[FrancesHinden]

Love all, aggregate scoring, dealer East. Your hand is South, on lead. Dummy is West.

1♦ P 1♥ P
1NT P 3♦ P
3NT all pass

---

1♦ = 4 card majors, weak NT, open lower suit with 4-4 major/minor
1NT = 15-17 bal, may have 4 spades
3♦ = natural invitational, denies 5 hearts or 4 spades

You lead the 2 of spades, 3, Ace 6.
Partner returns the 8 and declarer plays the Q.
Partner systemically could have either AJ98 or A84.

Win or duck?

(There is no 100% correct answer to this, but I think there is a correct answer. I got it wrong at the table, sadly.)

[hatchett]

Win. Simplest way to beat the contract is to have four spade tricks and for partner to have a fifth trick. If we duck we need partner to have two tricks and that given our club and heart holdings is unlikely, since we know partner is likely to have finessable minor honors in those suits.

[mikeh]

I kept screwing up my typing: I had a long, detailed explanation for my winning and returning a ♠, but hatchett summarized, far more succintly, my rationale.

I don't agree, btw, that partner has finessable honours in both minors... our possession of the ♦ 10 makes it probable that declarer will think he has a one-way hook for the Q, should he be missing it.

However, and I can't help myself... I go into detail anyway ... if declarer has Qxx in ♠ and we let him steal a trick, it is against the odds to play partner for both a ♦ trick and another A... or similar two-winner holding.... now, if declarer holds QJ9x ♠s, there is more hope of partner having 2 winners, but I still think that it is more likely than not that partner won't have the two side winners we need. Give declarer QJ9x A10x Q9xx AQ, and he probably wouldn't move over 3♦ and 3N is cold if we duck.... now, i gave declarer some nice spot cards, but take those away and give him a little more hcp: QJ9x Kx KQxx AQx and, once again, we see that we can't beat him by ducking. Obviously, we can construct many hands for the opposite proposition as well, but my gut tells me that they are slightly less probable.

[hatchett]

Quote

I don't agree, btw, that partner has finessable honours in both minors

I didn't say that!. I said finesseable minor honors in clubs and hearts.

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Jan 7 2007, 08:44 PM, said:

Give declarer QJ9x A10x Q9xx AQ, and he probably wouldn't move over 3♦ and 3N is cold if we duck.... now, i gave declarer some nice spot cards, but take those away and give him a little more hcp: QJ9x Kx KQxx AQx and, once again, we see that we can't beat him by ducking.

I'm not saying (yet!) that you are wrong, but these hands are bad examples.
3NT is boringly cold on both whatever you do so I'm not sure what is (unless it's to say that you think 3NT is always making if declarer has QJ9x which is a possible argument).

There is another option, not yet mentioned, which is to win and not return a spade. I haven't thought of a sensible hand yet when it makes a difference, but I'm sure I can without sufficient energy.

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 7 2007, 10:55 AM, said:

Love all, aggregate scoring, dealer East. Your hand is South, on lead. Dummy is West.

1♦ P 1♥ P
1NT P 3♦ P
3NT all pass

---

1♦ = 4 card majors, weak NT, open lower suit with 4-4 major/minor
1NT = 15-17 bal, may have 4 spades
3♦ = natural invitational, denies 5 hearts or 4 spades

You lead the 2 of spades, 3, Ace 6.
Partner returns the 8 and declarer plays the Q.
Partner systemically could have either AJ98 or A84.

Win or duck?

(There is no 100% correct answer to this, but I think there is a correct answer. I got it wrong at the table, sadly.)

Tough! Its strange that 1N doesn't deny 4♠. I can understand 1♣ - 1♥ - 1N as showing a 4=3=3=3, but the ♦ opening has to have at least 4.

I can't see there is a clear answer. On one hand, there are some restrictive choice issues with the ♠Q (curious - is it? What would I think if T2 went 8, J....?). OTOH, its odd that declarer would insist on 3N with such a flaky spade stop.

Declarer had a 3♥ call with 3♥'s and ♠Qxx.

I think I'd grill declarer a bit more on their agreements. Winning could be wrong if pard has 2 outside tricks (cashing our 4 spades just leads to -2 instead of -1).

I'd probably duck. Pard is marked with 7-8 points outside of the A♠, and even if declarer has hooks in ♥/♣, she'll need 4 tricks in these two suits, which seems dubious, and thats assuming diamonds are really running.

[Winstonm]

If I understand the bidding.....not a guarantee.

Partner knows I have only 4S yet chose to return the suit instead of switching to a club, which he might have done with powerful clubs, which leads me to believe declarer holds the better club cards. Declarer should also be toward the top end of the range to accept the invite, so 16-17.

QJxx
A9
Kxxx
AK10

or

QJxx
A9
Kxxx
AQ10

Or something like this looks about right to me. I will duck the spade and rely on partner holding a double diamond stop and an eventual entry in hearts.

So how many did we lose on that one?

[1eyedjack]

pclayton, on Jan 7 2007, 10:21 PM, said:

Its strange that 1N doesn't deny 4♠.

It is pretty normal in a weak 1N system.

There is a risk of missing a partscore in a 4-4 Spade fit if responder is so weak that he cannot make a game try opposite a strong 1N opener despite being able to respond to 1-suit and despite choosing a different suit to do so, but that tends to be a price worth paying in the interests of having opener distinguish between a strong 1N hand type and a weak 2-suited opener.

[mikeh]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 7 2007, 04:07 PM, said:

I'm not saying (yet!) that you are wrong, but these hands are bad examples.
3NT is boringly cold on both whatever you do so I'm not sure what is (unless it's to say that you think 3NT is always making if declarer has QJ9x which is a possible argument).

That is what I meant, Frances: I think that on most hands on which declarer has QJ9x, declarer rates to make anyway: the idea of finding partner with 2 side winners is less likely than one side winner and AJ98♠. I did not word my post very coherently: my first couple of iterations, made before screwing up on my keyboard, were, I think, more intelligible.