't setting him anyway. Perhaps spades are wide open and he was bluffing .. but then he probably wouldn't falsecard in hearts.

All in all I guess I continue with the ♥K.

[bluecalm]

It looks like declarer will very often have 9 tricks ready with his 6diamonds, AK♣ and A♠ for me to try anything different than top heart.

[HighLow21]

What I find amusing is the double of 3NT. There is no reason for the doubler to believe he can set 3NT and equally no reason that partner should have a suit that can be set up with one removed stopper. Partner may have preempted on JT-7th or worse. And equally, there is no reason to believe that even if it can be set up, that the 3NT doubler can reach the spade suit once it is established.

Declarer may already have 9 (or more) impregnable tricks on top and may be trying to bait me into giving him an additional one.

I can see 21 HCP, and declarer can't be missing many of the other 19 for his 3NT bid at the vulnerability. He also has, at best, a QTxx stopper in hearts and none at all in clubs. Partner really must have stretched it to the limit with his favorable vul preempt, which I completely agree with. Hence my ATB of the 3NT double.

The best chance to kill this thing is to continue hearts, but I will feel like an idiot if I now find out that partner's 3♥ was a stiff and the Q♥ is now trick #9 for declarer. Or #10. Or #11.

I also think that (1) partner's 3♥ is probably singleton, (2) 3NT probably cannot be set, (3) my partner will be insulted if I don't lead his suit, and (4) playing another high heart is a likely way to contribute an extra doubled overtrick to this fiasco.

I lead the K♠ now, apologize to partner for doubling 3NT, and gain a little bit of self-respect by mildly bawling him out for having such a horrendous 1st seat preempt, in spite of the vulnerability.

If it turns out the 3♥ meant that he had the queen to any length, I will look stupid for my trick 2 switch, not for the first time nor the last time.

[wyman]

I would have led the HK to begin for an unblock.

I'm definitely not leading the SK now. Declarer surely has the ace. If not, what does he have? Qxx and the queen of hearts? No way.

I agree though that it's most likely that declarer has long diamonds, and our best shot is for partner to have Qx(xx) of hearts. On a good day he's 6-4 and it doesn't matter what I lead. On a bad day, I need to play the HK now to run the hearts. If partner has a stiff heart, declarer is Ax / Q10xx / AKQJx / xx? Seems fishy. Much more likely is like AQ / 10 / AKQJxxx / xxx. Also a touch fishy, but a far better gamble. Hmm, that gives partner Jxxxxx / Qxxx / xx / x ? Errr. Maybe partner has the SQ and declarer has A / 10xx / AKQJxxx / xx. That's better. Then pard has
QJxxxxx / Qx / xx / xx.

Yeah HK now.

[HighLow21]

wyman, on 2012-March-15, 13:09, said:

I would have led the HK to begin for an unblock.

I'm definitely not leading the SK now. Declarer surely has the ace. If not, what does he have? Qxx and the queen of hearts? No way.

I agree though that it's most likely that declarer has long diamonds, and our best shot is for partner to have Qx(xx) of hearts. On a good day he's 6-4 and it doesn't matter what I lead. On a bad day, I need to play the HK now to run the hearts. If partner has a stiff heart, declarer is Ax / Q10xx / AKQJx / xx? Seems fishy. Much more likely is like AQ / 10 / AKQJxxx / xxx. Also a touch fishy, but a far better gamble. Hmm, that gives partner Jxxxxx / Qxxx / xx / x ? Errr. Maybe partner has the SQ and declarer has A / 10xx / AKQJxxx / xx. That's better. Then pard has
QJxxxxx / Qx / xx / xx.

Yeah HK now.

I get what you're saying here wyman -- you're trying to beat this contract and I think it cannot be done most of the time. If it can be, it will be because of your second scenario here, which means we're now in the odd position of complimenting our partner on having the VERY offcenter 1st seat preempt that we now need to defeat declarer.

9 times out of 10 though, I think, the heart continuation gives declarer an additional trick (either #9 or an overtrick) and on the basis of the incremental cost of this to the incremental gain from this, I opt not to do it. But I don't really fault anyone for trying to beat something that is still most likely unbeatable. (That said, I also think that spades are just as likely to be as good as hearts, but I understand anyone who might disagree with me.)

[wyman]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-15, 13:22, said:

I get what you're saying here wyman -- you're trying to beat this contract and I think it cannot be done most of the time. If it can be, it will be because of your second scenario here, which means we're now in the odd position of complimenting our partner on having the VERY offcenter 1st seat preempt that we now need to defeat declarer.

9 times out of 10 though, I think, the heart continuation gives declarer an additional trick (either #9 or an overtrick) and on the basis of the incremental cost of this to the incremental gain from this, I opt not to do it. But I don't really fault anyone for trying to beat something that is still most likely unbeatable. (That said, I also think that spades are just as likely to be as good as hearts, but I understand anyone who might disagree with me.)

