[Phil]

Been sort of out of it the last week or so securing funding for the track.

I did play in a unit game on Sunday with Brian. Here's a few hands for you.

All matchpoints:

1. ♠KQTxx ♥Qx ♦Axxx ♣J9 r/w, p - p - 2♥ - ?


2. ♠xx ♥xx ♦xx ♣KQJTxxx, 1N - (2♥) - r/w

I assume you bid either 3♣ or 3N (denying). In either case, RHO is back in there with 4♥. You?


3. A funny aside. I opened a 15-17 1N on ♠Kxx ♥Qx ♦xx ♣AKJxxx. A few boards later, Brian opened one on ♠Axx ♥AQx ♦Axx ♣Axxx!


4. You defend 3N after 1♣ - 1♠ - 2♥ - 3♦ - 3N. LHO is Alan Bell.

Pard leads the ♦J (bless him). You see:

---

Declarer wins in hand and tanks for about 5 minutes. He finally puts the ♠A on the table. Pard plays low which is probably count and declarer advances the ♥Q. Win or duck?

[xcurt]

1. Is there something other than 2♠?
2. I'd have bid 3C. I'll pass now. I have zero defense but I'm not volunteering for a minus, not the least against unknown unit game opponents who might have no semblence of their bid. Hope partner judges well here.
3. Well I wouldn't -- preferring to stick with the field when in doubt -- but ok.
4. Take and play a club. Ducking is very dangerous at matchpoints.

[gnasher]

On 4, would partner really play high-low from Jxxx? And what did 3♦ mean?

[Phil]

gnasher, on Sep 30 2009, 02:03 AM, said:

And what did 3♦ mean?

Who knows? Obviously the opponents need remedial bidding lessons.

[gnasher]

Phil, on Sep 30 2009, 10:33 AM, said:

Who knows? Obviously the opponents need remedial bidding lessons.

Well I was hoping that the opponents would know. I'm not interested in why dummy did what he did, but I want to know whether declarer thought 3♦ was Fourth-Suit Forcing.

[rhm]

gnasher, on Sep 30 2009, 02:03 AM, said:

On 4, would partner really play high-low from Jxxx?  And what did 3♦ mean?

Well, if declarer has 2 cards in spades 6♠ must be easy and if you duck he has probably 13 tricks.

If declarer has a singleton ♠ ace, 6♠ is not so easy and there might be a red suit trick in addition to a trump in 4♠. Here ducking might win. You need 3 defensive tricks

So count in ♠ looks important to me.

However, would declarer kill the entries to his hand so fast when he had a doubleton ace of ♠ before taking the ♥ finesse?

My guess is declarer has something like

♠AJ,♥QJxx,♦Qx,♣AKxxx

and the ♦jack killed the straight forward red suit squeeze after cashing the ace of ♥ (Vienna coup) and running black suit winners
Declarer overlooked that he could still have made 13 tricks on a criss cross squeeze by winning the first diamond on the table and discarding dummy's low ♥ on the clubs before running ♠.

So take your ♥ king.

Rainer Herrmann

[andy_h]

1) 2♠
2) If 3♣ is not GF then I bid that, otherwise I bid 2NT leb. I pass 4♥
4) I duck and predict declarer will probably cash 1 top club pitching a heart and take a diamond hook. I'll then win and fire back another club or a heart depending, and hoping we will get 2 more tricks with club+spade or heart+spade. If declarer had 2425 he might've opened 1NT or if he had 1435 he might've thought longer before playing rather than playing then tanking.

[pooltuna]

1) 2♠ willing to pass 3♣ is enough for me

2) yes 3♣ but I am passing over 4♥

3) I considered 1NT in 3rd seat IMPS V holding ♠AKQTx ♥xx ♦QTx ♣Kxx

4) Duck smoothly. If declarer now produces the AKQ♣ and another ♠ they missed 6 so I won't get a 0.

[gnasher]

rhm, on Sep 30 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

However, would declarer kill the entries to his hand so fast when he had a doubleton ace of ♠ before taking the ♥ finesse?

My guess is declarer has something like

♠AJ,♥QJxx,♦Qx,♣AKxxx

That sort of hand is why I wanted to know what 3♦ meant. If it was fourth-suit forcing, 3NT seems odd with ♠Ax and ♦Qx. Partner's lead of ♦J from Jxx is even odder, but especially so if declarer is supposed to have values there.

Quote

and the ♦jack killed the straight forward red suit squeeze after cashing the ace of ♥ (Vienna coup) and running black suit winners
Declarer overlooked that he could still have made 13 tricks on a criss cross squeeze by winning the first diamond on the table and discarding dummy's low ♥ on the clubs before running ♠.

There's no particular reason for declarer to play for that. Finding ♥K in the same hand as ♦10 is less likely than finding ♥K onside, and the finesse doesn't require him to read the ending.

