[lamford]

---

Teams. 64-board match. Board 9 second half.

Another interesting hand from today's Chairman's Cup semi-final. South leads the nine of spades, playing third and fifth, so - in theory - shortage, although this particular South has been somewhat wayward in the first 32 boards. How do you play?

[whereagles]

Jack. If covered, duck. Probably a diamond will come back. Take it and play on clubs for 3 tricks. The safety play is probably AK from top then small. This wins with 3-3 or doubleton Q/T.

[Antrax]

S is on lead, so you can't cover, just duck to your J.

[lamford]

whereagles, on 2014-July-31, 00:47, said:

Jack. If covered, duck. Probably a diamond will come back. Take it and play on clubs for 3 tricks. The safety play is probably AK from top then small. This wins with 3-3 or doubleton Q/T.

I think this line is only right if North led the nine of spades out of turn, although I have not examined the other four options in great detail.

[rhm]

lamford, on 2014-July-30, 15:32, said:

---

Teams. 64-board match. Board 9 second half.

Another interesting hand from today's Chairman's Cup semi-final. South leads the nine of spades, playing third and fifth, so - in theory - shortage, although this particular South has been somewhat wayward in the first 32 boards. How do you play?

Duck the spade.
Win the red suit return in hand and play a club.

Now comes the key play:
If South plays a low card cover with the ♣6!
This almost ensures the contract as long as clubs are no worse than 4-2. Even if clubs are 5-1 you survive with a singleton queen or ten.
Admittedly there could be an issue if North switched to a low diamond.
Otherwise a problem only arises if South plays specifically the ♣8, in which case I am inclined to play ♣K followed by ♣A and a third club.
If South played the ♣8 from QT8x (excellent defense), I will probably need 4 tricks from hearts or that I can develop a squeeze.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

If I could be sure they never lead the ♠9 from K987 or similar, then I would drop the ♠T at trick one.

The problem comes when North finds a diamond switch with ♠KQx ♥JTxx ♦QTxx ♣8x or similar, in which case I will struggle somewhat.

[whereagles]

lamford, on 2014-July-31, 01:34, said:

I think this line is only right if North led the nine of spades out of turn, although I have not examined the other four options in great detail.

There we go again.. diagram misled me. Still, as mentioned, the idea is the same: duck and proceed on clubs.

Rainer's idea reminds me of some plays by Helgemo LOL. Don't think I'd thought of it in this lifetime

[lamford]

whereagles, on 2014-July-31, 12:40, said:

There we go again.. diagram misled me. Still, as mentioned, the idea is the same: duck and proceed on clubs.

Rainer's idea reminds me of some plays by Helgemo LOL. Don't think I'd thought of it in this lifetime

I ducked the spade lead, perforce. North won with the king, and returned a diamond to the king and I ran the jack of clubs. This works whenever North has Tx or 8x and, of course, on any 3-3 break, or Qxx with South and will still make much of the time when North has Qx. As the cards lie I could not be beaten, even though South had ♣ QT8x

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2014-July-31, 03:43, said:

If I could be sure they never lead the ♠9 from K987 or similar, then I would drop the ♠T at trick one.

The problem comes when North finds a diamond switch with ♠KQx ♥JTxx ♦QTxx ♣8x or similar, in which case I will struggle somewhat.

I don't think you will; unless you mean that you will struggle to make the second overtrick when you run the jack of clubs, give up a club, and then none of the squeezes work. And if North does have Qx of clubs and returns a diamond, you duck that and are still a massive favourite and almost gin if you can read the position.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2014-July-31, 18:47, said:

I don't think you will; unless you mean that you will struggle to make the second overtrick when you run the jack of clubs, give up a club, and then none of the squeezes work. And if North does have Qx of clubs and returns a diamond, you duck that and are still a massive favourite and almost gin if you can read the position.

The same arguments apply to the three lines of:
- Run the jack
- Run the 9
- Small to the 6
They all risk losing to one particular doubleton with North, and in all three cases you can make if you read the position correctly.

Starting with a low one has one very small advantage: you will always make against South's singleton queen or ten, whereas the other two lines will each fail against one of these cases (or, of you play for the singleton, against a specific doubleton).

[rhm]

lamford, on 2014-July-31, 17:21, said:

I ducked the spade lead, perforce. North won with the king, and returned a diamond to the king and I ran the jack of clubs. This works whenever North has Tx or 8x and, of course, on any 3-3 break, or Qxx with South and will still make much of the time when North has Qx. As the cards lie I could not be beaten, even though South had ♣ QT8x

I do not get it. Why does this work?
South simply covers the jack of clubs with ♣QT8x and has 2 club tricks to push spades through.
What do I overlook?

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2014-July-31, 03:43, said:

The problem comes when North finds a diamond switch with ♠KQx ♥JTxx ♦QTxx ♣8x or similar, in which case I will struggle somewhat.

