[mr1303]

Scoring: MP

---

The layout is consistent with the bidding, so we can play double dummy if you like:

1S (2H) 3NT P
4D P 4S P
4NT P 5D P
5H P 5NT P
6S All pass

K of diamonds lead. If you duck it, LHO switches to the J of trumps.

Can this hand be made?

This post has been edited by mr1303: 2008-September-03, 14:53

[jdonn]

Don't we have to know who has the 98 of trumps? Obviously it's easy to make if RHO has neither.

[sathyab]

jdonn, on Sep 3 2008, 01:01 PM, said:

Don't we have to know who has the 98 of trumps? Obviously it's easy to make if RHO has neither.

LHO has Jx of trumps, so RHO must have a trump higher than dummy's 7. So ruffing the fourth Diamond won't work.

In the seven-card ending West has - Kxxx K Kx and dummy has - AQJ - QJ9x. On the penultimate trump, West part with a heart. If dummy comes down to 3-3 in rounded suits, West gives up a club on the last trump, retaining a heart guard. If dummy comes down to 2-4 in rounded suits instead, West gives up a heart on the last trump. It looks as though you're a trick short in my analysis so far. There might be other endings that I haven't considered yet.

[dburn]

Interesting. Assuming no trump spots in North-South, the answer to "can this hand be made"? is "no". The answer to "can this hand be made on the lead of ♦K?" is "yes", but the answer to "can this hand be made after ducking ♦K at trick one?" is "no". However, the answer to "can this hand be made after ducking ♦K at trick one and receiving a shift to ♠J?" is "yes".

Suffice to say for the moment that as long as East has ♠9, West can beat the contract by leading a non-king heart, or by shifting to one after being allowed to hold the first trick in diamonds. Remaining details left as an exercise for the reader.

[jdonn]

sathyab, on Sep 3 2008, 02:13 PM, said:

jdonn, on Sep 3 2008, 01:01 PM, said:

Don't we have to know who has the 98 of trumps? Obviously it's easy to make if RHO has neither.

LHO has Jx of trumps, so RHO must have a trump higher than dummy's 7. So ruffing the fourth Diamond won't work.

This is not so evident to me. Why can't cards just be put where the x's are instead of conjecture, given that the 7 was shown? Even if your logic about RHO is true, LHO could have J9 and we could have AKT8x.

Anyway, on the given start we can certainily make by playing in this order. Beginning with the jack of spades return, win ace of spades, ace of clubs, heart finesse, ace of hearts throwing club, ruff a club, ten of spades, ace of diamonds, ruff diamond with spade queen, cash QJ of clubs throwing diamonds, ruff a whatever, and take king of spades. As dburn alluded to, if west ever led hearts we would lose a crucial dummy entry while clubs were still blocked.

[mr1303]

Sorry, LHO had J4 of spades if my memory serves me correctly. RHO had 98x. I posted the cards as they were initially as that was what I remembered from when I played the hand.

If you wouldn't duck the opening lead, please say so and please state your line of play from here.

If you would (I did) and you received the J of spades continuation, please state your line of play from here. I ended up squeezing myself before LHO and so went one down, but I felt that it could have been made. I would like to know exactly where I went wrong.

[vuroth]

Spoiler

I had the same line that jdonn posted.

[dburn]

mr1303, on Sep 3 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

If you would (I did) and you received the J of spades continuation, please state your line of play from here. I ended up squeezing myself before LHO and so went one down, but I felt that it could have been made. I would like to know exactly where I went wrong.

I don't think I'd have tried to squeeze anyone in anything, since I don't see how that could work (obviously, West could break any communication for a squeeze or for anything else by shifting to a heart). It's not so far-fetched to play for the layout that actually exists, with West having a 2=5=4=2 shape and all the missing honours. Would have been very pleased with myself if I actually found it at the table, though.

As to "where you went wrong" - for what distribution of the outstanding cards were you playing? How did you plan to make your contract if that distribution existed?

