[mike777]

"7. Defense, you are in third position

Dummy: QJTx AQ8x xxx xx
You hold: Kxxxx KTx Qxx xx

Favorable:

2D* 2S**
2NT 3C
3D 3NT

2D = 17-19…(then a stayman auction continued) hehe, ok, so you know this was an opponent's quiz….

Partner leads a lowish but not lowest heart, like he's leading from the Jack or 9. Declarer ducks. Your play.



8. Defense, you are in third position

Unfavorable: P 1D 4S p
p X all pass

Dummy: xx xxxx Kxx AJxx
You hold: x AQxx AJ9xx KTx

Partner leads a low heart, You win the ace, return a heart he wins it with a middle card, and returns the 10 of diamonds. Your play."

[awm]

(7) I'd play the ten. This is obviously right if partner has jack, but also might create some entry problems if declarer wins the jack and plays partner for underleading king (i.e. takes another heart finesse).

(8) The ♦T from Txx(x) is too deep for me. I'd encourage, playing declarer for something like 7231 shape with ♦Qxx. Partner also is fairly likely to pull the double if he holds four card diamond support.

[Apollo81]

Shouldnt partner play the ♦Q if he has it from any holding looking at that dummy and this auction? So at least we know for sure who has the ♦Q.

[Apollo81]

I did read justin's note about the mistake in the OP before posting this, so I'm assuming that dummy had xx Txx Kxx AJxxx, although ♥x lead from ♥KQxx is sort of wow

As far as what to play, AKQJxxx xx Qxx x and AKQJxxx xx Q Qxx are both possible here if partner will lead T from Tx(x)(x). I'd assume since pard will lead Q from anything with the Q that he would (or at least might) lead count from a 3 or 4-card suit. Thus I would play low.

I bet though that since this was posted as a problem that high is right and that pard had Txxx.

[Apollo81]

Jlall, on Apr 7 2008, 09:47 PM, said:

awm, on Apr 7 2008, 08:36 PM, said:

(8) The ♦T from Txx(x) is too deep for me.

Why? Isn't it normal? If partner leads a low one back you have no idea who has the queen.

BTW it might be relevant that your 1D showed 2+ so partner doesn't know which minor you have (in terms of his lead etc).

BTW 2: Dummy had Txx of hearts, and partner had Kxxx of hearts, and you had AJxx of hearts in the real hand.

and I guess dummy had 5 clubs?

[awm]

It seems like playing the ten from Txx(x) creates exactly this problem. Partner could have two diamonds or three diamonds or four diamonds. If partner has two or three diamonds ducking is likely to be right; if partner has four diamonds we have to take ace. If partner would always lead ten from Tx, Txx, Txxx then we have absolutely no way to get this right.

However, if partner leads the queen when he has it and a normal count card when he doesn't, we have a very good chance to get this right.

The only benefit to leading the ten seems to be if we have AQJx(x) and it is critical for partner to retain the lead. But this is a very specific holding, and it only matters if the clubs are setting up for diamond discards and there is potential for us to score three diamond tricks, which is basically impossible given declarer's known spade length and doubleton heart.

So playing the ten from Txx(x) seems like it has virtually no benefits and a big potential for disaster (since we cannot tell whether to take the ace on this type of holding). Of course, playing the ten from Tx is just normal bridge so I will play partner for this holding.

[sathyab]

7. Ten which is the right card when pd has the Jack and when he doesn't declarer may finesse again anyway.

8. If declarer is 2722 with the minor suit queens it'd be a disaster to play small as you'll be end-played in the 3-card ending when dummy has the King of Diamonds and AJ of clubs and you have to come down to stiff Ace of Diamonds and Kx of clubs. I know this play loses whenever partner has Tx of Diamonds, but does win whenever he has Txx or longer.

[whereagles]

I don't do declarer play problems this early in the morning, thankyouverymuch

[pclayton]

1. I play the 10 (hopefully in tempo).

2. Pard doesn't have a stiff diamond. Pard made a very odd lead from KJx (am I understanding the OP correctly?).

I'm reading the debate between Justin and Adam. I think leading the 10 from 10xxx is really offbeat. We can't ever cash 3 diamonds here, so why not just give us a count card?

[pclayton]

sathyab, on Apr 8 2008, 12:57 AM, said:

8. If declarer is 2722 with the minor suit queens it'd be a disaster to play small as you'll be end-played in the 3-card ending when dummy has the King of Diamonds and AJ of clubs and you have to come down to stiff Ace of Diamonds and Kx of clubs. I know this play loses whenever partner has Tx of Diamonds, but does win whenever he has Txx or longer.

If declarer has 7 solid, xx, Qx, Qx you aren't beating this.

Assume pard has the ♣Q, so you can bare your ♣K in the endgame.

[sathyab]

pclayton, on Apr 8 2008, 11:04 AM, said:

sathyab, on Apr 8 2008, 12:57 AM, said:

8. If declarer is 2722 with the minor suit queens it'd be a disaster to play small as you'll be end-played in the 3-card ending when dummy has the King of Diamonds and AJ of clubs and you have to come down to stiff Ace of Diamonds and Kx of clubs. I know this play loses whenever partner has Tx of Diamonds, but does win whenever he has Txx or longer.

If declarer has 7 solid, xx, Qx, Qx you aren't beating this.

Assume pard has the ♣Q, so you can bare your ♣K in the endgame.

You're right, I realized that right after I posted it (:-. To beat the hand you need pd to have the ♣Q and if he has that card you can beat this had regardless of declarer's minor suit shapes as long as you play low; if he has the stiff ♦Q the you will make 2 club tricks.