[MrAce]

---

Here is another hand from Batman-Superman match.

As south I led ♥ (we play att leads)

T1-♥2-4-5-8

T2-♦4-3-Q-9 (we play udca)

T3-♦3-T-2-J

Now I hoped to get in to pd's hand with spade so he can play a ♥ while I still have ♦A. so I played ♠T

T4-♠T-6-7-K

T5-♦2-A-8-♠5

Where am I now? I know declarer has probably 3 spades+5 diamonds+3 hearts+2 clubs.

What are my tricks? We already had 2 tricks. Pd's signal indicates that he has nothing in spades. Nothing in hearts and nothing in diamonds. What do I need him to hold? Club A of course. So far this is what went through my mind. So which club to play? Who has the ♥ 6 and if declarer has it why did he not win first trick with 6? Maybe he is false carding me, but this makes him hold stiff ♣ for his 2 NT bid.

We need at least 3 tricks. If I play small ♣ and if pd has AJ we will get 2 more tricks. So I need to find pd with AJT(x) ♣ or AT8x (which makes declarer hold stiff J for his 2 NT bid)

So I dragged my mouse over ♣Q but then I stopped and asked myself "How many tricks does declarer have?" 3♠+3♦+2♥ =8 !! Which means we do not need to take our 5 tricks immediately!

I did the hard work, and played a small ♣ but was criticized by a kibitzer later for not playing ♣ Q. Which wins when pd has AJT(x) or AT8x. But small ♣ wins when pd has AJT(x) also because pd takes and exits with spade! Declarer does not have 9 tricks. Small ♣ also wins when declarer has Jx ♣ and misguesses. He needs to guess this because otherwise pd will win and play a ♥. ♣ Q wins when declarer has stiff J. And that was what he had

Please tell me if I am missing something.

[KurtGodel]

If declarer has: Kxx AJx KTxxx AT you need to play Q♣ otherwise declarer has: 1♠, 2♥, 3♦ and 3♣ tricks. This seems like a pretty likely layout to me, everybody has their bid for one thing. Your layouts where partner has A♣ mean they pre-empted vul on a pretty rotten suit.
What's more even if declarer did have ♣Jx, they are going to get this right after your partner pre-empted with no honour in diamonds, spades or hearts.

[MrAce]

KurtGodel, on 2015-June-19, 17:12, said:

If declarer has: Kxx AJx KTxxx AT you need to play Q♣ otherwise declarer has: 1♠, 2♥, 3♦ and 3♣ tricks. This seems like a pretty likely layout to me, everybody has their bid for one thing. Your layouts where partner has A♣ mean they pre-empted vul on a pretty rotten suit.
What's more even if declarer did have ♣Jx, they are going to get this right after your partner pre-empted with no honour in diamonds, spades or hearts.

Pay more attention, or were you being sarcastic?

Pd played ♠7 on first round discouraging spades. And pd is good enough player to know to take first spade and play his last ♥ if that was the case. you can not built a defensive strategy based on pd's "mental black out". We did not lead ♠ but led a small ♥. Pd saw the declarer trying to establish diamonds.

Who on earth would duck spade from AJxxxx seeing first 3 tricks?

And let's assume for the sake of argument that he did, how on earth are you planning to set 3 NT if declarer has that hand you constructed, by playing ♣ Q? I mean....in fact ♣ Q is the ONLY CARD to let them make if declarer has the hand you constructed ! And small ♣ is the only way to set it !!

[KurtGodel]

MrAce, on 2015-June-19, 17:43, said:

Pd played ♠7

And pd is good enough player to know to take first spade and play his last ♥ if that was the case. you can not built a defensive strategy based on pd's mistake. We did not lead ♠ but led a small ♥. Pd knows very well that I want him to play a ♥.

If partner takes the ace then declarer has 2♠, 2♥, 3♦ and 2♣. Partner is defending well by ducking.
In fact partner must know that declarer has both the A♣ and a major heart honour (we didn't cash one of ♥AK after winning the first diamond), so they know that rising with the ace will guarantee the contract will make.

Edit: partner might think that it is obvious that he has ♠A, and has not bothered to signal. Maybe they are giving count?

[MrAce]

Deleted

[KurtGodel]

Sorry, just realised what is going on here. Way way too sleepy. My apologies. Didn't mean to offend.

[MrAce]

KurtGodel, on 2015-June-19, 18:59, said:

Sorry, just realised what is going on here. Way way too sleepy. My apologies. Didn't mean to offend.

I am the one to apologize. I was harsh. Not having a good day is not a good excuse but that is what it is. Sorry bro.

[gwnn]

I'm the one to apologize for opening that **** hand 2♠.