I agree.
I think on a low diamond switch it is better to let it run to the table and come back in hearts to do the club manoeuvre.
On any return you can untangle your entries later.
This does not help when North switches to a low diamond from HHxx but it blocks diamonds on other layouts, assuming South would have led a diamond from QJTx.

Rainer Herrmann

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2014-August-01, 01:16, said:

The same arguments apply to the three lines of:
- Run the jack
- Run the 9
- Small to the 6
They all risk losing to one particular doubleton with North, and in all three cases you can make if you read the position correctly.

Starting with a low one has one very small advantage: you will always make against South's singleton queen or ten, whereas the other two lines will each fail against one of these cases (or, of you play for the singleton, against a specific doubleton).

I am not sure I understand that.
The major danger is not diamonds but spades.
The point of the deal is that you are still a favorite to make 3NT, should you loose 2 club tricks, provided the first club trick is lost to North and not South.
You should not try to maximise your chances for 4 club tricks here, because you need only 3 tricks from clubs, but you need to avoid that South gets the lead prematurely.

None of the suggested lines can do anything about South holding ♣QT8x(x), but at the table I would bet many players would miss playing the ♣8 if you start with a low club, while covering the ♣9 or ♣J should be routine from this holing.
Of course if North holds ♣QT8xx playing low to the ♣6 will not be success, but neither will be running the ♣9 or ♣J

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2014-August-01, 02:51, said:

I am not sure I understand that.
The major danger is not diamonds but spades.
The point of the deal is that you are still a favorite to make 3NT, should you loose 2 club tricks, provided the first club trick is lost to North and not South.
You should not try to maximise your chances for 4 club tricks here, because you need only 3 tricks from clubs, but you need to avoid that South gets the lead prematurely.

Rainer Herrmann

I wasn't suggesting that we should maximise our club tricks here. I was discussing how to maximise our chance of 3+ clubs tricks, whilst minimising our chance of 5+ losers.

You agreed with Phil that you will have a problem if you lead to the 6 and North has KQx JTxx QTxx 8x. Presumably you would also agree that Lamford will have a problem if he runs the jack and North has KQx JTxx QTxx Qx. And that somebody else would have a problem if he ran the nine and North had KQx JTxx QTxx 10x.

Each of these lines works against the same number of layouts, except when clubs are 1=5. When clubs are 1=5, leading to the six works against singleton 8, singleton 10 and singleton queen. The other two lines each fail against one of these layouts.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2014-August-01, 05:44, said:

I wasn't suggesting that we should maximise our club tricks here. I was discussing how to maximise our chance of 3+ clubs tricks, whilst minimising our chance of 5+ losers.

You agreed with Phil that you will have a problem if you lead to the 6 and North has KQx JTxx QTxx 8x. Presumably you would also agree that Lamford will have a problem if he runs the jack and North has KQx JTxx QTxx Qx. And that somebody else would have a problem if he ran the nine and North had KQx JTxx QTxx 10x.

Each of these lines works against the same number of layouts, except when clubs are 1=5. When clubs are 1=5, leading to the six works against singleton 8, singleton 10 and singleton queen. The other two lines each fail against one of these layouts.

None of the suggested lines can do anything about South holding ♣QT8x(x), but at the table I would bet many players (not you of course, but many others (including me)) might miss playing the ♣8 if you start with a low club, while covering the ♣9 or ♣J should be routine from this holding.
Of course if North holds ♣QT8xx playing low to the ♣6 will not be success, but neither will be running the ♣9 or ♣J

I looked up the deal in BBO because I could not see how Lamford made his contract against ♣QT8x with South and guess what: Lamford made his contract because South failed to cover the ♣J.
An embarrassing play at this level. After that the defense was indeed dead.
The diamond holding was very different from the one PhilKing feared.

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

rhm, on 2014-August-01, 06:01, said:

None of the suggested lines can do anything about South holding ♣QT8x(x), but at the table I would bet many players (not you of course, but many others (including me)) might miss playing the ♣8 if you start with a low club, while covering the ♣9 or ♣J should be routine from this holding.
Of course if North holds ♣QT8xx playing low to the ♣6 will not be success, but neither will be running the ♣9 or ♣J

I looked up the deal in BBO because I could not see how Lamford made his contract against ♣QT8x with South and guess what: Lamford made his contract because South failed to cover the ♣J.
An embarrassing play at this level. After that the defense was indeed dead.
The diamond holding was very different from the one PhilKing feared.

Rainer Herrmann

If South covers I win and concede a club and rise on the spade continuation, blocking the suit and knock out the remaining club while the spades are blocked. It is your analysis that is embarrassing at this level, not South's play.

[rhm]

lamford, on 2014-August-01, 06:46, said:

If South covers I win and concede a club and rise on the spade continuation, blocking the suit and knock out the remaining club while the spades are blocked. It is your analysis that is embarrassing at this level, not South's play.

I have never said you can not make the contract and you have not pointed out what is wrong or embarrassing with my single dummy analysis.
As happens you have always 9 tricks with the help of the heart finesse if you do not play for hearts to break.

