[kfay]

Scoring: IMP

1♥-1N
3♠-4♥

---

The opponents bid uncontested, starting on your right. 3♠ was a splinter, showing long hearts and short spades, game forcing.

You begin with the ♣AKQ (in that order) partner following with the 6 and 10, UDCA. On the ♣Q partner discards the ♦8.

[655321]

I like a 4th club.

It is necessary if declarer has - AKJTxxx AK4 J43 (partner pitching his last diamond), and even if declarer has a spade, the contract still goes down if partner's trumps are as good as Qxx or Jxxx.

[kayin801]

Agree with 655321, declarer might have jump shifted (keyword: MIGHT) with a 4 card diamond suit, so a diamond doesn't look right, and with 7 solid hearts and AK of diamonds declarer would likely have opened 2♣.

I went through pretty much every card but a low spade or heart here trying to figure out what to do, nice problem.

[ceeb]

I like the *idea* of a 4th club -- it protects partner's trump trick if such exists (though only Qxx is really at risk. If partner has Jxxx (or Kx) any black card works.). But why should it exist? Though the OP didn't give a full explanation of the opponents' methods, from the clue of declarer's club holding it appears that it was intended mainly as choice-of-games. That means that declarer thought the heart suit is solid, not AKJxxxx.

Therefore ♠A for me.

[gnasher]

If ♠A is right, partner shouldn't have thrown a diamond - he should just have throw a count-showing spade. He should only throw a diamond if he thinks that some good might be achieved by doing so.

A diamond is playing for the other hands to be QJ9xxx xxxx x xx, and - AKQJxx AKxx Jxx. A club is playing for QJ9xxx Qxx xx xx and - AKJxxxx AKx Jxx.

I think that the second hand looks a lot more like a splinter than the first, so I'll play another club.

[phil_20686]

partner can count too, delcarer made a jump shift with 3 small in the club suit so he is pretty likely to hold solid hearts and the ak of diamonds.

Moreover, if partner has as much as the k of diamonds he would simply give spade count and wait. the 8 of diamonds strongly implies that he has no diamond trick i think.

Is it possible that he is stiff? I cannot believe that an expert would auto splinter with akxx of diamonds, i dont know what their agreements are but surely they would have some way to show this: you could easily be hitting a ten count with 6 or more diamonds, and auto splintering always implies you have a slam try opposite some 1nt bids.

If rho has any two diamonds it doesnt matter what i do as long as i dont play a diamond. the crucial case is where he has AKx diamonds, xxx clubs, and 1 spade. So, basically, a 4th club loses only when declarers trumps are good enough to simply draw them, and wins, and he has AKx of diamonds.

So it all comes back to what partner was trying to do with his diamond signal? I think if a 4th club was good enough, he would have asked for it with a low diamond. So i will just cash the ace of spades.

[phil_20686]

gnasher, on Jul 1 2010, 05:30 AM, said:

If ♠A is right, partner shouldn't have thrown a diamond - he should just have throw a count-showing spade. He should only throw a diamond if he thinks that some good might be achieved by doing so.

Partner is not omniscient - how does he know how many spades you have - surely he wants to pitch a diamond anyway so he can cut down dummy entries with xx diamonds. The real question is why pitch the 8 of diamonds from 8x? Wouldn't the smal one be systemic count here?

[655321]

phil_20686, on Jul 1 2010, 09:56 AM, said:

The real question is why pitch the 8 of diamonds from 8x? Wouldn't the smal one be systemic count here?

Um, declarer must have the ♦AK, so the only diamonds we haven't seen are the J and the 4. How many 8x holdings are you talking about?

[pooltuna]

phil_20686, on Jul 1 2010, 09:56 AM, said:

gnasher, on Jul 1 2010, 05:30 AM, said:

If ♠A is right, partner shouldn't have thrown a diamond - he should just have throw a count-showing spade.  He should only throw a diamond if he thinks that some good might be achieved by doing so.

