[bridgeboy]

Dealer: South Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ J1093 ♥ 876 ♦ A43 ♣ 842 ♠ 2 ♥ AKJ1092 ♦ J62 ♣ K93

Bidding : S W N E 1H X 2H* P 3H 3S P 4S AP 2H shows a garbage raise to 2H as 2D is a constructive raise Lead 3 of ♥ to your K and declarer drops the Q. Your return and why?

[inquiry]

I am going to return a ♠. Why?

A ♠ is the safest for now, and doesn't help declarer strip partner of his safe ♥ exit later. I am hoping we can score a trick in each suit.... My partner's hypothetical ♠Q (from Qxx), ♦Q, and ♣ something... like JACK.

A ♦ might allow declarer with something like ♦KT9x to pick up the entire suit without a lose.

This is the time to go passive and let declarer try to find his 10 tricks....

Ben

[Trpltrbl]

Any attack on a suit could be very bad, I am passive this time with ♠ back, pd might need his save exit(s) in ♥ later.

Mike

[Free]

I'll return ♥, is the safest return imho...

[luke warm]

i voted for a heart.. while it's true a spade doesn't do anything for declarer that he couldn't do for himself, it's not true that he *must* do it.. for example, he might lead the ♠J from the board just fishing, planning to play the A or K from hand anyway... if pard has the Q 3rd, it could possibly cost

[bridgeboy]

I think the general consensus here is for a passive return.

This hand was actually set during one of our training session and meant as a declarer's play problem. However at 3 tables, none found the defence to test declarer at all. Only a H return will give declarer any problem.

Another school of thought was to play declarer for something like AKQxx Q Kxx Axxx.
Now, a D switch is vital.
Interestingly no-one voted for the "lead up to weakness" club


This is declarer's hand: Try it as a play problem with Ace H continuation.

(Warning: Not so hard play problem)

Scoring: IMP

Play 4S on Heart to K and Ace Heart continuation

---

[inquiry]

bridgeboy, on Mar 8 2004, 10:27 AM, said:

Another school of thought was to play declarer for something like AKQxx Q Kxx Axxx.
Now, a D switch is vital.
Interestingly no-one voted for the "lead up to weakness" club

Actually, no one played south for that hand, because any return works, a ♦ is hardly vital. ANything will do. I wonder why you pose a problem for which no solution works? Oh well...

Quote

This is declarer's hand: Try it as a play problem with Ace H continuation.
(Warning: Not so hard play problem)

Scoring: IMP

Play 4S on Heart to K and Ace Heart continuation

---

Actually a ♠ back gives declarer more trouble if he tries grab top two in case ♠Qx. He is down.

Let's compare lines. On ♥ back, he ruffs, and plays simply.. ♠AK, no luck, ♦ KQA, ♥ ruff, ♠ out, ruff ♦ in dummy (13th), ♣ hook, WEST is endplayed. The hand plays itself.

On a ♠ back, south could duck now (that will work), but if he wins the ♠A, he must play very carefully. If he plays the second high ♠ as many will do (and as can be done on ♥ back, he is down...In fact, the right line is to underlead the ♠Kxxx... at trick 3. A much harder play to find (since ♦ are 3-3 you could cash some ♦ first, when using the ♦ to dummy, you must hook ♣ when that loses and a ♥ comes bakc, you ruff and must exit a low ♠... Still not taking the top one. A hard play for people to find, I suspect.

ben

[hrothgar]

bridgeboy, on Mar 8 2004, 06:27 PM, said:

I think the general consensus here is for a passive return.

This hand was actually set during one of our training session and meant as a declarer's play problem. However at 3 tables, none found the defence to test declarer at all. Only a H return will give declarer any problem.

Quick comment:

I agree completely with the general consensus that a passive lead is called for.

With this said and done, are you teaching a style in which that advocates a double holding

AK874
Q
KQ7
AJT5

[luis]

hrothgar, on Mar 8 2004, 07:18 PM, said:

bridgeboy, on Mar 8 2004, 06:27 PM, said:

I think the general consensus here is for a passive return.

This hand was actually set during one of our training session and meant as a declarer's play problem. However at 3 tables, none found the defence to test declarer at all. Only a H return will give declarer any problem.

Quick comment:

I agree completely with the general consensus that a passive lead is called for.

With this said and done, are you teaching a style in which that advocates a double holding

AK874
Q
KQ7
AJT5

Now what's wrong with dbl?

[hrothgar]

luis, on Mar 8 2004, 10:50 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Mar 8 2004, 07:18 PM, said:

bridgeboy, on Mar 8 2004, 06:27 PM, said:

I think the general consensus here is for a passive return.

This hand was actually set during one of our training session and meant as a declarer's play problem. However at 3 tables, none found the defence to test declarer at all. Only a H return will give declarer any problem.

Quick comment:

I agree completely with the general consensus that a passive lead is called for.

With this said and done, are you teaching a style in which that advocates a double holding

AK874
Q
KQ7
AJT5

Now what's wrong with dbl?

Luis wrote

>Now what's wrong with dbl?

Different strokes for different folks, however, I think that X is an atrocious call.
Look at the example auction:

West doubled and then was forced to use a free bid to show a 5 card suit at the 3 level. West's 3S bid significantly misrepresents both the length and strength of his Spade suit.

It would serve him right if partner raised him to 4S on a stiff Queen or two small.

I know that its ridiculous for me to appeal to "outside" authorities, however, I doubt that you could find many experts who would favor double as opposed to a simple 1S overcall.

I'd rather bid 2H as Good-Bad Michaels rather than double on the hand in question.

[inquiry]

hrothgar, on Mar 8 2004, 03:49 PM, said:

I know that its ridiculous for me to appeal to "outside" authorities, however, I doubt that you could find many experts who would favor double as opposed to a simple 1S overcall.

No need to go anywhere else, the definitive right call over 1♥ with this hand is in fact a 1♠ overcall. :-)

[Ulrikbro]

If declarer have something like

AKQ74
Q
Q975
AQT

I like return ♣3

[Azzkikr]

I would swing the JD the reason is is that if declarer has the KQXX then the suit is going to rack up anyway, you dont have any of the pips and this could be one of a couple of entrys that declarer has, it elimates one of there entries for the possible double club finesse, if your partner has spade cards they will best be used as a entry restriction you dont want to be giving the opps any time to work out the count of the hand while they still have ample communication.