But you claimed:

lamford, on 2014-July-31, 17:21, said:

I ducked the spade lead, perforce. North won with the king, and returned a diamond to the king and I ran the jack of clubs. This works whenever North has Tx or 8x and, of course, on any 3-3 break, or Qxx with South and will still make much of the time when North has Qx. As the cards lie I could not be beaten, even though South had ♣ QT8x

We lesser people do not know for certain of course that it happens that South has led from a 4 card spade suit and spades can be blocked by rising with the ace.
If North happened to hold 4 spades (and a diamond less) you would probably hold up to cut communications instead.
How you know what the actual layout is escapes us lesser mortals.
But finding the right play with all 4 hands in sight is often not challenging.

I see world class players going down on such hands all the time.

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

rhm, on 2014-August-01, 07:44, said:

I have never said you can not make the contract and you have not pointed out what is wrong or embarrassing with my single dummy analysis.
As happens you have always 9 tricks with the help of the heart finesse if you do not play for hearts to break.

But you claimed:


We lesser people do not know for certain of course that it happens that South has led from a 4 card spade suit and spades can be blocked by rising with the ace.
If North happened to hold 4 spades (and a diamond less) you would probably hold up to cut communications instead.
How you know what the actual layout is escapes us lesser mortals.
But finding the right play with all 4 hands in sight is often not challenging.

I see world class players going down on such hands all the time.

Rainer Herrmann

I agree that I did not know South has led from a 4-card spade suit, and I was told that the nine was from shortage, as the Swedes lead 3rd and 5th all the time, just as they always start at precisely 10 am, not a second later! In a sense South was hoisted on his own petard by leading the false card. He now knows that I will try to block the spades and he played low extremely smoothly on the first club. I still ran it of course, as I would succeed when North had Qx if I could block the spades. I will, of course, still try to block the spades when South has 98x and only fail when he has false-card-led from K98x. I will pay off to that, of course. And running the jack must be better than other lines, as it gains when North has stiff T or stiff 8, not to mention the overtricks when South has Qxx. The hand was subjected to quite a bit of scrutiny in Örebro, and all agreed that ducking the first spade and then running the jack of clubs was best. It just looks normal as well, when the lead is, as stated in the OP, supposed to be from shortage. As Kendrick would say, I just played the cards in front of my face.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2014-August-01, 05:44, said:

Presumably you would also agree that Lamford will have a problem if he runs the jack and North has KQx JTxx QTxx Qx.

Indeed. Which is why South made a very fine play indeed of ducking from QT84 instantly - Kendrick, who was dummy, thought it was faster than the speed of light. I still ran it, of course, and I would have been mortified as South to read that my play was "embarrassingly bad at this level". I might have risen with king of clubs when Deep says I need to pick the hearts now, as no compound squeeze works, confirmed by strengthening oppo's heart pips. "After that the defense was indeed dead", wrote Rainer. Sorry to be mean about this, but it was a very poor bit of analysis, as was the opinion Rainer expressed. This hand was much analysed in Örebro, and much discussed in one of the bars where they had Bridgebase on TV on six screens. A far cry from London.

[rhm]

lamford, on 2014-August-01, 13:27, said:

Indeed. Which is why South made a very fine play indeed of ducking from QT84 instantly - Kendrick, who was dummy, thought it was faster than the speed of light. I still ran it, of course, and I would have been mortified as South to read that my play was "embarrassingly bad at this level". I might have risen with king of clubs when Deep says I need to pick the hearts now, as no compound squeeze works, confirmed by strengthening oppo's heart pips. "After that the defense was indeed dead", wrote Rainer. Sorry to be mean about this, but it was a very poor bit of analysis, as was the opinion Rainer expressed. This hand was much analysed in Örebro, and much discussed in one of the bars where they had Bridgebase on TV on six screens. A far cry from London.

Sorry but I do not understand this analysis. Maybe somebody can enlighten me.
I did not mean that running the club jack to be a terrible play. That play is fine.
What I do not understand even with your explanation is, what ducking with QT8x was supposed to accomplish.
Not covering the jack still looks to me poor.

When holding ♣QT8x the ♣J is an unusual play obviously designed to avoid that South gets the lead to push spades through.
It seems to me obvious (from South perspective) once declarer plays the jack, he has made up his mind and will let it run if it is not covered.
South can see that declarer's efforts are bound to fail if only he covers.

I can not come up with a layout from South perspective where ducking puts declarer even to a losing guess he might get wrong in clubs when South holds ♣QT8x.
You claim declarer might rise with the king to try his fortunes in hearts.
But rising with the king can never be right.
The heart option is open to declarer even if the jack loses to North's hypothetical queen.
And running the jack, even if it looses to North hypothetical queen, gives declarer time to test the clubs before committing himself to the heart option.

So rising with the king is a losing play, which can never gain.

Rainer Herrmann