Partner is not omniscient - how does he know how many spades you have - surely he wants to pitch a diamond anyway so he can cut down dummy entries with xx diamonds. The real question is why pitch the 8 of diamonds from 8x? Wouldn't the smal one be systemic count here?

why is the 8 from 8x and not the smallest he holds. The only small ♦ you can't see after the pitch is the 4.

[gnasher]

phil_20686, on Jul 1 2010, 03:56 PM, said:

Partner is not omniscient - how does he know how many spades you have

He doesn't, and I don't know how many spades he has. That is why I expect him to tell me how many spades he has, unless he has another line of defence in mind.

Mind you, on this hand I don't really care what he tells me about his spade holding; what I don't want him to do is to imply that a diamond ruff is possible when it isn't.

Quote

- surely he wants to pitch a diamond anyway so he can cut down dummy entries with xx diamonds.

If partner had QJxxx 10xxx J8 10x, what could he hope to gain by throwing a diamond?

Quote

The real question is why pitch the 8 of diamonds from 8x? Wouldn't the smal one be systemic count here?

As others have pointed out, if he started with J8, the 8 would be his systemically correct card.

[blackshoe]

I'm confused. The description of how the auction went doesn't make sense, given the information in the hand layout.

[ceeb]

gnasher, on Jul 1 2010, 05:30 AM, said:

If ♠A is right, partner shouldn't have thrown a diamond - he should just have throw a count-showing spade.

Good point. I missed that.

Quote

A diamond is playing for the other hands to be QJ9xxx xxxx x xx, and - AKQJxx AKxx Jxx.  A club is playing for QJ9xxx Qxx xx xx and - AKJxxxx AKx Jxx.

I think that the second hand looks a lot more like a splinter than the first,

I can agree but that's splitting hairs. Neither one looks like a splinter to me. It may therefore be right to consider other explanations. I'd hate to posit that partner made a mistake, but it does sometimes happen that partner sees things in a different way than we imagine. For example if partner has no trump trick and reads the bidding as showing a solid heart suit, then partner might not feel a duty to make a signal denying a trump trick. Maybe partner therefore figures that for us to try the ♠A if we have it is can't-lose so giving count is pointless.

[gnasher]

ceeb, on Jul 2 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

I'd hate to posit that partner made a mistake, but it does sometimes happen that partner sees things in a different way than we imagine. For example if partner has no trump trick and reads the bidding as showing a solid heart suit, then partner might not feel a duty to make a signal denying a trump trick. Maybe partner therefore figures that for us to try the ♠A if we have it is can't-lose so giving count is pointless.

This may not be a winning strategy, but I'd prefer to let it through by playing for partner to have defended correctly than by playing for him to have misdefended.

You're right about the count part, though - if partner threw any spade, I'd still try to cash the ace, because I can't see how it could cost.

[kfay]

Partner's on the forums don't misdefend.

[ceeb]

If people interpret my "I'd hate to posit partner made a mistake" as meaning that I posit partner made a mistake then I take partial blame for the misunderstanding. Admittedly sometimes people say "I hate to..." as a prelude to doing that which they hate. That's not what I meant so my choice of phrase was unfortunate.

My opinion is that partner may legitimately see things differently, and I gave an example. I believe that there is such a thing as putting too much pressure on the partnership signals. Never mind that this may be an imperfect world (partners do make mistakes). Even that aside, it is an ambiguous world. Many partnerships signaling philosophy is "your signal should convey whatever information is most important to partner." I don't argue against that approach -- I subscribe to it myself -- but I do argue that in the interest of winning bridge as well as partnership harmony you should accept that it doesn't always work. Sometimes partner's view is very different than you imagine and your guess as to "what is most important to partner" will be way off.

[pooltuna]

kfay, on Jun 29 2010, 11:21 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♥-1N
3♠-4♥

---

The opponents bid uncontested, starting on your right.  3♠ was a splinter, showing long hearts and short spades, game forcing.

