[nige1]

Scoring: IMP

Last night, at a league match, in Edinburgh ...
(1♠) 2♠ (3♠) _P
(4♠) AP
You lead ♥AK and all follow. What now?

---

[gnasher]

Small club, which is necessary if declarer has something like AQJxxx xx AKQ Jx.

It's disastrous if he has something like AQJxxx xx KQxx Q, but that gives partner xx xx Axxx Jxxxx, with which he might have bid.

Another risk is that declarer has something like AQJxxxx xx Ax Qx, when the club switch allows him to make on an elimination. Again, partner's silence makes that unlikely.

[nige1]

gnasher, on Mar 26 2010, 08:30 AM, said:

Small club, which is necessary if declarer has something like AQJxxx xx AKQ Jx.
It's disastrous if he has something like AQJxxx xx KQxx Q, but that gives partner xx xx Axxx Jxxxx, with which he might have bid.
Another risk is that declarer has something like AQJxxxx xx Ax Qx, when the club switch allows him to make on an elimination.  Again, partner's silence makes that unlikely.

Scoring: Imps

Last night, at a league match, in Edinburgh ...
(1♠) 2♠ (3♠) _P
(4♠) AP
You lead ♥AK and all follow. What now?

As the cards lie, Gnasher's small ♣ is the only continuation that defeats the game.
On a ♦ or ♠ lead, declarer can cash ♠QJ, ♦AK, cross to ♣K, ruff finesse ♦, give up a ♣, ruff a ♣ with ♠K and enjoy a diamond trick. It LHO leads a ♥, either immediately, or later after rising with ♣A, that creates a ♥ trick instead.

The small ♣ lead removes an entry to dummy.
Scottish expert, Jack Paterson, found this defence at the table.

---

[gnasher]

You can't give me any credit for this - I switched to a small club to give declarer a guess if he had the jack, not because I envisaged this layout. I hope I'm not doing the original West an injustice, but I'd be surprised if he did it for the right reason either.

[nige1]

gnasher, on Mar 30 2010, 04:34 AM, said:

You can't give me any credit for this - I switched to a small club to give declarer a guess if he had the jack, not because I envisaged this layout.  I hope I'm not doing the original West a disservice, but I'd be surprised if he did it for the right reason either.

Jack and Gnasher seem to have the right instincts. Some of the variations are more interesting than I implied. For example, how can declarer get home, after LHO continues ♥ at trick 3?

[gnasher]

nige1, on Mar 30 2010, 12:27 PM, said:

how can declarer get home, after LHO continues ♥ at trick 3?

If RHO ruffs, you can draw trumps, ruff out ♦Q and use a club ruff to get to dummy to cash the diamond. If RHO throws a diamond, you only need one club ruff. If RHO throws a club, you no longer need any club ruffs.

[nige1]

nige1, on Mar 30 2010, 12:27 PM, said:

how can declarer get home, after LHO continues ♥ at trick 3?

gnasher, on Mar 30 2010, 07:36 AM, said:

If RHO ruffs, you can draw trumps, ruff out ♦Q and use a club ruff to get to dummy to cash the diamond.  If RHO throws a diamond, you only need one club ruff.  If RHO throws a club, you no longer need any club ruffs.

Yes. If LHO continues ♥Q and RHO discards a ♣: then you can still play ♠QJ, ♦AK, ♠K, ♦J covered and ruffed, ♣ towards ♣K. This works no matter what RHO's ♣ doubleton.

[jjbrr]

agree with gnasher's original analysis. I also just wanted declarer to misguess ♣.