[glen]

Are these expert opponents who have given you a "gift" by neither of them playing a 2nd ♠? If so, don't accept the gift and wrap up the contract.

[Edmunte1]

I'll play ♠ to Q, ruff a ♣ (high if trumps were 4-1), cash trumps, playing for ♣-33, or Jx in ♣, or a squeeze ♣-♦. Probably one of these should work if opps stopped playing trumps

[FrancesHinden]

I wouldn't read too much into the play of the third heart. It takes very good opponents indeed for them to be certain the third heart isn't cashing.

My immediate reaction is to play a diamond to the king, king of clubs (discarding a diamond), ace of diamonds, diamond ruff high, club planning to ruff with the 8. Assuming nothing insane happens in a minor, this makes with clubs 3-3, or RHO having the doubleton, or RHO having the 109 of spades.

The problem with the squeeze line is that you have no idea what to discard on the last trump, as you don't know if the clubs are coming in or not.

My alternative line would be a spade to the queen, king of clubs, club ruff (hoping for the best if trumps were 4-1), trumps. The difference is that in my end position (trump and 3 diamonds in hand, 2 diamonds and a club on table) I will know if the last club is a winner or not when I play the last trump. This makes with clubs 3-3, or Jx, or LHO having the QJ10 or 5 diamonds together with the club guard.

Most of the time both these lines make or neither: if LHO has the club guard, then the ruff-a-club in hand line works as well. Any club doubleton on my right feels not so different than either hand having Jx.

I'm sticking with taking a diamond ruff in dummy.

[inquiry]

Edmunte1, on Feb 21 2007, 09:21 AM, said:

I'll play ♠ to Q, ruff a ♣ (high if trumps were 4-1), cash trumps, playing for ♣-33, or Jx in ♣, or a squeeze ♣-♦. Probably one of these should work if opps stopped playing trumps

You probably meant HIGH unless trumps were 4-1

[inquiry]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 21 2007, 09:36 AM, said:

I'm sticking with taking a diamond ruff in dummy.

You made justin happy! I was kibitzing this one, so I choose not to answer.

Although I do disagree about the point about knowing if the third heart will cash. Surely after rho leads a heart and follows to the second round (not to mention the fact that RHO grabbed the first club) I think most advanced or higher will know the third round of hearts is not cashing. And besides, you opened 1S, rebid 2D, and then raised a possible doubleton (or gasp singleton) preference to 2S to 3S, and have shown up so far with 1C and 2H and surely 6 spades. No, I think it is safe to assume your opponents KNEW the heart was not cashing.... in fact, I would bet good money on it.

[FrancesHinden]

inquiry, on Feb 21 2007, 02:44 PM, said:

And besides, you opened 1S, rebid 2D, and then raised a possible doubleton (or gasp singleton) preference to 2S to 3S, and have shown up so far with 1C and 2H and surely 6 spades. No, I think it is safe to assume your opponents KNEW the heart was not cashing.... in fact, I would bet good money on it.

I'd forgotten we'd had an auction.

[inquiry]

FrancesHinden, on Feb 21 2007, 10:23 AM, said:

inquiry, on Feb 21 2007, 02:44 PM, said:

And besides, you opened 1S, rebid 2D, and then raised a possible doubleton (or gasp singleton) preference to 2S to 3S, and have shown up so far with 1C and 2H and surely 6 spades. No, I think it is safe to assume your opponents KNEW the heart was not cashing.... in fact, I would bet good money on it.

I'd forgotten we'd had an auction.

Since Justin suggested this hand is "read" dependent, and since your opponents know that the third heart is not cashing, and that you must hold the ♦ ACE (or no chance to make anyway), does their refusual to lead a second round of trumps but instead give you a couple of options suggest a different line?

If they had returned a trump, you would be forced to rely on clubs (jack falling or clubs 3-3.. or second round ruffing finessee) or a squeeze (jack not falling and clubs not 3-3).

On the otherhand, 3-2 trumps more likely than 3-3 clubs. So while justin suggest this isn't an interesting problem because it is "read dependent", I think that is what makes it an interesting problem. Without a read, the line you choose (ruff a ♦) I think is the best line. But with a read, is it?

[han]

officeglen, on Feb 21 2007, 12:21 AM, said:

Are these expert opponents?

Absolutely, world class.

[jillybean]

ha ha it was you heh

[cherdano]

Jlall, on Feb 20 2007, 11:45 PM, said:

yes that is a very good question.

I'll put it this way, you dont consider your opps the types to NOT play a trump in order to fool you into having a losing line, but they are very decent players just not on the deep deception level. I guess this isn't a great hand for posting since it's very read dependent.

Well, it doesn't require deep deception level to not play a trump just because you are looking at Txx and know that the ruff won't help declarer.

I think the question isn't whether to play opponents for a deep deception game, it is whether to play them for a misdefense with trumps 3-2 and clubs locked.

[Fluffy]

I can't stand to losing to Hannie, so I'll play ♠Q+♣K. Winning after squezzing him is even funnier

[Winstonm]

Unless I'm going nuts, I only see 9 tricks without a diamond ruff, so the failure by the defense to play a second spade would have to either be a clear-cut error or an attempt to give a losing option.

The decision comes down to how much you trust the opponents' defense on this one deal and this one trick - did someone take a short nap? Were they both working hard on the defense?

Another clue is that LHO may not have held a second spade and could not assume partner's heart return was from Q and not K.

Seems two rather weak inferences suggest not playing for the ruff, so I use the spade Q entry to ruff a low club and try to establish the club/diamond squeeze.