[FrancesHinden]

You are South, dummy is West

love all, imps

1♦ 2♥ 2♠ 3♥
4♣ 4♥ x all pass

Your 2♠ was only forcing for one round. You could pass partner's minimum rebid (not that you were going to).

With some partners and some opponents you would have bid 5D here, but you know your RHO has a tendency to bid when he shouldn't, and you know your partner likes to bid a lot, so hasn't really shown more than minimum HCP although obviously with some shape.

You lead the ace of diamonds
You continue with the queen of diamonds to which declarer follows

There is now exactly one technically correct card. What is it?

Scoring: IMP

---

[Old York]

Your partner had the opportunity to overtake ♦Queen, so his failure to do so demands a Spade
If you partner has Clubs to cash or a singleton Spade (or ♠KQ), he should overtake

Even so, he has done a lot of bidding with:
♠Kx ♥x ♦KJxxx ♣K9843

Tony

[FrancesHinden]

Good start, but don't stop there.
p.s. that isn't partner's hand (that really would be a lot of bidding)

[Old York]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 21 2009, 02:45 PM, said:

Good start, but don't stop there

Where have I heard that before? ...... Oh yes, all my girlfriends...

Tony

[rfedrick]

Old York, on Apr 21 2009, 06:04 AM, said:

Your partner had the opportunity to overtake ♦Queen, so his failure to do so demands a Spade

I make that 20% correct, if such a thing is possible (I think perhaps correctness is digital, like being pregnant).

(Comment hidden).

Spoiler

Need to cater for K8x, Q109xxxx, xx, x

[vuroth]

It's not the 7♣ is it?

EDIT: I had a bajillion analysis, but deleted it all because I couldn't find anything. If the above is incorrect, I probably missed something far simpler. Given that this is B/I, and I am me, I probably did.

EDIT2 (hidden):

Spoiler

Ok, I never even considered declarer having 7 hearts...

[vuroth]

rfedrick, on Apr 21 2009, 09:00 AM, said:

Spoiler

Need to cater for K8x, Q109xxxx, xx, x

Hidden:

Spoiler

That looks like down 1 to me. We should always get our 2 aces.

I also think that we'll never get a spade no matter what we do - it should always be going away on a club or a marked finesse.

[vuroth]

I've tried a ton of combinations. It's tough to give partner a hand where he would open where it matters how we play. Certainly if partner has the Q♥ (really unlikely from the bidding) or the A♣ (unless he has 6 clubs, in which case I'm quite certain we have no defense), the contract is always going down.

The most sensible holding for partner his xx55. If East has 6 hearts, which seems a good starting point, partner is 1255.

The only interesting holding I can come up with for this is:
K
xx
KJxxx
K9843

I hate this as an opener, but partner gets excited, we're told.

If declarer misguesses spades, he's down. If, however, he plays the ace first round, he can cash the Q, and have 2 spades left facing my J.

My first thought was that these 2 spades go away on clubs, but really, it depends on what partner does. If he reflexively covers the Q♣ with the K♣, then 2 spades go on 2 clubs.

If partner can make the brilliant play of NOT covering the first round of clubs, then maybe this works. Declarer now only gets 1 spade discard on clubs, and he's down. That's why I suggested my high club. It should, I think, tend to deny the ace. Partner should realize that whether I have the 5 or declarer has it, ducking the first round of clubs is safe.

If partner is 2155, declarer is 3721. If partner has Kx of spades, the contract is down, while if partner has Qx, the contract is making.

This is my second really long write-up, so I guess I'd better not delete this one, too.

V

[Old York]

vuroth, on Apr 21 2009, 03:59 PM, said:

It's not the 7♣ is it?

The Spade switch is simple bridge logic, as supported by Martin Hoffman and Hugh Kelsey

If partner wants to cash Clubs, he can do so from his side of the table by overtaking
Partner cannot want a third Diamond, declarer must ruff (what was signal on lead?)
A trump switch is just plain silly
So a Spade is left by a process of elimination QED (Partner must have Kx or Qx and I want to give him a ruff)

Which Spade? Everyone at the table knows that I have 5
There is a case for leading ♠Jack in case declarer has K8x
I would lead ♠2 as suit preference (I dont want a third Diamond)

Have we missed game here? If so then we need +500
So I need partner with 2254

Tony

[vuroth]

Old York, on Apr 21 2009, 11:26 AM, said:

A trump switch is just plain silly

Really? I considered A♥, as a way to knock one of declarer's entries out. I really don't want him running clubs through partner over and over.

I also couldn't find a spade holding partner could have where it was so much more important that I lead ♠s than that declarer be forced to break them.

As I said, though, I always get these wrong, and I have to be missing something.

[FrancesHinden]

Well, I think the thing you are missing is that you are trying to beat the contract.
I am trying to get the maximum penalty.

