[pclayton]

Scoring: XIMP

---

I heard about this one 3rd hand.

RHO opens (1♣) - pass - (4♣) - dbl - (pass) - 4♠ - AP

LHO leads the ♥8.

Can you guarantee 10 tricks against normal splits in trump?

If I have any of the important spots wrong, please correct me.

[Fluffy]

I think there is no way to guarantee anything when hearts are 4-1.

I started to think about 3 rounds of diamonds first to see what was going on, but it loses the control of the hand when hearts are 3-2 and spades 4-1.

I am sort of ideas really, don't see it :/, The classic security play might doom you when hearts do not split, while trying some sort of crossruffing/endplay fails when red suits split and spades don't.

I start with a spade to the King and a heart up.

[Winstonm]

While I can't guarantee the contract, I think I can make a good start by ducking the the heart to my 10-spot. It does no good for RHO to continue hearts at that point.

Let's say a club comes back. I win and ruff a club. Now I lead a small diamond from dummy. Whoever wins can do no better than another diamond back. I win, play the two top trumps, then the top diamond. If diamonds are 3/3, I'm home. If diamonds are 4/2 with LHO holding length, RHO is caught in an odd squeeze position. He has to guard hearts, so he must discard a club. I lead the last diamond from table and RHO has to find a play from Q, Qxx, Q - and has no winning play.

Hmmm. Maybe I can guarantee this, after all.

[han]

I had this hand at the table, it's a nice problem I think. Comments about the bidding (4S vs 4H) would be welcome.

[pclayton]

Fluffy, on Jan 17 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

I think there is no way to guarantee anything when hearts are 4-1.

I started to think about 3 rounds of diamonds first to see what was going on, but it loses the control of the hand when hearts are 3-2 and spades 4-1.

I am sort of ideas really, don't see it :/, The classic security play might doom you when hearts do not split, while trying some sort of crossruffing/endplay fails when red suits split and spades don't.

I start with a spade to the King and a heart up.

Just assume trumps are 3-2. This hand is tough enough trying to factor in safety plays in spades when hearts are 3-2.

Think about the distribution of the unseen hands. I already mentioned spades are 3-2, but go back to the bidding and ask yourself this:

1. If hearts are 3-2, do we have a bit of a problem?
2. What is the likely distribution of diamonds? Who has more, if anyone?
3. What are the two most likely distribution of clubs?
4. Where is the ♠Q probably located?

[han]

Winstonm, on Jan 17 2008, 10:31 PM, said:

While I can't guarantee the contract, I think I can make a good start by ducking the the heart to my 10-spot. It does no good for RHO to continue hearts at that point.

Why not? If you lose the first two tricks and you have a trump loser (for example RHO with Q10x of trumps) and a diamond loser then it will get tough to make.

[Winstonm]

Hannie, on Jan 18 2008, 03:24 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 17 2008, 10:31 PM, said:

While I can't guarantee the contract, I think I can make a good start by ducking the the heart to my 10-spot.  It does no good for RHO to continue hearts at that point.

Why not? If you lose the first two tricks and you have a trump loser (for example RHO with Q10x of trumps) and a diamond loser then it will get tough to make.

If LHO has a singleton 8-spot, I have 2 heart losers so a heart ruff is the same trick, although it might prevent an eventual endplay.

Heart loser, ruff, and still a diamond loser with no where for it to go - so it gets down to the spade NOT being Q10x on my right. Which is what I said initially - there is no guarantee of the contract - unless you make some assumptions about the distribution - but that is not the same as having a foolproof line against a-n-y distribution, which is what guarantee means to me.

[Echognome]

Winstonm, on Jan 18 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

If LHO has a singleton 8-spot, I have 2 heart losers so a heart ruff is the same trick, although it might prevent an eventual endplay.

Heart loser, ruff, and still a diamond loser with no where for it to go - so it gets down to the spade NOT being Q10x on my right. 

You may or may not have two heart losers later. And instead of preventing an eventual endplay, why not effect one?

Winstonm, on Jan 18 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

Which is what I said initially - there is no guarantee of the contract - unless you make some assumptions about the distribution - but that is not the same as having a foolproof line against a-n-y distribution, which is what guarantee means to me.

How about "any distribution which is consistent with the bidding and play thus far"?

[Winstonm]

Echognome, on Jan 18 2008, 07:30 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 18 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

If LHO has a singleton 8-spot, I have 2 heart losers so a heart ruff is the same trick, although it might prevent an eventual endplay.

Heart loser, ruff, and still a diamond loser with no where for it to go - so it gets down to the spade NOT being Q10x on my right. 

You may or may not have two heart losers later. And instead of preventing an eventual endplay, why not effect one?

Winstonm, on Jan 18 2008, 04:23 PM, said:

Which is what I said initially - there is no guarantee of the contract - unless you make some assumptions about the distribution - but that is not the same as having a foolproof line against a-n-y distribution, which is what guarantee means to me.

