[cherdano]

Scoring: IMP

1♥ (P) P (X)
P (2♥) P (2N)
P (3N)
Lead: ♥6.

---

1. ♥6-J-9-2
2. ♦6-3-K-2
3. ♠2-5-K-3
4. ♠4-8-9-T
So declarer won the first trick with ♥J in dummy, crossed to his ♦K, played a spade to the king and a spade back to his 9 and your ten. What now?

[mikeh]

Sorry, I feel like I've missed something.. not for the first, nor last, time, I'm sure

But I don't see the problem... at least, not in terms of a technically correct play to set the contract. Maybe there is some form of play that maximizes the chance of declarer blowing a cold contract? If so, it is too subtle for me.

Let's place some cards.

If declarer has Kxx in ♦s, the 3-3 break allows him 9 tricks, and we can do nothing about it. So we assume Kx (stiff K is silly).

Then if declarer is 4=3=2=4, he can knock out a spade, and we can do nothing about it, altho he is going to be worried if his clubs are very bad and we switch.. but what choice does he have?

So we need declarer to be 3=3=2=5

If he holds Qxx AKx Kx Jxxxx, we are dead: we can hardly not hold KQ♣, and he has no other hope. We wouldn't open on A10x Q10xxx Jxxx K (I hope)

And if he lacks the ♠Q, he knows that we don't have it when we don't cash the AQ now... that wouldn't squeeze partner who would be 4=6 in the minors....

So we are reduced to playing him for Qxx AKx Kx 10xxxx, and I don't see how he can make it. We play a ♥.. what does he do? Partner has an easy black suit pitch. If declarer plays club/club, we play another ♥ and partner reduces to club J, diamond 10xx and a spade, in the 5 card endgame (2 spades, 3 hearts, 1 diamond and 2 clubs have been played.

BTW, surely partner helped me out with count here? I can't tell from the cards given, but it looks as if partner simply played the lowest cards he held.. but udca, standard or?

[cherdano]

Unfortunately I don't know about the actual spots played, and what defenders' signaling habits are.
But if you want, you may assume partner showed an odd number in diamonds (and thus ♦K singleton with declarer, which wouldn't stop these opponents from doubling 1♥).

Edit: actually it may be better to assume partner didn't give count or anything, in real world this was probably also a partnership that doesn't signal much.

[FrancesHinden]

mikeh, on Aug 8 2007, 03:37 AM, said:

So we need declarer to be 3=3=2=5

Why is declarer playing on spades with Kxx opposite Q9x?
Surely with your suggested hand he would just play on clubs?

Declarer's play in spades only makes any sort of sense at all if he has QJ9x in hand.

That gives him

QJ9x
AKx
K(x)
?xxx(x)

Of course, there's a slight downside to this construction which is that it gives him 9 tricks (2 spades, 3 hearts, 3 diamonds, 1 club).

Taking away the spade honours and giving him xxxx AKx in the majors doesn't help either.

So I seem to be missing something as well, because I don't see how we can beat this unless declarer's been insane in the play as well as the auction (he appears to have had a 1NT protection rather than a double).

The only way I can see that we might have beaten it was to win the second spade with the Ace, switch to a club, and hope declarer goes wrong with Jxxx AKx Kx xxxx by ducking the first club. Or hoping declarer has Jxxx AKx K xxxxx and has to cash the diamonds whilst he is in dummy while partner has a spade entry.

[cherdano]

FrancesHinden, on Aug 8 2007, 04:12 AM, said:

The only way I can see that we might have beaten it was to win the second spade with the Ace, switch to a club, and hope declarer goes wrong with Jxxx AKx Kx xxxx by ducking the first club. Or hoping declarer has Jxxx AKx K xxxxx and has to cash the diamonds whilst he is in dummy while partner has a spade entry.

Well done (the title did say it was an evil problem....)
This is from the BB final 85, USA-Austria. Declarer had J96x AKx x 8xxxx. Hamman had the problem hand, won with the ace, switched to a club.

(The double was apparently normal for the Austrian style. Generally their bidding was quite weird.)