I have been away from BBF for a while, busy with publishing and with preparing system notes for Philadelphia. But, I saw what appeared to me to be a botched line on a slam in the US Bridge Championship by Moss, with a terribly inept analysis by the ACBL Bulletin. Have y'all already discussed the hand? I found it fascinating, both with what I think should happen at trick two and trick three, plus what happens in many lines with five cards remaining.
I sent a letter to the editor on the hand, and Manley came back with what I think to be an ironically inane comment that declaring would be easier double dummy. The line I see is one that seems right single-dummy (Eichenbaum went with that line before seeing the full deal when I gave it to him, which confirmed what I thought), and the irony is that the Bulletin analysis seems flawed precisely because of double dummy errors (failure to cater to that which was not but well could have been).
The problem was playing 6♥ (opponents silent) by South after the lead of the diamond King:
My line:
Spoiler
Win, ruff diamond, small spade back toward unknown, giving RHO a problem if he has ace but not Queen. If big play, or no ace to right, nothing can go wrong. Will be able to ruff both diamonds; just need hearts 3-2.
Bulletin missed risk of club ruff if trick three is a club to ace and second ruff, then spade off. Moss trick two spade toward King, ace to right, two small to left, late uppercut with LHO Jxx in trumps.
In many lines, the end position ends up where the best line may well be ditching a club on dummy to end up with two card in each black suit; trump and 3 small clubs in hand. Club up. If 3-2 clubs, win second and ruff back to win established small club. If clubs do not split, ruff spade and back to dummy, hoping spade Ace falls, which happens if spade Ace was Ax or Axx or if spade ace with Jxxx in clubs -- squeeze.
"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."
You pretty much need 3-2 trumps anyway to have any hope. I would take Ace, ♦ruff, club to ace, ♦ruff, ♥K, then exit ♠K (no point giving them an option on who wins the spade).
With your line, you still need 3-2 trumps, and you go down if spades are 2-5 (or 5-2 with the person with 2 spades having 2 trumps). Not to mention that if the defence switches to a trump after winning the spade, it would make communication a little awkward and would likely need the ♠A to come down in 3.
You pretty much need 3-2 trumps anyway to have any hope. I would take Ace, ♦ruff, club to ace, ♦ruff, ♥K, then exit ♠K (no point giving them an option on who wins the spade).
With your line, you still need 3-2 trumps, and you go down if spades are 2-5 (or 5-2 with the person with 2 spades having 2 trumps). Not to mention that if the defence switches to a trump after winning the spade, it would make communication a little awkward and would likely need the ♠A to come down in 3.
Edited as I misread Moss' line.
Your assessment of my line is insanely wrong. My reasons:
Spoiler
Again, I win the diamond and ruff a diamond. I next play a small spade.
If they win this cheap and send back another spade, your first attacking defense, I ruff in hand (5-2 means no overruff) and ruff another diamond. I play the heart King, cross to the club Ace, and pull trumps. So, the 5-2 spade split does nothing bad to me.
If they instead win the spade cheap and play a trump, I win the king and ruff a spade, ruff the second diamond, club back to hand, and pull trumps. No transportation problems.
As to the spade, I do not need it to drop in three. Clubs could be 3-2, or the club Jack stiff, or the spade Ace dropping in three, or the spade ace protected but coupled with Jxxx in clubs.
So, your ways that my line fails are dead wrong.
Plus, your line fails on a much simpler problem:
Spoiler
The person with the spade Ace has four clubs and gives his partner a ruff when he wins that spade Ace, or the person with the spade Ace has diamond length and gives his partner a diamond ruff upon winning the spade ace.
On my line, each suit, both diamonds AND clubs, can be an entire card less balanced than with your line.
Not to mention, your line gives up on the "will he rise" problem for RHO when he has the spade Ace but not the Queen.
"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."
So if I understand it correctly, ken and I agree, and brad chose to play a spade at trick 2?
Maybe I put too much emphasis into LHO not leading a (stiff) club, so I think the clubs should be treated as solid. As such my goal is to ruff 2 diamonds. I'm worried about playing a spade up immediately because this may lead to an uppercut as ken mentioned, and it may make it hard to ruff off both of my diamonds.
I'm sure Brad had a good reason for what he did though and I was not at the table obv. Or maybe he was tired or whatever and just took an inferior line, despite how good Brad is I doubt it would be the first time it ever happened. For now I will assume that I might have looked something over in the analysis though heh, I didn't think about it for too long.
Help