How about "any distribution which is consistent with the bidding and play thus far"?

If the hearts are 3/2 and trumps 3/2, there is no problem.
If hearts are 4/1 and spades 3/2, I don't think there is a surefire way to guarantee the contract.

Consistent with this would be RHO with:

3433
3424
3415

I see no method to guarantee against all 3 distributions.

[matmat]

Winstonm, on Jan 18 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

3433
3424
3415

I see no method to guarantee against all 3 distributions.

would you really expect LHO to jump to 4♣ holding 2155?

edited for math

[han]

[Winstonm]

matmat, on Jan 18 2008, 07:57 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Jan 18 2008, 07:41 PM, said:

3433
3424
3415

I see no method to guarantee against all 3 distributions.

would you really expect LHO to jump to 4♣ holding 2155?

edited for math

Do your opponents always bid exactly as you think they should or do the better ones stay within certain parameters while the weak ones do all sorts of odd things?

Anyway, under the guidelines of breaking spades, if the diamonds are 3/3 this is not a problem; if the hearts are 3/2 this is not a problem; the only problem comes when the diamonds are 4/2 and hearts 4/1. Under the description of the hand and bidding, the only one who could hold 4 diamonds is LHO.

So, the question then becomes can we guarantee the contract against LHO holding: xx, x, J10xx, Jxxxxx?

I believe the answer is no, we cannot.

[matmat]

Winstonm, on Jan 18 2008, 08:38 PM, said:

Do your opponents always bid exactly as you think they should or do the better ones stay within certain parameters while the weak ones do all sorts of odd things.

sorry, was assuming sane actions. if my opp bid 4♣ on 2155 i'll consider myself a little bit fixed.

[Echognome]

2155 is fine. Just a different ending. Still nice.

There's a nice line for all of these shapes:

LHO/RHO
2137/3433
2146/3424
3136/2434
2155/3415

Think deeper.

[Winstonm]

Quote

2137/3433
2146/3424
3136/2434
2155/3415

As I said before, with diamonds 3/3 this is a non-problem, therefore the only hands that matter are: 2146, 2155, 3127

3127 is impossible as then RHO has opened 1C on 2443.

Ergo, the only possible hands to worry about are: 2146 and 2155.

Winning the heart and three diamonds from the top planning an eventual loser on loser play in clubs doesn't work as LHO always has an effective counter. If I cash the club ace early, he can counter this ploy be refusing to play the 4th diamond and forcing dummy with a club. If I don't cash the ace, and pitch a club on the fourth diamond, he can exit with a club. So I'm screwed trying to endplay LHO somehow. Also, If I cash the club A early, I no longer have an entry to the threat for a heart-diamond-club double squeeze.

Maybe I have a blind spot on this one, but I cannot find a line that effective defense cannot counter.

[Fluffy]

If spades are 3-2 then start with 3 rounds of damonds, and later score ♥K 'em passant', in the end some endplay will happen allowing you to score many spades.

[pclayton]

Winstonm, on Jan 18 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

Winning the heart and three diamonds from the top planning an eventual loser on loser play in clubs doesn't work as LHO always has an effective counter.  If I cash the club ace early, he can counter this ploy be refusing to play the 4th diamond and forcing dummy with a club.  If I don't cash the ace, and pitch a club on the fourth diamond, he can exit with a club.  So I'm screwed trying to endplay LHO somehow.  Also, If I cash the club A early, I no longer have an entry to the threat for a heart-diamond-club double squeeze.

We've won the ♥A at T1 and played ♠, ♠ and ♣A, ruffed a club and played 3 rounds of diamonds.

We need 3 of the next 5 tricks. The position is this with LHO on lead:

---

If LHO plays the diamond, we pitch a heart from hand and get our ruff/sluff on the next trick.

If LHO forces dummy with a club, we ruff in dummy and pitch a heart, and don't need to play a loser on loser.

Quote

Maybe I have a blind spot on this one

I'm glad you tried. Others haven't even attempted it.

[Winstonm]

I indeed had a blind spot on this layout; however, as this line does not guarantee the contract when LHO is 2245, I aquit myself unanimously.

[Fluffy]

Starting with 3 diamonds.

Next comes a club to the ace

a heart up wich is ruffed

club ruffed in dummy

diamond ruffed in hand

heart up wich LHO ruffs, but doing so I hope he is doing so with 3 spades or a spade honnor, if he does not I am toast.

I though he would let me score ♥K, then it would be easy to endplay RHO with last heart to play a spade into ♠AJx.

[gnasher]

pclayton, on Jan 19 2008, 07:02 PM, said:

I'm glad you tried. Others haven't even attempted it.

How do you know that? Perhaps, like me, they attempted it, failed, and could see no purpose in saying so.