[mr1303]

Well, as it was I didn't set out to try to squeeze anyone in anything. My initial thought was that by ducking the first trick there was some possibility of opponents continuing the suit, or the possibility of a 3-3 diamond break (or that West has lead from KQ tight) allowing me to ruff the 3rd round in the dummy.

Failing that there was always the fallback of the club finesse.

Admittedly the possiblity of ruffing out the K of clubs does sound like a better line.

[sathyab]

dburn, on Sep 3 2008, 11:17 PM, said:

mr1303, on Sep 3 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

If you would (I did) and you received the J of spades continuation, please state your line of play from here. I ended up squeezing myself before LHO and so went one down, but I felt that it could have been made. I would like to know exactly where I went wrong.

I don't think I'd have tried to squeeze anyone in anything, since I don't see how that could work (obviously, West could break any communication for a squeeze or for anything else by shifting to a heart). It's not so far-fetched to play for the layout that actually exists, with West having a 2=5=4=2 shape and all the missing honours. Would have been very pleased with myself if I actually found it at the table, though.

As to "where you went wrong" - for what distribution of the outstanding cards were you playing? How did you plan to make your contract if that distribution existed?

West overcalls and is likely to have the missing honors in all the side suits and you wouldn't think about squeezing anyone in anything because it wouldn't work ? Really ? Of course West could break up a squeeze with a heart shift and I'm sure you've broken up every squeeze that could ever be broken up. And you would easily come to the conclusion that playing to ruff out the Kx of clubs is the best chance for the contract ? Impressive, very impressive and so utterly believable too.

[helene_t]

mr1303, on Sep 3 2008, 06:53 PM, said:

The layout is consistent with the bidding

Not really. The auction suggests that W has a 2-level vulnerable overcall ....

[iopen7nt]

Trick 1: Duck ♦K
Trick 2: ♠ A
Trick 3: ♠ K
Trick 4: ♣ A
Trick 5: ♥ x -> J
Trick 6: ♥ A -> pitch your ♣
Trick 7: ♣ x -> ruff in hand (♣ K drops on your left - what a surprise!)
Trick 8: ♦ A
Trick 9: ♦ x -> ruff in dummy ♠ Q
Trick 10: ♣ Q -> pitch ♦
Trick 11: ♣ J -> pitch ♦
Trick 12: ♠
Trick 13: ♠ 10

Although this is double dummy play, it seems reasonable with the layout and the overcall too.
This line works as well if ♦ are 3-3.

[OleBerg]

Down at the table obviously.

Playing for West to hold 5 diamonds seems quite against the odds.

[pclayton]

Another interesting exercise is trying a triple after the OP's start (ruff a diamond high). It doesn't work, but its a good drill.

Obviously ruffing out the ♣Kx works as others have pointed out.

[sathyab]

pclayton, on Sep 4 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

Another interesting exercise is trying a triple after the OP's start (ruff a diamond high). It doesn't work, but its a good drill.

Obviously ruffing out the ♣Kx works as others have pointed out.

That's exactly what I tried to do, go thru the exercise of a triple after the indicated start and concluded that it wouldn't work. If it was stated as a single-dummy problem, I have a feeling that most people would struggle with squeeze possibilities rather than playing for Kx of clubs which also needs West not to have more than two trumps, so you can cash all the club winners. May be someone can actually figure out that the squeeze won't work and try an alternative line. It'd be nice if we can present this a s a single dummy problem and get the opinion of an expert declarer like Fantoni, Rosenberg or Helgemo.

[jdonn]

If west has three spades and Kx of clubs then he will either have KQ or KQx of diamonds (unless it was stiff king of diamonds or something, in which case we will never guess it), and you will never need to try to cash dummy's clubs. So considering the very high likelihood west has the king of clubs, it seems like a very logical line to me.

