[sathyab]

Scoring: MP

1♣ 1♠
1nt 2♣
2♠ 4♠

---

2♣ was explained as check-back, not sure one-way or 2-way.
N-S were playing 3/5 vs suits and UDCA.

Here's how it "went down" (as in describing a crime scene, not the contract )

T1: ♦8, 9, J, 3
T2: ♣J, 2, A, 7
T3: ♦Q, K, A, 7

End-of-defense

[awm]

I blame north.

A club switch from Jx would be a really poor play, establishing west's suit for him. The club jack could easily score a trick from Jx (imagine west with Q9xx opposite KTx or A9x opposite KTx).

So south's club switch should be read as singleton, and north should give the ruff.

[mikeh]

awm, on Mar 25 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

I blame north.

A club switch from Jx would be a really poor play, establishing west's suit for him. The club jack could easily score a trick from Jx (imagine west with Q9xx opposite KTx or A9x opposite KTx).

So south's club switch should be read as singleton, and north should give the ruff.

Agreed: a defender should always try to put himself in partner's seat and consider what kind of holding makes sense... I strongly suspect that no defender would think of switching to the Jack of clubs into K10x from any holding other than stiff (or perhaps QJ tight), so it has to be correct to continue the suit. Either partner is ruffing or declarer is going to have to make a very tough play to pick off the (improbable) QJ tight.

[Phil]

Sathya, didn't you post this before or did you just email it to me?

I blame North too, but note that a 2nd diamond is necessary to get this -2 if declarer is 5=0=3=5 (I might have said that before).

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Take your 4 tricks with a club ruff.

[sathyab]

Phil, on Mar 25 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

Sathya, didn't you post this before or did you just email it to me?

I blame North too, but note that a 2nd diamond is necessary to get this -2 if declarer is 5=0=3=5 (I might have said that before).

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Take your 4 tricks with a club ruff.

You have a good memory I did post it as defense problem and the response was underwhelming as is often the case with such, not even gnasher responding.

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=28715

I posted it as an ATB, because although it does seem close to a wtp if not a wtfp, there was at least one expert pair that failed the same way as the non-expert pair here did in the second semi-final of Blue Ribbon Pairs in Boston last year.

North thought that South should have cashed the Ace of Diamonds, making it clear that he wanted a club ruff. South countered by saying there was no need to establish a ♦ trick at all looking at that dummy. Give me my ♣ ruff and I'll cash out if I suspect that declarer's ♦ loser may disappear on dummy's hearts, in case declarer held something like AKJxx K xx Q9xxx. But in the present lay-out I simply exit a trump and wait for our red tricks.

[gnasher]

sathyab, on Mar 26 2009, 12:34 AM, said:

not even gnasher responding.

Hmm. Maybe I should get a life.

Quote

North thought that South should have cashed the Ace of Diamonds, making it clear that he wanted a club ruff.

That argument is clearly wrong, because:
- North doesn't know that the diamond is cashing. South's allowed to want a ruff when he's 4351.
- South doesn't know that North has a black ace. From South's point of view, declarer may have one or two heart losers if left to his own devices. If he has AKJxx xx xx AQxx cashing the diamond lets through an overtrick. If he has AKJxx xxx xx AQx it lets through the contract.

I don't think there's a perfect solution to this sort of problem, which does come up quite often. From North's perspective, it's possible that South has done very well to switch to a club from Axxx xx AJxxx Jx, but that hand might have overcalled, and probably wouldn't have found the club switch. North should just play the odds and give a ruff.

[sathyab]

gnasher, on Mar 26 2009, 03:16 AM, said:

sathyab, on Mar 26 2009, 12:34 AM, said:

not even gnasher responding.

Hmm. Maybe I should get a life.

If you do that, quite a few of us will have to do the same. So, please don't

[kfay]

I blame North 33%. 66% No blame. Tough one.