[Cyberyeti]

A couple of questions about the same hand.

The suit in question was:

♣AQ96x

This is on the dummy in a 2N contract. Declarer(me) with 7x leads the 7.

There was an admitted BIT on declarer's left, but the defence maintained it was a fumble rather than a think, declarer took it as a think. There was no "sorry".

The auction might be relevant or might not as 2 peoples' hands bore little resemblance to what they bid.

Scoring: MP

---

It went (P)-P-(1D)-2C-(X)-2N end The diamond was semi psyched on a 3343 10 count and partner's 2C was about a queen and a club underweight.

From declarer's point of view it was suggested by the director that there could be no valid bridge reason for a hesitation, how deep do you have to go in working this out as declarer ? I thought the "short think" was consistent with several holdings where you work out very quickly which card to play, but where it's not completely auto.

The 108x the man actually held wasn't one of them.

From this point on, declarer and defence tried to chuck tricks at each other in the sort of fashion where 3 chimps playing randomly might have done better. Declarer might have had a marginal excuse that he was somewhat misled by the play of the club suit.

When examining how many tricks declarer might make if he takes a more realistic view of the club suit, how much heed is given to what did actually happen ? The defence failed to find a really obvious and good suit to play twice as the play went. Do they fail to find it in the adjustment for example when declarer plays it slightly differently.

Another curious thing that came up in the chat with the director before the ruling was that when RHO switched to the JD with 10x on the table and his partner having bid the suit, might LHO misread this as J9x where the J is the correct card to play for 3 tricks if partner has AKxx(x) or AQxx(x). In response to that, the E player (I suspect a premier grandmaster) said words to the effect that "I'm not clever enough to do that, I'd always lead a small one from J9x". Do you take heed of this ?

Apologies to one of the board regulars for the work we gave him over what turned out to be a very small number of matchpoints, most tables rather sensibly passed the board out, so the difference between -2 and -1 turned out to be the difference between 8 and 25 percent, with the weighted score awarded being worth a whole 4%.

[mr1303]

I'm sorry if this sounds course, but my inclination is to tell all concerned to go away and not waste my time. No adjustment, result stands.

[campboy]

How long did it take for LHO to follow? I don't see how a significant BIT can be explained by a fumble, and I don't see why I should do anything if there was an insignificant BIT.

[655321]

mr1303, on Jun 6 2010, 05:26 PM, said:

I'm sorry if this sounds course, but my inclination is to tell all concerned to go away and not waste my time. No adjustment, result stands.

Yes. Also, so many words, but no information; we still have no idea how the hesitation was supposed to have influenced declarer's play, we don't even know how the play went.

[bluejak]

I would have thought you might have something to think about with T8x when the 7 was led: whether to cover with the 8 or play small.

Yes, I know covering with the 8 is clearly wrong, but a player might think of covering then realise it is clearly wrong.

[mrdct]

Of of the possible ♣ holdings for east, 108x is probably as plausible holding for the BIT as any as there could be merit in any of the three cards. For declarer to attempt to read anything into the BIT is completely at his own peril.

With honour third or honour fourth, I'd probably expect LHO to play low at the speed of light so if anything the BIT would make me think the honours are offside and I might think about trying for an endplay (which looks problematic on the layout).

What did declarer claim the pause lead him to conclude and how did it adversely affect his play?

With some values expected to be on my left, I would think that with or without a BIT the best plan is to play low to the 9 and if that loses to the J or 10, low to Q next time.

Can you post the full hand and how the play went?

[Cyberyeti]

I thought K108x was most likely once the J appeared when I played the 9 (before that some holdings involving J10 were in the frame) with Kx possibly next most likely.

Small heart lead to the 9 (wrong) and Q.

---

Club to the 9 and J, JD return QK, spade switch was how it started. At this point I had a clear route to 7 tricks if the KC was onside so I took it by playing AS, 10D ducked and another spade, with 9 arriving if (unlikely) clubs were 3-3 and 8 if the JS dropped. I ended up with 6 when the KC was offside and the JS didn't drop. I didn't unblock the 10D deliberately on the first round as I thought that would guarantee a heart switch and I wanted the entry to get at the QS.

The ruling was asked for before we knew what the results were obviously, we wouldn't have bothered if we'd known for certain how little it mattered.

[mrdct]

Sorry, but I just can't see how you can reasonably draw the inferences you have drawn from the tank with ♣108x.

8 tricks is the name of the game in 2NT on a combined 20 count with two flat hands, so it seems a lot safer to me to take advantage of the lucky ♦J switch and unblock the ♦10 and combine your chances of ♥ blockage, ♣K onside, ♠K onside or an endplay.

Table result stands.

[Cyberyeti]

mrdct, on Jun 7 2010, 08:20 AM, said:

Sorry, but I just can't see how you can reasonably draw the inferences you have drawn from the tank with ♣108x.

8 tricks is the name of the game in 2NT on a combined 20 count with two flat hands, so it seems a lot safer to me to take advantage of the lucky ♦J switch and unblock the ♦10 and combine your chances of ♥ blockage, ♣K onside, ♠K onside or an endplay.

Table result stands.

KS onside doesn't help, If I unblock the 10D, a H switch is mandatory, I will now be in my hand for the last time, and I will now lose 2 clubs, one spade, 2 diamonds and 2 hearts. If LHO as I suspect has the KC, he certainly doesn't have the KS, so I can't get him to lead away from it, and I'm pretty sure the defence will already have 7 before I can endplay RHO. I know from the auction and lead, the H suit figures to be Hxx on my left, Hxxx on my right, and LHO has the D AK, so I was suspecting the black Ks were split to make sense of the auction.

I decided my best chance if clubs were not 3-3 onside was for LHO with AKxx(x) to show some imagination and play his partner for D J9x and me for Q8x(x), without really compromising any of my chances, as I thought if I played the 10D, LHO could more or less defend double dummy as I was pretty much known to hold Hxxx, AQ, Qxxxx, 7x, and he'd better hope I've got the QS rather than the K. My diamond xs would always be bigger than LHOs whatever they actually were, and LHO with AK43 knew this.