[Walddk]

Scoring: IMP

---

Four English internationals on BBO. Let's pretend that you are one of them in the South seat. You pass (2♦ would have been Multi), LHO opens 1♠ (5+), your partner passes, and RHO raises to 2♠.

You try 3♦ now, and LHO jumps to 4♠, all pass. Partner leads ♦A, ruffed by declarer, and a low spade follows to the 5, 9 and your queen.

Can you prove that your somewhat scary overcall at the 3-level vulnerable against not is justified? What do you lead now, and why?

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

Can I see the dummy please?

[Walddk]

FrancesHinden, on Jan 8 2007, 07:09 PM, said:

Can I see the dummy please?

Sorry for leaving it out. Should be ok now.

[cherdano]

♦J. I hope for a force if declarer has something like KJxxx KJxx - AKTx.

Btw, all my scary 3-level overcalls are justified if they catch partner with 4-card support

[Free]

small ♥ seems the only reasonable thing to get this contract down...

[mikeh]

Let's think about where declarer's tricks are coming from, and where our 3 additional winners may be.

In particular, let's think about the ♥ suit.

The only times we need to switch to ♥s now (and it would always be to a low one) are when we have 3 tricks to take in the suit AND one of them will go away if we don't take them now.


Could partner hold Kx? (where we beat the contract via 3 rounds of ♥s?) Not really...that would give declarer an unusual hand on which to jump to game.....and to have played trump as he did.

Can partner have KJx(x) of ♥s? Yes...give declarer solid ♣s. But, if he has this, where is declarer pitching dummy's 3rd ♥? He'd need 6 trump, else he cannot ruff a ♥ in dummy once trump are pulled, and he'd need 5♣s in order to have a pitch, so he doesn't hold 3 ♥s anyway!

It seems to me that our best bet is to play partner for Kxx(x) in ♥s: and sit back and allow declarer to play on ♥s himself.

I am switching to a ♣: I don't think a ♦ will cost, but on general principles, a ♣ has to be better.

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Jan 8 2007, 09:16 AM, said:

♦J. I hope for a force if declarer has something like KJxxx KJxx - AKTx.

Btw, all my scary 3-level overcalls are justified if they catch partner with 4-card support

I don't think this works (although nothing else does either). Declarer takes the 2nd force, dislodges the ♥, takes the 3rd tap (effecting a dummy reversal) and makes 2 spades in dummy, 3 in hand, 3 hearts and 2 clubs.

Spade appear to be ♠KJxxx in declarer's hand, or possibly ♠Kxxxx, so declarer has 8 cards in the rounded suits. If Declarer is 5=4=0=4 or 5=5=0=3, I don't think it matters what I do.

The relevant holding is 5=3=0=5, since its the heart pitch off dummy thats the issue.

I'd like to play for something more like: ♠KJxxx, ♥Jxx, ♦---, ♣AKQxx, except the dummy reversal is still working on any return. Say a ♣: wins on the board, ruffs ♦, ♠ to 9, ruffs ♦, overtakes spade and claims conceding 2 hearts.

So I think I'm forced to play for declarer to hold the same hand without the ♥J, which means I need to put a ♥ on the table.

After the hand, I'll ask pard why I didn't get a trump suit preference signal in hearts

[mikeh]

I like Phil's analysis, but it seems to me that the low ♥ risks giving away the contract against a mundane KJxxx Jxxx void AKQx as well as against less probable KJxxx Jxx void AKxxx or Jxxxxx Jxx void AKQx.

What persuades me to stick with the ♣ switch (not a ♦ which sets up the dummy reversal on the AKxxx♣ holding) is partner's trump 5...altho this is a thin reed indeed.

BTW, it is far from clear that with KJxxx Jxxx void AKQx declarer should bid 3♥: he has reason to expect that he might, on a good day, be pitching ♥ losers on his long ♣s.....especially if there was a possibility that partner has 4♠s.

Finally, a comment that I didn't make the first time: Roland, I think you were being very polite when you described this red v white 3♦ as 'somewhat scary'.

[hrothgar]

Silly question:

What kind of hand would pass as Dealer and then overcall 3♦ after
(1♠) - P - (2♠)?

In theory something like the following is possible:

♠ void
♥ xxxx
♦ KQT9432
♣ Qx

The void and the side 4 card major would convince some people not to preempt in first seat. I doubt that even Zar would recommend a one level opening. However, if you're waiting for this hand, you're gonna be waiting a LONG time to overcall.

Back to the hand in question: You have Spade shortage, a six card suit, and some values. If you don't say something, you're likely to be defending 2♠ and we all know how well that scores.

[Walddk]

Scoring: IMP

---

West: 4♠
Lead: ♦A

South passed, 1♠ by West, pass, 2♠ and 3♦ from South before West raised to game.

Although 3♦ was "somewhat scary" at this vulnerability, it did help North to find the safe lead of a diamond. I don't think many would have found a diamond lead without the overcall. Most players would lead a heart or club and either would give the contract.

Declarer ruffed the diamond and led a low spade to the 9 and South's queen. Back came an "automatic" diamond. On this layout this is the end of the defence. West ruffs, draws the last trumps, ruffs a diamond and exits with a heart to the queen and ace. No return from South beats the contract from here if declarer reads it correctly.

mikeh was right for the wrong reasons. South must switch to a club at trick 3 (trump will work equally well). The point is that South must not give declarer the opportunity to eliminate diamonds.

Whether South exits with a heart or club when in with ♥A, declarer prevails. North is welcome to unblock ♥J in order not to get endplayed, but if he does, West can endplay South instead after having cashed the top clubs.

A cute hand in many respects. Did declarer get it right when South continued diamonds? No, but that doesn't make the hand less interesting.

Roland

[whereagles]

I would have played a diamond as well.

By the way, I don't think the 3♦ overcall is that risky after opps had found a fit.

[brianshark]

My gut leaned towards a passive trump, but I didn't see Roland's reasoning either.