[pclayton]

This is a hand Han and Ira Chorush defended the other night. I think it's most interesting from Han's side.

Scoring: IMP

---

RHO (East) opens a 13-15 NT. LHO inquires with Stayman and RHO bids 2♦, 2N - 3N. You don't ask, but apparently 2N does not promise a 4 card major.

You play UDCA and standard leads.

You lead the ♥10, 2, Ace, 3. Pard thinks for some time (and hopefully you are thinking as well) and....

tables the ♠K.

Plan the defense.

[miguelm]

I am wondering if it is just me or this problem is not correct....?

[cherdano]

miguelm, on Jan 14 2008, 10:04 AM, said:

I am wondering if it is just me or this problem is not correct....?

It is correct.

[miguelm]

How can it be correct....?

RHO opened 1NT and he is dummy...?

If he is dummy, how could I lead my Heart 10....?

[cherdano]

miguelm, on Jan 14 2008, 10:10 AM, said:

How can it be correct....?

RHO opened 1NT and he is dummy...?

If he is dummy, how could I lead my Heart 10....?

You are South, you have led ♥T, and dummy is West. Declarer is East. Did the picture with NSEW not load for you?

[miguelm]

Now it is shows the correct order....

Previously I got West's hand in North seat and mine in East's seat....

[whereagles]

Seems like declarer has about either

QJx Jxx Kxx AKxx or
Jxx Jxx Kxx AKQx

Since pard would probably not witch to a K from Kxx (he might have switched to a LOW spade instead), I'm playing pard for KQx or KJx in spades. I'll play an encouraging 2.

[Rebound]

To me it looks like we ought to try to cash out in spades now before declarer grabs 9 tricks from minors+♥K.

[Apollo81]

If pard had ♠Kx or ♠Kxx we need a switch, and if pard had ♠KQx or ♠KQxx we need a continuation. If pard had ♠KJx we need a continuation unless he has the ♣Q also. If pard has ♠KJ tight we need to play the ♠2 regardless of what the signal means.

Given the above I would play low, encouraging.

[whereagles]

by the way, pard doesn't know we have ♠A, and that makes it more likely he has spade stuff...

[pclayton]

Apollo81, on Jan 14 2008, 08:37 AM, said:

If pard had ♠Kx or ♠Kxx we need a switch, and if pard had ♠KQx or ♠KQxx we need a continuation. If pard had ♠KJx we need a continuation unless he has the ♣Q also. If pard has ♠KJ tight we need to play the ♠2 regardless of what the signal means.

Given the above I would play low, encouraging.

Declarer can't have a four card major.

[Apollo81]

pclayton, on Jan 14 2008, 11:45 AM, said:

Apollo81, on Jan 14 2008, 08:37 AM, said:

If pard had ♠Kx or ♠Kxx we need a switch, and if pard had ♠KQx or ♠KQxx we need a continuation.  If pard had ♠KJx we need a continuation unless he has the ♣Q also.  If pard has ♠KJ tight we need to play the ♠2 regardless of what the signal means.

Given the above I would play low, encouraging.

Declarer can't have a four card major.

Oops, forgot the auction. In that case discourage. Pard will definitely switch with Kxx and will probably continue anyway in all of the other cases since he knows youve got four to an honor in spades.

[awm]

Situations like this make me wish I played coded 9 and T leads. Then partner would know that I hold the ♥Q and would continue hearts if that defense was right, making it unambiguous that partner holds strong spades (and no ♦K), and that I should encourage.

Oh wait, I forgot, coded 9s and Ts are a terrible convention!

It seems like partner will probably read me for the ♠A no matter what here. Perhaps it is better to discourage to tell partner "hey I actually lead from a good heart suit." Partner will figure that if my hearts are good, it makes little sense for declarer to duck the spade, and probably read me for ♠A + good hearts. He also knows my approximate spade length based on declarer's stayman response (if he has three spades, he won't think I have Axx).

[gnasher]

I assume that declarer plays a small card on the spade.

If partner has SKQ, once his king holds he will continue them regardless of what I do. He can't have KJxx, because he couldn't afford to switch to the king from that holding, in case I had A10x. He can't have Kxxx because declarer would have played an honour.

If he has both SKJx and CQ (declarer having accepted on a 13-count), I don't care which major he plays.

So, the relevant holdings are:

(a) SKJx, no club queen (declarer has 15 Miltons) - I want him to continue spades.

(b) SKxx with the club queen (declarer has 14) - I want him to switch back to hearts.

I can't see a good solution to this. If I encourage and he has SKxx, he will definitely continue spades - from his point of view I might have SAJxx and H1098x.

If I discourage and he has SKJx, I don't think he can work out to continue spades anyway. He'll know that I have SA and HQ, but that still leaves room for CQ, so he'll probably just do what he's told and hope declarer takes a club finesse.

I think I'd encourage, which works when declarer has a clear-cut acceptance of the invitation.

By the way, has anyone noticed how much harder the defence would have been after 1NT-2NT-3NT? Partner probably wouldn't even have got as far as switching to SK. This isn't much of an advertisement for including balanced invitations in Stayman.

[edited to get rid of unwanted smiley]

[han]

Tough problem, I'm sure I'd get it right at the table.

[655321]

pclayton, on Jan 14 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

Pard thinks for some time (and hopefully you are thinking as well) and....

tables the ♠K.

I hope my play is whatever it would be if partner had switched to the ♠K after very little time.
Which, sadly, is likely to be an unthinking encouraging ♠2.

[pclayton]

Your partner is VERY conscientous.

Declarer rapid-fired the 1st trick by the way.

[jdonn]

the 8 looks obvious as I have QT98 of hearts

[gnasher]

gnasher, on Jan 14 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

(a) SKJx, no club queen (declarer has 15 Miltons) - I want him to continue spades.

( SKxx with the club queen (declarer has 14) - I want him to switch back to hearts.

I can't see a good solution to this.
[snip]

I think I'd encourage, which works when declarer has a clear-cut acceptance of the invitation.

This is nonsense.

If declarer had Qxx Jxx Kx(x) AKQx(x) he would have played HK at trick one, which would require only one card to be well-placed rather than two. Therefore he has QJx Jxx Kx(x) AKQx(x), and I should discourage.

[Rebound]

gnasher, on Jan 15 2008, 03:59 AM, said:

If declarer had Qxx Jxx Kx(x) AKQx(x) he would have played HK at trick one, which would require only one card to be well-placed rather than two.  Therefore he has QJx Jxx Kx(x) AKQx(x), and I should discourage.

But with that hand, doesn't declarer now have 5 diamond, 3 club and the heart king for 9 tricks, making this a hopeless situation anyway? I realize every trick counts in competition but I'd be surprised to see the hand posted if it hinges only on whether declarer makes an o/t due to the spade suit. Anyway I'd be reluctant to cater to a holding that assumes declarer has already made.