[skjaeran]

sathyab, on Sep 4 2008, 08:10 PM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 4 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

Another interesting exercise is trying a triple after the OP's start (ruff a diamond high). It doesn't work, but its a good drill.

Obviously ruffing out the ♣Kx works as others have pointed out.

That's exactly what I tried to do, go thru the exercise of a triple after the indicated start and concluded that it wouldn't work. If it was stated as a single-dummy problem, I have a feeling that most people would struggle with squeeze possibilities rather than playing for Kx of clubs which also needs West not to have more than two trumps, so you can cash all the club winners. May be someone can actually figure out that the squeeze won't work and try an alternative line. It'd be nice if we can present this a s a single dummy problem and get the opinion of an expert declarer like Fantoni, Rosenberg or Helgemo.

I don't know what Fantoni would do, but I'm pretty sure Helgemo and Rosenberg would have made the contract - Rosenberg after thinking for 16 minutes and Helgemo almost without pause for thought.

[Echognome]

sathyab, on Sep 4 2008, 10:10 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 4 2008, 11:10 AM, said:

Another interesting exercise is trying a triple after the OP's start (ruff a diamond high). It doesn't work, but its a good drill.

Obviously ruffing out the ♣Kx works as others have pointed out.

That's exactly what I tried to do, go thru the exercise of a triple after the indicated start and concluded that it wouldn't work. If it was stated as a single-dummy problem, I have a feeling that most people would struggle with squeeze possibilities rather than playing for Kx of clubs which also needs West not to have more than two trumps, so you can cash all the club winners. May be someone can actually figure out that the squeeze won't work and try an alternative line. It'd be nice if we can present this a s a single dummy problem and get the opinion of an expert declarer like Fantoni, Rosenberg or Helgemo.

What about getting the opinion of an expert declarer like David Burn?

Ah. But you might not find him believable...

[gnasher]

Personally I'd play for hearts 3-3, intending to take a trump finesse against East. It seems more likely that West is 1=6=3=3 than 2=5=4=2 or 2=5=3=3, and I don't think you can combine the chances.

[dburn]

sathyab, on Sep 4 2008, 03:29 AM, said:

West overcalls and is likely to have the missing honors in all the side suits and you wouldn't think about squeezing anyone in anything because it wouldn't work ? Really ?

Yes, really. I would not actually fear a heart shift - West cannot know that South has a heart, and if he does not, the shift may give him a free finesse that would cost the contract. His trump shift is a perfectly logical defence, and to be anticipated.

I would know, however, that after winning the trump shift as cheaply as possible in the South hand, I would have ten tricks available - five spades, two hearts with the finesse, ♦A, a diamond ruffed high, and ♣A. A triple squeeze on West will produce one extra trick - but not two, because the conditions under which a triple squeeze repeats are not present. The end position will be:

Scoring: MP

---

On the last spade West is defending double dummy and knows that he must pitch a club, so that there will be no chance of a defensive error in the endgame (all this assumes, of course, that East has a higher club than South's seven, which was not explicitly stated in the original post).

Now, I am nowhere near as good a declarer as Fantoni or Rosenberg or Helgemo, but none of this is beyond my powers of projection. I would also know, for completeness, that if East held ♣K I could duck the first diamond and, unless West shifted to a heart, later squeeze West in the red suits after taking the club finesse. But in view of the overcall (to which, unlike another correspondent, I take no exception at all) I would not be inclined to place East with ♣K.

At the table, I would probably play as gnasher suggests (mutatis mutandis, since I think that diamonds are more likely than hearts to be 3-3), in the hope that West would have two or three diamonds only. As I remarked, though, the possibility that I would find the successful line is not non-existent, since it is not beyond my powers of projection either - the question is simply one of what distributions for West are more likely than others. This, therefore:

sathyab, on Sep 4 2008, 03:29 AM, said:

And you would easily come to the conclusion that playing to ruff out the Kx of clubs is the best chance for the contract ? Impressive, very impressive and so utterly believable too.

is false, insulting, and pointless.