[Fluffy]

Scoring: IMP

W - E
- - 1♥
2♦-2♥
3♥-3♠
4NT-5♥
6♥

---

2♦ is nat, GF (almost sure unbalanced after 3♥)

[Free]

♣A

[mike777]

low club.

[P_Marlowe]

The Ace of clubs.

Marlowe

[luke warm]

♦J

[whereagles]

Seems like one of those times where underleading an ace can work out beatifully. Still I don't know if I could do that at table. Certainly not if opps aren't trustworthy.

[Fluffy]

This hand made me lose the semi-final of the spanish trials for the europen bridge championship. I led a low club, and althou technically it could be correct, tactically it was horrible. This was the first deal of the last 16 board set when we were tied. My partner exploded due to excess pressure and this hand, we played horribly the rest of the set, and even though our tem mates di pretty well we losed by a small margin.

This was the full deal (or os I think, never had time to look at it).

---

After winnign ♣Q and discovering the trump break, declarer desesperatelly tried a ♦ to the 10. And it won.

[joshs]

Fluffy, on Mar 5 2006, 04:55 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

W - E
- - 1♥
2♦-2♥
3♥-3♠
4NT-5♥
6♥

---

2♦ is nat, GF (almost sure unbalanced after 3♥)

CA, and hope partner has a trump trick or I can give him a club ruff. I have too many clubs for a low club to be right.

[mikeh]

I agree that it is a good (altho sad) story, but I disagree about the lead.

I think the lead of the ♣A is clear. The desperate underlead needs a very specific parlay to work: and declarers do not always go wrong in these situations even if they lack the Q or a stiff in either hand. While the ♣ A lead has not uncommon ways to win.

The least probable is that it is partner getting the ruff: opener has long(ish) ♣ that he was unwilling or systemically unable to show over 2♦. The more likely is that partner holds a possible trump trick. Imagine making the underlead and the trumps are 5431 around the table, with West, say, holding Kxxx. Is there a declarer in the world who will fail to pick up partner's Qxx on your lead? I don't think any such declarer would be playing in this event

Or there is the actual situation: partner has a natural trick: J10xx or 109xxx.

I would be far more sympathetic to the underlead if my trump were xx.

[cherdano]

I feel bad about posting this after the full hand has been shown, but I hate the ace underlead. It deserves the club layout to x in dummy, Kxxx with partner and QJ in declarer's hand, and partner ducking (while having a certain trump trick).

[Fluffy]

Actually I was sure dummy didn't had singleton ♣ (he would had splintered), adn that he had ♥Q (he wouldn't play slam with 1 ace and ♥Q missing), he is one of my regular partners. What I didn't know is he woudl raise on 3 cards, probably they were playing 2/1 GF, unless suit rebid. But not sure.

[joshs]

Fluffy, on Mar 7 2006, 02:57 PM, said:

Actually I was sure dummy didn't had singleton ♣ (he would had splintered), adn that he had ♥Q (he wouldn't play slam with 1 ace and ♥Q missing), he is one of my regular partners. What I didn't know is he woudl raise on 3 cards, probably they were playing 2/1 GF, unless suit rebid. But not sure.

How can someone named fluffy underlead an ace? You might have to change your name to tiger.

[joker_gib]

joshs, on Mar 7 2006, 09:21 PM, said:

How can someone named fluffy underlead an ace? You might have to change your name to tiger.

LOL