This may be a style thing. I think that we can have very wide-ranging preempts in 1st w/r.

But I don't understand what you're playing declarer -- who has nothing in clubs and at most the queen of hearts -- for: Qxx of spades? I assume this is IMPs, but even at MP. Turning = into +1 or +1 into +2 is far from the gain we'll see by turning -6xx into +200. So I think you have to beat it. I just don't see a hand where it makes a difference.

Qxx / Q10xx (and he falsecarded...) / AKQJx / x ? Sure doesn't seem like a 3N call to me.
Ax(x) / Q10xx / AKQJx / x(x) ? Looks like a double to me. I don't have strong hopes of coming to 9 tricks here with just the one spade stopper unless partner has the goods.
Axx / Q10x (and falsecarded, ballsy) / AKQJxx / x ? Getting closer, but if he has this, he's got 9, 10 even if he holds AJx of spades and we lead the K.

I dunno. If we're talking about him getting doubled overtricks already, the idea of giving up one more in an effort to beat it seems like a no-brainer.

[billw55]

Admittedly, it is hard to believe that even a lunatic east would (a) bid 3NT and (b) sit for the double with two suits wide open. So maybe there is some merit to thinking that another heart gives away a trick, and that it could be his 9th. Could declarer, hold, say:

♠Ax
♥QTxx
♦AKQJT
♣xx

Perhaps .. but then why the ♥T at trick 1?

[HighLow21]

wyman, on 2012-March-15, 13:45, said:

This may be a style thing. I think that we can have very wide-ranging preempts in 1st w/r.

But I don't understand what you're playing declarer -- who has nothing in clubs and at most the queen of hearts -- for: Qxx of spades? I assume this is IMPs, but even at MP. Turning = into +1 or +1 into +2 is far from the gain we'll see by turning -6xx into +200. So I think you have to beat it. I just don't see a hand where it makes a difference.

Qxx / Q10xx (and he falsecarded...) / AKQJx / x ? Sure doesn't seem like a 3N call to me.
Ax(x) / Q10xx / AKQJx / x(x) ? Looks like a double to me. I don't have strong hopes of coming to 9 tricks here with just the one spade stopper unless partner has the goods.
Axx / Q10x (and falsecarded, ballsy) / AKQJxx / x ? Getting closer, but if he has this, he's got 9, 10 even if he holds AJx of spades and we lead the K.

I dunno. If we're talking about him getting doubled overtricks already, the idea of giving up one more in an effort to beat it seems like a no-brainer.

I definitely see your point. My dislike on this hand is for the double of 3NT. I am just trying to avoid handing declarer an extra trick. To me, not leading spades also feels a little like an insult to partner, one that he won't mind perhaps if our preempting style is occasionally light.

But I'm not ready to magnify my error (of doubling 3NT) by leading hearts again and giving him an extra trick.

Also:
- In the A♠ + QTx(x)♥ + 5 diamond tricks + 2 clubs scenario, a heart lead establishes his queen for trick #9. My spade switch may not gain us a trick, but it averts an immediate give-up of trick #9, forcing him to try to endplay me for it.
- In the A♠ + QTx(x)♥ + 6 diamond tricks + 2 clubs scenario, he has 9 and a heart continuation gives him 10. Again, spade shift enables me to avoid giving him #10 immediately.

All in all, a close call on this hand and I see the merits of continuing hearts, aiming for a set. My bone to pick on this hand is with the X. If declarer is making, it is unlikely to be because I switched to a spade at trick 2, IMO.

[wyman]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-15, 14:26, said:

- In the A♠ + QTx(x)♥ + 5 diamond tricks + 2 clubs scenario, a heart lead establishes his queen for trick #9. My spade switch may not gain us a trick, but it averts an immediate give-up of trick #9, forcing him to try to endplay me for it.
- In the A♠ + QTx(x)♥ + 6 diamond tricks + 2 clubs scenario, he has 9 and a heart continuation gives him 10. Again, spade shift enables me to avoid giving him #10 immediately.

Right, my point is that scenario (1) seems like a takeout double, not 3N, so I'll ignore it [plus, he can succeed on that hand anyway I think in various ways, (e.g. double hooking in clubs or by having the spade jack) and in scenario (2) we're talking about risking changing 750 v 600 [150, 4 imps] to 950 v 600 [350, 8 imps], so a 4 imp risk, in order to gain +200 v -600 [800, 13 imps]. So it has to be right < 25% of the time in order to be worth it.

edit: I missed the (x) in (1) and assumed you gave declarer 4 hearts. If he has 3 hearts, I think Ax / Q10x / ? / ? usually has 6 diamonds, and again we're talking about an overtrick in that case. Or he can have AJx / Q10x / AKQJ10 / xx and again have 9 on the spade switch.