You begin with the ♣AKQ (in that order) partner following with the 6 and 10, UDCA.  On the ♣Q partner discards the ♦8.

Assume you have the East hand, what would you want partner to bid if your hand was the one below and he held a ♠ stopper.

---

would you risk the ♣ suit to get to 3NT. The thing about ♠s is you know the opps have a 9 card fit (alright, an 8 card fit with all the top honors is also possible). So why didn't west bid 3NT? Perhaps he was on a different frequency. my 4th lead is the ♠A

[gnasher]

ceeb, on Jul 3 2010, 12:56 PM, said:

If people interpret my "I'd hate to posit partner made a mistake" as meaning that I posit partner made a mistake then I take partial blame for the misunderstanding. Admittedly sometimes people say "I hate to..." as a prelude to doing that which they hate. That's not what I meant so my choice of phrase was unfortunate.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. The misunderstanding was partly because what you were positing partner's doing would have been a clearcut mistake.

Forget the question of signalling (which I wish I hadn't mentioned). This is just a matter of defending correctly and cooperatively, or not doing so.

The only reason partner can have for throwing a diamond, any diamond, is that there is some layout where he envisages getting a diamond ruff as a result. If he can't envisage any such layout, he should not suggest the possibilty of a diamond ruff by throwing one. Instead, he should throw a spade, any spade, with any meaning that takes his fancy.

Quote

My opinion is that partner may legitimately see things differently, and I gave an example.

You gave an example of what partner's thought processes might have been. Unless you can provide an example of a hand that partner might hold where (1) he might conclude that throwing a diamond increased the chance of setting the contract, and (2) it would be right for us to cash ♠A, those thought processes led him to make a mistake.

[ceeb]

gnasher, on Jul 3 2010, 08:51 AM, said:

Forget the question of signalling (which I wish I hadn't mentioned).  This is just a matter of defending correctly and cooperatively, or not doing so.

The only reason partner can have for throwing a diamond, any diamond, is that there is some layout where he envisages getting a diamond ruff as a result.  If he can't envisage any such layout, he should not suggest the possibilty of a diamond ruff by throwing one.  Instead, he should throw a spade, any spade, with any meaning that takes his fancy.

Quote

My opinion is that partner may legitimately see things differently, and I gave an example.

You gave an example of what partner's thought processes might have been. Unless you can provide an example of a hand that partner might hold where (1) he might conclude that throwing a diamond increased the chance of setting the contract, and (2) it would be right for us to cash ♠A, those thought processes led him to make a mistake.

That's illogical. Whether partner made a mistake doesn't depend on whether I personally can provide an example, but only on whether it exists.

And that's not quibbling, but a substantial point. I've proposed a certain philosophy about partnership -- to recognize the possibility that sometimes it may be impossible to guess what partner has in mind and therefore, in some circumstances, to make a play that is not justified by any interpretation you can think of for partner's play. In insisting that *I* must come up with an example here, you are simply side-stepping my idea. Do you think it is wrong in principle? If you disagree with it and argue against it, fine -- leveraged by your greater expertise and experience you may well convince me. But I am not quite so humble as to concede that my ideas are wrong by default.

That said, here's the germ of an idea. Perhaps partner, holding, approximately
QJxxx, xxx, J8, xxx
and trying to imagine layouts where his defense matters, can only come up with declarer hands like A, AKQxxxx, Kx, xxx or A, AKQJxx, Kxx, xxx.

I don't mean to imply that partner is too dumb to consider the actual layout, but rather as I've already said partner doesn't consider it plausible.

[gnasher]

ceeb, on Jul 6 2010, 12:56 PM, said:

That's illogical. Whether partner made a mistake doesn't depend on whether I personally can provide an example, but only on whether it exists.

Sorry, I meant to say that for partner's defence not to be a mistake, such a hand had to exist, not that you personally had to be able to find it. On the other hand, if I can't think of such a hand, and nobody else can suggest one, I'm going to go on believing that it doesn't exist.