Anyway, I don't think his hand can be exactly that. Wouldn't he just take a diamond finesse, playing for the hand that led the jack to hold the ten as well? If he's 2425, AJ QJxx Qx AQxxx seems more likely, but we should still take our king.

[rhm]

gnasher, on Sep 30 2009, 06:51 PM, said:

rhm, on Sep 30 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

However, would declarer kill the entries to his hand so fast when he had a doubleton ace of ♠ before taking the ♥ finesse?

My guess is declarer has something like

♠AJ,♥QJxx,♦Qx,♣AKxxx

That sort of hand is why I wanted to know what 3♦ meant. If it was fourth-suit forcing, 3NT seems odd with ♠Ax and ♦Qx. Partner's lead of ♦J from Jxx is even odder, but especially so if declarer is supposed to have values there.

Quote

and the ♦jack killed the straight forward red suit squeeze after cashing the ace of ♥ (Vienna coup) and running black suit winners
Declarer overlooked that he could still have made 13 tricks on a criss cross squeeze by winning the first diamond on the table and discarding dummy's low ♥ on the clubs before running ♠.

There's no particular reason for declarer to play for that. Finding ♥K in the same hand as ♦10 is less likely than finding ♥K onside, and the finesse doesn't require him to read the ending.

Anyway, I don't think his hand can be exactly that. Wouldn't he just take a diamond finesse, playing for the hand that led the jack to hold the ten as well? If he's 2425, AJ QJxx Qx AQxxx seems more likely, but we should still take our king.

The fact that declarer paused after winning the ♦ queen argues strongly against that he holds 3 cards in ♦.
The fact that a competent player cashes the ♠ ace before taking the ♥ finesse suggests that he either holds the ♠ jack or he has entry troubles to the table, in which case I presume declarer got 1=4=2=6.
Of course I do not know whether declarer overlooked the criss cross squeeze possibility or rejected it. Even for competent players a criss cross squeeze is difficult to spot and execute at the table. According to the account declarer started to think a f t e r he won the first trick. He must be a pretty fast thinker if he saw the criss cross squeeze and rejected it immediately in favor of other lines.
(Maybe the ♥ finesse is slightly more likely to work, but I would think twice before I would reject the chance of executing a criss cross squeeze at the table. If the ♥ finesse wins you are too low anyway)

For declarer to assume that a competent defender would lead the ♦ jack from Jack, ten empty against this bidding is a bit naive in my opinion.
Many would lead a low card.

Rainer Herrmann

[Phil]

1. 2♠ would have worked at the table. Pard had a 4=3=3=3 nine count and can't balance. Not really sure why I passed TBH.

2. I bid 3♣ but took the push to 4N. It should have been beaten but it wasn't. I think a forcing pass is better. I'm not sure what pard would do with QJxx AQT AKx xxx. The 4♥ bidder held AKx KJ8xxx QJxx v. Getting 800 depends on the location of ♠10/9 and my ability to make a good opening lead.

4. Declarer held ♠A ♥QJxx ♦Qxx ♣AKxxx. I ducked the heart. He pitched a heart off one top club. I am ready to win the ♦10, knock out the bare ♥AH and let pard win a spade trick for 3 tricks but declarer played a diamond to the Ace, knocked out the spade and I made the ♦10 at the end.

Note: this partner would definitely lead the ♦J from Jxx here.

[gnasher]

rhm, on Oct 1 2009, 09:57 AM, said:

For declarer to assume that a competent defender would lead the ♦ jack from Jack, ten empty against this bidding is a bit naive in my opinion.
Many would lead a low card.

They'd lead the jack from J10x, wouldn't they? That seems to me more likely than that a rational player would lead an unsupported jack on the same bidding (regardless of what it meant). On top of that, for your squeeze to gain over a diamond finesse, you need both a strange lead *and* ♥K to be offside.

Finally, if you really think that the jack is more likely to be from Jx(x) than J10x(x) , it's still better odds to take the heart finesse than to play for the squeeze.

[gnasher]

Phil, on Oct 1 2009, 03:43 PM, said:

4. Declarer held ♠A ♥QJxx ♦Qxx ♣AKxxx.

I didn't recognise declarer's name, but I assumed from what you said that he was a good player. If so, he must have been having an off-day. With that hand., it''s obvious to win the lead in dummy, play a spade to the ace, and run ♥Q.

[Phil]

gnasher, on Oct 1 2009, 10:00 AM, said:

Phil, on Oct 1 2009, 03:43 PM, said:

4. Declarer held ♠A ♥QJxx ♦Qxx ♣AKxxx.

I didn't recognise declarer's name, but I assumed from what you said that he was a good player. If so, he must have been having an off-day. With that hand., it''s obvious to win the lead in dummy, play a spade to the ace, and run ♥Q.

He was quite a good player in the 60's and 70's. He is still a Bridge World panelist.