[mikeh]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-15, 12:55, said:

What I find amusing is the double of 3NT. There is no reason for the doubler to believe he can set 3NT and equally no reason that partner should have a suit that can be set up with one removed stopper. Partner may have preempted on JT-7th or worse. And equally, there is no reason to believe that even if it can be set up, that the 3NT doubler can reach the spade suit once it is established.

Declarer may already have 9 (or more) impregnable tricks on top and may be trying to bait me into giving him an additional one.

I can see 21 HCP, and declarer can't be missing many of the other 19 for his 3NT bid at the vulnerability. He also has, at best, a QTxx stopper in hearts and none at all in clubs. Partner really must have stretched it to the limit with his favorable vul preempt, which I completely agree with. Hence my ATB of the 3NT double.

The best chance to kill this thing is to continue hearts, but I will feel like an idiot if I now find out that partner's 3♥ was a stiff and the Q♥ is now trick #9 for declarer. Or #10. Or #11.

I also think that (1) partner's 3♥ is probably singleton, (2) 3NT probably cannot be set, (3) my partner will be insulted if I don't lead his suit, and (4) playing another high heart is a likely way to contribute an extra doubled overtrick to this fiasco.

I lead the K♠ now, apologize to partner for doubling 3NT, and gain a little bit of self-respect by mildly bawling him out for having such a horrendous 1st seat preempt, in spite of the vulnerability.

If it turns out the 3♥ meant that he had the queen to any length, I will look stupid for my trick 2 switch, not for the first time nor the last time.

If you are not playing the heart K, and that is what I choose, the spade switch seems implausible to me. I could go on at length about this, but for now I think it enough to say that, while I find E's sitting for 3N weird on any layout.....how does he know I don't have heart A and 7 solid clubs....I find it more implausible with only one spade stopper than with AQ.

If I were to switch, it has to be to a club. Put yourself in declarer's shoes with, say, AQ Q109x AKQJx xx....while we should play N for a stiff heart, ducking a club spells disaster if N has another heart to lead back. Meanwhile, we appear likely to have 9 winners by rising and hooking the spade. Now S wins and leads the club Q...simultaneously establishing the club J and breaking up any hope of a squeeze. Now, declarer, in addition to figuring out the heart situation, might well work out the club suit, whether you switch to the 9 or the x...I mean, why lead the suit? But I would put the chances of a spade switch working as close to zero. I also wouldn't worry about whether they make overtricks. I don't care if this is imps or mps.....if they have 9 tricks, we are getting a bad result, and maybe so bad that any extra 200 their way will make little difference.

My own take is that I find it slightly more credible that opener has AQ 109x AKQJxx xx and decided that he'd take his medicine in 3N rather than be doubled in 4♦.

[wyman]

wyman, on 2012-March-15, 14:34, said:

edit: I missed the (x) in (1) and assumed you gave declarer 4 hearts. If he has 3 hearts, I think Ax / Q10x / ? / ? usually has 6 diamonds, and again we're talking about an overtrick in that case. Or he can have AJx / Q10x / AKQJ10 / xx and again have 9 on the spade switch.

Plus, dude, if declarer has 3 hearts either partner lied about his heart holding or the K will drop p's Q and the hearts are established.

[Statto]

billw55, on 2012-March-15, 14:06, said:

Admittedly, it is hard to believe that even a lunatic east would (a) bid 3NT and (b) sit for the double with two suits wide open. So maybe there is some merit to thinking that another heart gives away a trick, and that it could be his 9th. Could declarer, hold, say:

♠Ax
♥QT9x
♦AKQJT
♣xx

Perhaps .. but then why the ♥T at trick 1?

Because... FYP

But still, why not X instead of 3NT?

Something's fishy anyway. Perhaps declarer has something like ♠A-♥109-♦AKQJxxxx-♣xx and still sat the double gambling that we can't take 5 tricks off the top?

Is this MPs or IMPs? What do we know about East?

[aguahombre]

wyman, on 2012-March-15, 15:12, said:

Plus, dude, if declarer has 3 hearts either partner lied about his heart holding or the K will drop p's Q and the hearts are established.

except for the "dude" part

[Phil]

Not leading the ♥K is very strange to me.

I'm not saying we can always figure things out but we rate to get something more useful than a muddy attitude signal.

[HighLow21]

Phil, on 2012-March-15, 19:27, said:

Not leading the ♥K is very strange to me.

I'm not saying we can always figure things out but we rate to get something more useful than a muddy attitude signal.

I am eager to hear what actually happened on this hand...

[Vampyr]

HighLow21, on 2012-March-15, 14:26, said:

My bone to pick on this hand is with the X.

That ship has sailed, though. Better to abstain if you do not wish to accept the CoC.

Al Roth used to do this all the time in the MSC. Bugger the score. I admired that attitude.