[kgr]

Opps play 3NT and you know from the bidding that declarer has 3 or 4 card ♠. You play ♠ from ♠962 and dummy has: ♠T3
What ♠ do you play?
(FYI: This was playing IMP's and we first took 2 tricks in ♣'s, but couldn't continue ♣ without giving declarer an additional trick and no other suit was more appealing. ...Probably continue ♣ was better anyway as it would have developed a 5th ♣ in the South hand).

[gwnn]

Maybe it would be better if you copied the whole hand (ie yours and dummy's) and the bidding? I'm sure it would be easier to understand for all of us...

If you ask in general, "what should one lead from 963 if dummy has T2", it's not very common that the numbers on the cards would matter very much in these situations when probably partner has 4 and declarer 4, or declarer 3 and partner 5... So it's a good idea to play according to your carding agreements (but don't lead the two as it will be taken as low from an honor).

As I said, though, it would be much better if you gave us a little more details...

[kgr]

Scoring: IMP

---

Bidding:
p-(1♦)-p-(2♣)
p-(2NT)-p-(3NT)
2♣: no 4 card M, 11+
2NT: balanced minimum
Opps are in a low point 3NT contract.
You lead ♣5 (4th best) for the 2 and the Q from p (8 from declarer). Partner returns ♣T, declarer the J and you the K. Declarer holding up again.
You don't want to give declarer an extra trick by returning ♣'s and decide to play ♠. You can either play the 9 or the 5.
Is one generally better then the other?

[MFA]

The 5 is best - the 9 is too expensive. Pard might have HHxx.

Is 2♣ really nothing about clubs? The club lead is very unattractive when there is 4+ clubs to the left.

[kgr]

MFA, on Feb 6 2007, 12:45 AM, said:

The 5 is best - the 9 is too expensive. Pard might have HHxx.

Is 2♣ really nothing about clubs? The club lead is very unattractive when there is 4+ clubs to the left.

Yes, South did hold QJxx of Spades and the ♠9 was played (declarer holding AK8x). I was clearly bad here, but I wondered if it was bad most of the time.

[MFA]

I can't think of a situation where the 9 should be tecnical correct. It could make life easier for partner with Q87x or some such, but we can't afford to sacrifice serious trick potential for this. We must hope he gets it right.

Picture declarer with AQ8. The nine... ugh!

[kgr]

MFA, on Feb 6 2007, 10:25 AM, said:

I can't think of a situation where the 9 should be tecnical correct. It could make life easier for partner with Q87x or some such, but we can't afford to sacrifice serious trick potential for this. We must hope he gets it right.

Picture declarer with AQ8. The nine... ugh!

thanks for the answer!
I can imagine that I also would have played the 9 (seeing the T in dummy), not appreciating the potential value of it enough.
I will remeber this.
...Seems like I should read a bit more about the technical (?) plays like this. Any good books about this?

Koen

[twodown]

instead of asking what spade to shift to, this depends on partnership style, why didn't you shift to the heart king. if partner had good spades he might have shifted to the the him/her self

[MFA]

twodown, on Feb 6 2007, 06:36 PM, said:

instead of asking what spade to shift to, this depends on partnership style, why didn't you shift to the heart king. if partner had good spades he might have shifted to the the him/her self

Don't agree.

What we try to do is to go passive. Declarer has ducked the second club, and therefore it's quite unlikely that he really fears a heart shift (♥xxx). Let him do his work alone.

The spade spot is not just a matter of partnership agreement. No partnership can afford to waste trick-taking spot cards, and playing the ♠9 does just that IMO.