BBO Discussion Forums: Se7en - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Se7en

#21 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2010-January-15, 03:47

kenrexford, on Jan 15 2010, 04:05 AM, said:

If diamonds split 4-1, then spades could be tested, again. If spades also split 4-1, but the person with the stiff diamond also has the stiff spade, then a third round of spades could be played, ditching the losing heart, and then you need the QJ tight in hearts.

Are you saying that you'd cash two diamonds, find that they're 4-1, and then play two top spades?

Can you see any disadvantage to that line?
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#22 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2010-January-15, 06:34

gnasher, on Jan 15 2010, 04:47 AM, said:

kenrexford, on Jan 15 2010, 04:05 AM, said:

If diamonds split 4-1, then spades could be tested, again.  If spades also split 4-1, but the person with the stiff diamond also has the stiff spade, then a third round of spades could be played, ditching the losing heart, and then you need the QJ tight in hearts.

Are you saying that you'd cash two diamonds, find that they're 4-1, and then play two top spades?

Can you see any disadvantage to that line?

Oh yeah. Good point. I suppose I only can check spades after assuring myself that diamonds split 3-2 after all.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#23 User is offline   shevek 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 707
  • Joined: 2006-September-29
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:whippets<br>anarchy<br>relay

Posted 2010-January-15, 16:12

A minor point but obviously 7NT is slightly better than 7♠.
No 5-0 ♦ ruff plus finding ♥QJ stiff gives squeeze chances.
0

#24 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2010-January-15, 16:17

shevek, on Jan 15 2010, 11:12 PM, said:

A minor point but obviously 7NT is slightly better than 7♠.
No 5-0 ♦ ruff plus finding ♥QJ stiff gives squeeze chances.

Also in 7NT, with spades 5-0 onside you might have a double squeeze - win the red-suit lead, ♠10 to A, cash the red-suits to squeeze East, cash the spades to squeeze West.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0
  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users