[jchiu]

Second in hand, at unfavourable vulnerability, you pick up

♠ AK85 ♥ Q9863 ♦ Q2 ♣ 86

Dealer, at your right, opens a strong notrump, over which you bid an aggressive 2♣ to show both majors. Lefty, following fast denies, instantly places 3N on the table. You lead the ♥6 and see

♠ 1096 ♥ J4 ♦ A9B3 ♣ AQ109

♥ 6-J-7-2
♦ A-4-10-2
♦ B-5-J-Q

You play upside down carding, give your answer for both IMPs and Matchpoints.

[jmc]

What did declarer play under the J and 8 of hearts?

[gnasher]

jmc, on Mar 28 2008, 09:20 PM, said:

What did declarer play under the J and 8 of hearts?

And what did partner play on the first two rounds of diamonds?

And is it IMPs or matchpoints?

[655321]

jchiu, on Mar 28 2008, 01:47 AM, said:

You lead the ♥3 and see

♠ 1096 ♥ J6 ♦ A9B ♣ AQ108

And clearly we were so excited at the sight of the ♦7 in dummy that we forgot to see dummy's 13th card...

[jchiu]

Edited, after obtaining a copy of the hand records ...

[pclayton]

Any Smith here?

[Apollo81]

Top spade. It would be nice to get a count signal on this so I know whether to continue high or low.

[pclayton]

Apollo81, on Mar 31 2008, 08:21 AM, said:

Top spade. It would be nice to get a count signal on this so I know whether to continue high or low.

Maybe at MPs. We might need both spade entries to cash our hearts however.

[Apollo81]

pclayton, on Mar 31 2008, 12:24 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Mar 31 2008, 08:21 AM, said:

Top spade.  It would be nice to get a count signal on this so I know whether to continue high or low.

Maybe at MPs. We might need both spade entries to cash our hearts however.

On what hand could a heart possibly set? Declarer obviously has hAK dKJ, so you can never get the hearts setup before he has 9 tricks.

[pclayton]

Apollo81, on Mar 31 2008, 08:48 AM, said:

pclayton, on Mar 31 2008, 12:24 PM, said:

Apollo81, on Mar 31 2008, 08:21 AM, said:

Top spade.  It would be nice to get a count signal on this so I know whether to continue high or low.

Maybe at MPs. We might need both spade entries to cash our hearts however.

On what hand could a heart possibly set? Declarer obviously has hAK dKJ, so you can never get the hearts setup before he has 9 tricks.

Never mind me, all of my posts are brain dead.

15 sessions last week

[gnasher]

Partner should give count at trick one, so his hearts are 1075, 107 or 7.

Not playing Smith, partner's diamond spots should be suit preference, so he doesn't have ♠Q. He may have ♣K, or may not have either honour. We can beat the contract when:
- He has ♣K and three spades, and declarer has only three diamond tricks.
- He has ♠Jxxx.

Playing IMPs, I cash a top spade and examine partner's signal. If he has Jxxx, I cash the suit; otherwise I lead a low spade and wait for partner to get in with ♣K. Let's hope we're on the same wavelength about how he signals in this position.

It's harder at matchpoints. Ducking a spade costs a trick when declarer has five diamonds and ♣K, or ♣KJ, or ♣K plus a fourth heart (I get squeezed), or four spades plus ♣J (partner has no spade to play when in with ♣K). I may already be ahead of the field, as other declarers may play the diamonds differently. However, I think I'd still play to defeat the contract - partner is more likely to have ♣K than not.

[Apollo81]

gnasher, on Mar 31 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

Not playing Smith, partner's diamond spots should be suit preference, so he doesn't have ♠Q.

or he just has a doubleton diamond

[gnasher]

Apollo81, on Apr 1 2008, 12:20 AM, said:

gnasher, on Mar 31 2008, 06:37 PM, said:

Not playing Smith, partner's diamond spots should be suit preference, so he doesn't have ♠Q.

or he just has a doubleton diamond

Why would I have agreed to play with such a person?

[Apollo81]

Whatever the earlier cards mean, you won't be able to tell partner's spade holding for sure until you cash the ♠A or ♠K, and possibly not even then. I certainly wouldnt trust a random person to give count on this trick.

[gnasher]

I usually address this sort of question in the context of a partnership between good players, rather than two individuals of unknown ability thrown together by fate. Whilst that might not always be the case in real life, it is both a reasonable expectation and a better setting for a bridge problem.

I'd prefer to have discussed some of this, but even playing with a good player with whom I had no agreement other than "udca", I would expect count on the first trick (what use is attitude?), suit preference on the second one (what use is count?), and therefore count when I cash ♠K.

[lowerline]

Assuming standard count, declarer started with ♥AKxx. I can't solve this one without partner's help. So I assume partner would have played hi-lo in ♦ if he has ♠Q or ♠Jxxx without a minor suit king. Conclusion: a low ♠ now.

Steven