Quote

And that's not quibbling, but a substantial point. I've proposed a certain philosophy about partnership -- to recognize the possibility that sometimes it may be impossible to guess what partner has in mind and therefore, in some circumstances, to make a play that is not justified by any interpretation you can think of for partner's play. In insisting that *I* must come up with an example here, you are simply side-stepping my idea. Do you think it is wrong in principle?

Yes, I think it's wrong in principle. If partner's thought processes are rational, it is always in theory possible to anticipate them. If partner's thought processes are irrational, it may be possible to anticipate them, but if we act upon that anticipation we are playing for partner to have made a mistake.

Quote

If you disagree with it and argue against it, fine -- leveraged by your greater expertise and experience you may well convince me. But I am not quite so humble as to concede that my ideas are wrong by default.

I don't think I have ever suggested, in any discussion about bridge, either online or offline, that anyone should believe me for any reason other than the bridge arguments that I or someone else has advanced. In any case, I have no particular reason (other than what you've just said) to think that I do have any greater expertise or experience than you.

Quote

That said, here's the germ of an idea. Perhaps partner, holding, approximately
QJxxx, xxx, J8, xxx
and trying to imagine layouts where his defense matters, can only come up with declarer hands like A, AKQxxxx, Kx, xxx or A, AKQJxx, Kxx, xxx.

From partner's point of view, those are layouts where the contract will go down regardless of what he does. To discard a diamond is to play for an extra undertrick.

If partner does that and it leads to my letting the contract through by playing a fourth club instead of cashing ♠A, he has made a mistake.

[ceeb]

gnasher, on Jul 6 2010, 07:48 AM, said:

ceeb said:

... I've proposed a certain philosophy about partnership -- to recognize the possibility that sometimes it may be impossible to guess what partner has in mind and therefore, in some circumstances, to make a play that is not justified by any interpretation you can think of for partner's play. In insisting that *I* must come up with an example here, you are simply side-stepping my idea. Do you think it is wrong in principle?

Yes, I think it's wrong in principle. If partner's thought processes are rational, it is always in theory possible to anticipate them.

There is no such theory. It is tempting to assume an algorithm such as considering all possible partner hands and corresponding to each of them all possible layouts from partner's point of view, but there are two insuperable obstacles to that theory: it requires unlimited computation power, and it fails to acknowledge that "all possible layouts" is ambiguous, not well defined (because for example interpretation of the bidding is somewhat subjective).

The logical fact is that partner's thought processes cannot always be anticipated, and to assume otherwise is to play a very high pressure style of partnership defense, high pressure because it must occasionally come a cropper and further such croppers are defined as mistakes by one of the partnership. How "occasional" or how stressful a style is right at the top level I don't know. Not to my taste but it may be the winningest route.

gnasher said:

ceeb said:

leveraged by your greater expertise and experience you may well convince me.

I don't think I have ever suggested, in any discussion about bridge, either online or offline, that anyone should believe me for any reason other than the bridge arguments that I or someone else has advanced.

I think that's right, and your good analyses and reasonable style make a positive impression which you may be stuck with.

gnasher said:

ceeb said:

That said, here's the germ of an idea. Perhaps partner, holding, approximately
QJxxx, xxx, J8, xxx
and trying to imagine layouts where his defense matters, can only come up with declarer hands like A, AKQxxxx, Kx, xxx or A, AKQJxx, Kxx, xxx.

From partner's point of view, those are layouts where the contract will go down regardless of what he does. To discard a diamond is to play for an extra undertrick.

Yes? Sometimes that's all there is to play for.

Quote

If partner does that and it leads to my letting the contract through by playing a fourth club instead of cashing ♠A, he has made a mistake.

That is correct under the theories that (a) each defender is responsible for anticipating all ideas that might occur to partner, and (b ) any misjudgment is an error. In this case the misjudgment would be that both defenders already know X (club play can't help), so we need to look elsewhere.