[Sambolino]

spade q to provide p an entry to play a diamond?

declarer may have xxx/xxxx/AJxx/Ax

[jtfanclub]

Sambolino, on Feb 8 2008, 12:10 PM, said:

spade q to provide p an entry to play a diamond?

declarer may have xxx/xxxx/AJxx/Ax

Hmmm...if he ducks, we end up with two spades, a club, and a trump. If he covers, then you're right, partner will get in with the jack of spades and lead a trump, then a diamond. If he covers, plays the ace of diamonds, and ruffs a diamond, he's stuck on the board with only major suit cards. If he finesse the diamond, you can play a low spade to escape.

The Q seems to do the trick!

[ArcLight]

Play the Spade Q to unblock and get an entry to pards hand, so he can play the trump Q. Analysis below
=========================================


Declarers hand is limited to 0-8. Since he bid after 2♥, its probably 7-8.
(I think LHO (Meckstroth) did not have his bid, to make the 2H bid).

Declarer has shown up with the Club Ace.
He also should have a ♦ stopper, either Jxxx or Ax(xx).
To make the 2NT response implies a balanced shape, rather than a distributional one that wants to be in a suit contract.

Whats going on in hearts? With 5 hearts, I would think Rodwell would prefer a suit contract, rather than a NT. This imples pard has 3 hearts. But would he play that way? with ♥ Q J x,would he high-low, since its safe?

Im not sure of the heart situation, I think pard has one more.
H 4-3-4-2 around the table
C 4-4-2-3 around the table
D 1-?-?-5 around the table with Jxxx they are 1-3-4-5
S 4-?-?-3 around the table with D Jxxx Declarer has 3

If Rodwell had
S: J x (x x)
H: x x x x
D: J x x x
C: A x

He wouldnt be bidding on.

With
S: J x
H: Q x x x x
D: J x x x
C: A x

I don't think he'd offer NT, he'd bid 3♥ over 2.

I think Rodwell has:
S: x x x (x)
H: x x x x
D: A x x (x)
C: A x


You want pard to get in to cut down on Dime ruffs.

If you play the Spade Q, Dummy wins, leads a dime to his Ace, ruffs a dime -
and can't get back to hand. The clubs are gone. Pard wins the Spade, pulls trump, leads a dime and you are good.

If you don't play the Q, pard can't get in, and declarer gets a spade ruff and a dime ruff, and the last spade in dummy is high.

[gwnn]

ok maybe i'm the dumbest ever, but i'd never find this at the table. is this a basic situation, easy to recognize and all?

[Sambolino]

i think the problem is int+ or so its nature but at the table only very good players make this kind of plays successively

good thing is that in this position one doesn't need to be afraid about tempo of his play - so you just take your time and get it right

[mike777]

Jlall, on Feb 8 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

You pick up: AQx xx Kxxxx Kxx. You start the auction...

1D X p 1H
P 2H p 2N
p 4H p p p

So sounds like they're in their usual game with nothing. You lead a trump and this is the dummy:

---

Rodwell wins the ace, plays a club to the ace (partner playing the jack), and a club. You win the king (partner playing the 8) and play another trump. Declarer wins king, partner following with the jack. He cashes the CQ pitching a spade from hand, and ruffs a club. Now he leads a spade up towards dummy. What do you play?

Great post ty.

[ArcLight]

Jlall, on Feb 9 2008, 06:54 PM, said:

I found this play, at the other table a very good player (no names mentioned) did not. I agree with the "it's easy on paper but tough in practice" sentiment, you just have to be alert.

I would be unlikley to find this at the table because:

1 - I can't think as fast as an experienced expert

2- I can't count as accurately as an experienced expert

However, doing lots of book problems, does help and maybe someday I will make a play like this at the table

Whats interesting is I just reread Mike Lawrences "PLay Swiss Teams with Mike Lawrnce" and a very similar hand is presented. You have AQx under Kxx and must unblock the Q so pard can get in.

[y66]

The idea of unblocking there is a new one for me. Thanks for the problem.

[skjaeran]

Nice problem Justin. And well defended. I think I should have found it at the table myself, but it's very easy to get caught unaware in these situations.

[kfay]

Jlall, on Feb 9 2008, 06:54 PM, said:

I found this play, at the other table a very good player (no names mentioned) did not. I agree with the "it's easy on paper but tough in practice" sentiment, you just have to be alert.

This problem is interesting when you think of it in the context of Sabine Auken's idea of the 'Kill Point' of a hand.

Obviously the tricks leading up to this fork were somewhat given a priori. The ability to recognize this trick as a crucial turning point and think about it is what makes the problem difficult. When declarer plays low towards dummy there's a natural reaction (for someone who's played for some time) to play a card quickly so declarer can't get a read, etc. Here that impulse is a disservice and thinking is imperative and the time you take has no bearing on declarer's ability to make the hand, just the card you play eventually.

I don't know if you thought about this juncture at some prior trick but nice job getting the play right when it came to it.

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Feb 13 2008, 09:25 AM, said:

kfay, on Feb 13 2008, 12:22 PM, said:

I don't know if you thought about this juncture at some prior trick...

I thought for quite a while (maybe 25 seconds) when I won the CK and after that knew I was going to play SQ.

I'm guessing you considered the ♠Q even a trick or two before.

When the low spade hit the table, I'm sure you had already thought about it at least on a subconscious level.