[wank]

are you not playing smith? i don't play udca, but i would think you should smith to show a doubleton on a strong lead with 3 cards in dummy once you've shown 2 or 4 (or 1) as 4 isn't a possibility on this hand. a non-smith would indicate a singleton then in which case it seems declarer is 3451.

as i said i don't play udca, so i'm used to partner playing his lowest (1 or 3) then smithing to show 3, so this is possibly bollocks. this is after all an usual effect on this hand (getting the club count inferentially), but more usually you would need to differentiate 1 from 2 if you had led off a 6 card suit.

[MrAce]

wank, on 2015-June-19, 20:08, said:

are you not playing smith? i don't play udca, but i would think you should smith to show a doubleton on a strong lead with 3 cards in dummy once you've shown 2 or 4 (or 1) as 4 isn't a possibility on this hand. a non-smith would indicate a singleton then in which case it seems declarer is 3451.

as i said i don't play udca, so i'm used to partner playing his lowest (1 or 3) then smithing to show 3, so this is possibly bollocks. this is after all an usual effect on this hand (getting the club count inferentially), but more usually you would need to differentiate 1 from 2 if you had led off a 6 card suit.

We play smith but not complicated really. Just to say "i liked or i did not like the lead" type. Pd was Csaba, we have very few agreements. But i like to solve the problems with logic rather than tools. I think I made a good judgement trick by trick on this hand. Count the points, the shapes, tricks of declarer and defense and make the percentage play. Unless someone shows me that I am missing something, which is possible of course.

Here is the full deal

http://www.bridgebas...CA%7Cpc%7CHJ%7C

[han]

You knew parnter had opened 2S on jack-empy sixth. Is partner more likely to open 2S on ♠J7xxxx ♥65 ♦T9 ♣A.. or on ♠J7xxxx ♥5 ♦T9 ♣A...? Given that partner already apologized for opening 2S on the latter, the answer seems clear.

[gszes]

I must be missing something please advise if I am all messed up (and quietly why). trick 1 p plays the heart 5. There is NO HOLDING where the 5 is the right play. That means the 5 must be from a singleton. The dia plays (tricks 2/3) make it apparent declarer has 5 diamonds and the 2s bid gives declarer 3 spades. So declarer has 3451 p has 6124 and that is without knowing much at all about HPC distribution. It seems obvious that we must switch to a club and it has to be the Q just in the small % chance rho bid 1n with a stiff J and we can smother it. If declarer started with the ace it will not matter since p will know to hang onto clubs.

The main point is to realize it can never be right to try to hit partner with a spade because it is impossible for them to hold a heart to return and then cast about for more information.

[PhantomSac]

Why should partner not play the 5 of hearts from 65 doubleton?

[MrAce]

gszes, on 2015-July-04, 09:59, said:

I must be missing something please advise if I am all messed up (and quietly why). trick 1 p plays the heart 5. There is NO HOLDING where the 5 is the right play. .....

And i mentioned that we play udca, George. See comment below.

PhantomSac, on 2015-July-05, 22:15, said:

Why should partner not play the 5 of hearts from 65 doubleton?

han, on 2015-July-04, 06:31, said:

You knew parnter had opened 2S on jack-empy sixth. Is partner more likely to open 2S on ♠J7xxxx ♥65 ♦T9 ♣A.. or on ♠J7xxxx ♥5 ♦T9 ♣A...? Given that partner already apologized for opening 2S on the latter, the answer seems clear.

Ohh .... how did I miss that? I should have known better!


I don't know you, but I played with Csaba only a few times and have no idea where he draws the line or if he has such a line for his preempts. I certainly did not know at the time of decision whether he thought the preempt he made was a clear one or something that he was not proud of. So your weird reasoning of "he already apologized for his opening makes the answer clear" did not even exists for me at the moment of truth. Had I known that he was gonna apologize for opening it with 6124 later in the forums, then maybe but just maybe I would choose not to play him for 6223.

[rhm]

MrAce, on 2015-June-19, 16:50, said:

I did the hard work, and played a small ♣ but was criticized by a kibitzer later for not playing ♣ Q. Which wins when pd has AJT(x) or AT8x. But small ♣ wins when pd has AJT(x) also because pd takes and exits with spade! Declarer does not have 9 tricks. Small ♣ also wins when declarer has Jx ♣ and misguesses. He needs to guess this because otherwise pd will win and play a ♥. ♣ Q wins when declarer has stiff J. And that was what he had

It seems to me that this is not much of a guess for declarer.
Your partner is marked with nothing in any suit except clubs.
Would he make a vulnerable weak two with just the ♣Q, which is not even part of his long suit?
I would not call this defensive error "gross" though.

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

deleted

[gszes]

PhantomSac, on 2015-July-05, 22:15, said:

Why should partner not play the 5 of hearts from 65 doubleton?

Sigh my fault I saw trick 1 and immediately diagnosed a singleton heart (assuming standard carding) then utterly failed to notice the comment about udca at trick 2 TY for being kind:)