Here are some more thoughts for vuroth:

Partner has 5 diamonds and hence exactly 5 clubs (I'll tell you that this partner would not open 1D with 5-6 in the minors unless he was very weak, which he clearly isn't). So partner is 1-2-5-5 or 2-1-5-5. With 3-0-5-5 he would have raised spades, and 0-3-5-5 leaves declarer a bit short of hearts for the auction. Partner must have the AK of clubs, he has nothing resembling a 4C bid without it. KJxxx AKxxx in the minors plus a major suit honour is pretty minimum as it is (he gets excited, but not that excited). So we have four tricks anyway, the ace of hearts, two diamonds and a club.

But we would like more than four tricks. Any additional trump tricks will come or not as they please (although we probably don't want to play ace and another heart in case partner has singleton 10).

This brings us back to the spade suit.

Do we need to play on spades now, or can we just exit with a diamond (which declarer will ruff)?

If we need to play on spades, what are the relevant spade holdings? Remember that partner left us to win the second diamond which he didn't have to do.


And for Old York:
Look harder at the spade pips.

[Old York]

Spade pips? Yep

♠9 is looking good (surrounding ♠K8x with East)

We do need to attack Spades as a discard is likely on club Queen
So declarer is 3721?

Tony

[vuroth]

Frances, you seem to be implying to me that declarer stuck his nose in, twice, with less than 6 points.

I'm just not prepared to churn through every single unlikely possibility at this point in my development. If declarer is more likely to hold Hxx(x) Qxxxxx(x) xx x than partner is to hold x x KJxxx AKxxxx, then I'm just not equipped to handle these problems.

V

[Old York]

vuroth, on Apr 21 2009, 06:19 PM, said:

declarer stuck his nose in, twice, with less than 6 points

There is a modern tendancy towards more and more destructive methods, never trust the enemy bidding, always trust your partner

An oppo of mine recently opened 2♠ with:
♠Qxxxx ♥x ♦109xxx ♣Jx

If your partner is wrong, then any disasters are his responsibility, your conscience is clear

Tony

[Stephen Tu]

Quote

But we would like more than four tricks. Any additional trump tricks will come or not as they please (although we probably don't want to play ace and another heart in case partner has singleton 10).

Frances, am I being dense, or this is not quite true? It seems to me that the J of hearts creates a bunch of trump promotion opportunities if we play the third round of diamonds. Partner gets in with CK to play 4th round of diamonds, either declarer ruffs in hand (if ruff on board, we get 2nd heart trick somewhat automatically) and we discard a club, which then either creates a club ruff for us if partner has the SKx, or strands declarer with a spade loser if partner only has SQx.

Or if instead declarer pitches club loser on third diamond, partner can play a 4th round on which we pitch a club. We win first heart, lead our last club. Again we get club ruff or leave declarer with a spade loser.

I'm pretty sure that the third diamond creates a 3rd undertrick if partner comes up with ♠Kx, and breaks even for 2 undertricks vs. switching to S9 if partner only has ♠Qx. It only seems to be wrong if declarer has some goofy 4-6-2-1 shape and we need to give partner a spade ruff, which seems unlikely on the bidding.

[quiddity]

Stephen Tu, on Apr 22 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure that the third diamond creates a 3rd undertrick if partner comes up with ♠Kx, and breaks even for 2 undertricks vs. switching to S9 if partner only has ♠Qx.

I think it costs an undertrick if partner has precisely the HT and S-Qx, but I suppose partner is more likely to have the SK than the HT.

[rfedrick]

Stephen Tu, on Apr 22 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure that the third diamond creates a 3rd undertrick if partner comes up with ♠Kx, and breaks even for 2 undertricks vs. switching to S9 if partner only has ♠Qx.

If declarer has K8x Q1098xxx xx x then you are right - a third diamond is as good as the ♠9 for -2. (Indeed, the Ace or 2 of ♥ also are good enough for -2.)

But the ♠9 uniquely gets -3 when partner has the stiff ♥10 and declarer has K8x Q987xxx xx x.

BUT... if partner has the ♠K (declarer holding eg Qxx Q1098xxx xx x) then the third diamond (or club then third diamond from partner) is required to get -3, a spade switch (any spade) is only good for -2.

if partner has the ♠K AND the stiff ♥10... i leave that as an exercise for someone else, as i'm going to watch the football now.

it's a good problem.

[y66]

I like that S9 idea, esp. since pard seems to have left me on lead in order to lead a spade. However, if pard has the SK, I think he's always getting that. So, small diamond for me.

Don't think this is such an easy problem. I take my hat off to any B/I who constructed possible hands, even if they weren't the right ones, and had sense enough to move on to other problems and football games after giving this one its due.

[vuroth]

Especially if, by football, they mean soccer.

I apologize for taking my general frustration out on this problem. I'm always happy to see defensive problems in the B/I forum.

[y66]