[karlson]

Scoring: IMP

---

The opponents bid 1♦-1♥-2♦-2n-3n

♣5-K-A-4
♣T-8-7-6
♥7-5-Q-4

You're up. Standard carding, 4th best leads.

[ONEferBRID]

Too bad you didn't overtake partner's Ten when declarer played the 8.

[wclass___]

IMO you should simply overtake ♣ at 2nd trick and play ♠..
But now it seems you got another chance to do that.

If so, declarer played more than bad.

[rhm]

karlson, on Jul 17 2009, 07:03 PM, said:

<!-- FULLHAND begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <td>Dealer:</td> <td> North </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vul:</td> <td> None </td> </tr> <tr> <td>Scoring:</td> <td> IMP </td> </tr> </table> </td> <td> <table> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> AQ3 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> J4 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> QJT973 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> K6 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td> 8742 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td> Q83 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td> 82 </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td> J975 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td>  </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <th class='spades'>♠</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='hearts'>♥</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='diamonds'>♦</th> <td>  </td> </tr> <tr> <th class='clubs'>♣</th> <td>  </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- FULLHAND end -->

The opponents bid 1♦-1♥-2♦-2n-3n

♣5-K-A-4
♣T-8-7-6
♥7-5-Q-4

You're up. Standard carding, 4th best leads.

Strange where are ♣3 and ♣2 ?

It seems to me that partner must have them and tried to fool declarer with returning ♣10, knowing that declarer would duck.

When the ♣8 and ♣7 appeared partner rightly concluded that you could stand a switch to ♥.
You now need to switch back to ♣ before the ♥ are established.

Declarers hand:

♠Kxx
♥A9654
♦Ax
♣Q84

Nice defense.

Rainer Herrmann

[ceeb]

rhm, on Jul 18 2009, 05:39 AM, said:

karlson, on Jul 17 2009, 07:03 PM, said:

Dealer: North Vul: None Scoring: IMP

♠ AQ3 ♥ J4 ♦ QJT973 ♣ K6 ♠ 8742 ♥ Q83 ♦ 82 ♣ J975

The opponents bid 1♦-1♥-2♦-2n-3n

♣5-K-A-4
♣T-8-7-6
♥7-5-Q-4

You're up. Standard carding, 4th best leads.

Strange where are ♣3 and ♣2 ?

It seems to me that partner must have them and tried to fool declarer with returning ♣10, knowing that declarer would duck.

When the ♣8 and ♣7 appeared partner rightly concluded that you could stand a switch to ♥.
You now need to switch back to ♣ before the ♥ are established.

Declarers hand:

♠Kxx
♥A9654
♦Ax
♣Q84

Nice defense.

Rainer Herrmann

I'm sure you're right about the clubs -- from ♣Q843 declarer can't afford the 8 because it allows a fatal overtake by West when East has ♣A10 doubleton. But I have trouble visualizing declarer's hand. Isn't 2NT non-forcing? Even Kxx,Axxxx,Kx,Q8x seems a bit too strong. So I considered Kxx,Kxxxx,Kx,Q8x, but now the defense is entitled to 3 clubs and 2 red aces routinely, so why would East risk the low heart play? Nor does J10xx, A106x, Ax, Q84 with declarer completely make sense though from East's corresponding Kx,K987,Kxx,A1032 the defensive situation is less clear.

Charles

[karlson]

ceeb said:

from ♣Q843 declarer can't afford the 8 because it allows a fatal overtake by West

This is the inference that escaped me actually. I thought that it wasn't clear what was going on in clubs, and if declarer had a slightly different version of Rainer's proposed hand, say ♠Kx ♥A9xxx ♦Kx ♣Q843, I needed to continue hearts.

This hand is from Kelsey's Killing Defense at Bridge, except he gives partner's hand, and you need to come up with the falsecard of the ♣T, followed by a heart switch. He says something like "partner will reflect upon the missing 2 and 3 of clubs and probably reach the right conclusion." It seemed to me far from clear that partner would do such a thing, as a heart continuation could also be right. Thanks for pointing out the error.

By the way, it was in no way meant as a knock on the book even if the explanation did turn out to be slightly wrong. Kelsey is easily my favorite author.