BBO Discussion Forums: You're Eddie Kantar .... - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

You're Eddie Kantar .... ... sitting East

#1 User is offline   ralph23 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 2007-July-11

Posted 2007-October-08, 09:04

Scoring: IMP

South opens 1♠, North bids 2♥. South rebids 2♠ and North raises to 4♠, ending the auction. EW silent.


Yes, this one really happened in a National Championship many years ago. Eddie was sitting East with this fine collection.

Partner is on lead against 4♠, and leads the King of ♦. Dummy plays low and it's your play, Eddie.

What do you play on trick one, and why?

Adv & Exp. pls hide your answers.
♣♦♥♠ Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that other philosophers are all jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself. H.L. Mencken. ♣♦♥♠
0

#2 User is offline   Quantumcat 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 944
  • Joined: 2007-April-11
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Bathurst, Australia
  • Interests:Archery, classical guitar, piano, watercolour painting, programming, french

Posted 2007-October-11, 02:10

Well a low one for 5.

Declarer has a million tricks. Probably 6 spades, 5 hearts, 2 clubs, don't need to give him a diamond too. Hopefully partner won't play another high diamond.

Is it really possible to break this contract? No one has replied so maybe you can give us the answer, ralph.
I ♦ Transfers
0

#3 User is offline   brianshark 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 895
  • Joined: 2006-May-13
  • Location:Dublin
  • Interests:Artificial Intelligence, Computer Games, Satire, Football, Rugby... and Bridge I suppose.

Posted 2007-October-11, 07:36

My 2 cents:

Spoiler

The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.
0

#4 User is offline   ArcLight 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,341
  • Joined: 2004-July-02
  • Location:Millburn, New Jersey
  • Interests:Rowing. Wargaming. Military history.

Posted 2007-October-11, 10:23

Spoiler

0

#5 User is offline   pclayton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,151
  • Joined: 2003-June-11
  • Location:Southern California

Posted 2007-October-11, 10:33

I'm sure I'm missing something, but...
Spoiler

"Phil" on BBO
0

#6 User is offline   ralph23 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 701
  • Joined: 2007-July-11

Posted 2007-October-11, 17:06

Here is the full deal, and I'll try to recreate Eddie's commentary on it .....

♣♦♥♠

Scoring: IMP


"Pard led the King from AK and I thoughtlessly played the deuce. Partner then started to think what this signal meant. (Note -it is of course an attitude situation -- attitude can apply, so it does apply. Root/Kantar rule)

He reasoned correctly that I must have a big honor in a round suit to make this play. While it wasn't entirely without doubt, the most logical one on the bidding was the King of ♥, so he shifted to a heart at trick two, based on my signal.

This was of course a disaster, as declarer played three quick rounds of hearts to rid himself of his diamond loser, then gave up two trump tricks to make the game.

To the casual observer, sure, it looks like partner blew it by not cashing his Ace of diamonds. However, any expert will tell you that *I * was the one in error, not my partner. I should have given him false encouragement in diamonds, and made him cash his Ace, to prevent him from making the disaster-shift. If I had had the King of hearts, and declarer had the King of trumps, (instead of the actual layout, which is vice-versa), then partner would have desparately needed to shift to the heart."


(I.e. if that had been the case, then if his partner had continued with the Ace of ♦, the ♦Queen would have been a parking place for declarer's heart loser.)
♣♦♥♠ Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that other philosophers are all jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself. H.L. Mencken. ♣♦♥♠
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users