[pooltuna]

DEALER EAST
VUL NS
Scoring IMP pairs

AUCTION
P 1♦ P 1♥
X XX 2♣ 2♦
3♣ 4♣ X 4♥
5♣ 6♥ X all pass

---

Opening lead was J♣

first 3 tricks were as follows:
T1 J♣ 2♦ 5♣ A♣
T2 8♣ 4♣ 9♥ 3♣
T3 J♥ 4♥ 2♥ 5♥


You may not be aware of it but your play to the first 3 tricks has already piqued partner mildly. Which and why? What further disasterous play can you make to really blow his stack?

[cloa513]

Probably ruffing a club as its unnecessary given you don't know the break in hearts. Antagonize partner further would surely be lead a diamond to the ace.
Don't know how you can go off with decent play. Eliminate hearts. Lead to 10 of diamonds. Kind of pathetic to not redouble as a soild contract.

[bucky]

Play a diamond to A, dropping ♦K in East hand, end up making one more trick than an expert would have?

[ggwhiz]

Draw 4 rounds of trumps, lead a low diamond and hope partner doesn't come back..... ever.

The Heart Jack blocked the suit, mildly annoying but a spade to the Queen recovers that.

[NickRW]

You could have ruffed the opening lead (high), rather than playing the ♣A - this would allow us to retain control of the the clubs and not have to worry about a 4/0 trump break.

Ruffing the second club does nothing - you still need to tackle the diamonds for the contract.

Playing the ♥J blocks the suit.

In playing the diamonds, we need to avoid 2 losers. Playing the ace on either the first or second round clearly deals with all 2/1 breaks in that suit. And if they are 3/0 with East, we still don't have a problem. But low to dummy, putting on the 10 if only the 9 appears from West guards against 3/0 the other way as, if West say plays the Jack, we can safely now rise with the ace and our Q+10 will only lose one trick the K+9. And if East takes with the Jack - well they've broken 2/1 - no sweat.

Nick

P.S. Don't know how to do hidden answers in this new forum - and the pages load slowly when there are hand diagrams

[pooltuna]

with the J♣ opening lead no one has bothered to reflect about West's double. It was certainly beneficial to our side as the opps were in effect giving us 1090(not to mention the additional headaches associated with deciding what to do over 7♣. While partner did reflect on the double he was clearly mystified by it. Are you mystified by it? Does the name Lightner ring a bell? So why was the opening lead a ♣? Nevertheless partner blithely drew 2 more rounds of trumps and played the A♦ when his RHO produced the 9. I am still relieved that my "wierding module" is non functional otherwise I am sure my monitor would have been in a thousand pieces when I spoke the killing words " YOU BLITHERING F------ I----" before partner's LHO discarded

[NickRW]

Yes, I saw the double - but a club was lead anyway. Wasn't it Reese who said that Lightner doubles have cost more points than they've gained - someone said that anyhow.

[ggwhiz]

Hehe

There are more ways to un-pacify pard than you can shake a stick at.

I once underlead 8 solid against a slam, partner won with the 7 and returned.... drum roll..... a trump!

[pooltuna]

ggwhiz, on 2010-October-20, 10:37, said:

Hehe

There are more ways to un-pacify pard than you can shake a stick at.

I once underlead 8 solid against a slam, partner won with the 7 and returned.... drum roll..... a trump!

good thing your "weirding module" was non functional. BTW what is your handle ...Vesuvius or Aetna? I occasionally use Santorini

[bucky]

NickRW, on 2010-October-20, 09:33, said:

Yes, I saw the double - but a club was lead anyway. Wasn't it Reese who said that Lightner doubles have cost more points than they've gained - someone said that anyhow.

It wasn't a Lightner double (the doubler doesn't have any void suit)... just an amusing story put together by clueless defender and declarer.

[pooltuna]

bucky, on 2010-October-20, 12:18, said:

It wasn't a Lightner double (the doubler doesn't have any void suit)... just an amusing story put together by clueless defender and declarer.

A Lightner double does not require the doubler to have a void. The double merely requests an unusual lead. In this case opener's first bid suit ♦s.

[bucky]

pooltuna, on 2010-October-20, 13:48, said:

A Lightner double does not require the doubler to have a void. The double merely requests an unusual lead. In this case opener's first bid suit ♦s.

Of course. But why would you want partner to lead diamond in this case? The declarer will probably need to set up diamonds, so you actually want a non-diamond lead to establish another trick before diamonds get set up. A more logical explanation is that doubler has diamond void (and in such a case, leading a diamond does beat the slam). But of course, the double turned out to be just random, I doubt that it was even intended for lead directing.

[pooltuna]

bucky, on 2010-October-20, 13:59, said:

Of course. But why would you want partner to lead diamond in this case? The declarer will probably need to set up diamonds, so you actually want a non-diamond lead to establish another trick before diamonds get set up. A more logical explanation is that doubler has diamond void (and in such a case, leading a diamond does beat the slam). But of course, the double turned out to be just random, I doubt that it was even intended for lead directing.

Since I didn't bid the opponents cards I can only speculate on why they made the calls. And certainly the X is uncalled for except in a Lightner sense. Maybe the opp was worried about being subjected to a strip squeeze and forced to lead from his diamond holding ?!?

[bucky]

pooltuna, on 2010-October-20, 14:05, said:

Since I didn't bid the opponents cards I can only speculate on why they made the calls. And certainly the X is uncalled for except in a Lightner sense. Maybe the opp was worried about being subjected to a strip squeeze and forced to lead from his diamond holding ?!?

LOL.

[Free]

pooltuna, on 2010-October-18, 21:09, said:

You may not be aware of it but your play to the first 3 tricks has already piqued partner mildly. Which and why? What further disasterous play can you make to really blow his stack?

Why? Because you have a laydown slam (unless trick 1 gets ruffed - highly unlikely) but you decide to ruff a ♣ loser while you can safely discard it on the 3rd ♠ after drawing trumps.
The best disasterous play now is to play low ♠ to the Q, followed by ♦A. Obviously you can duck 2♦s and a ♠, but that's a bit over the top don't you think?

[Siegmund]

Well, if I had been either north or south, the auction would have already made me blow my stack. (Presumably you have some very different agreements about XX and 2D in this sequence than I expected.)

As to the play, forgetting to ruff T1 and preserve CA as insurance against 4-0 trump break was pretty awful. If you get that right the only thing left to do is spot the safety play in diamonds (doesn't matter if you block the spades, you don't need 3 spade tricks.) Given the mess you've made of it so far, well, I guess the best you can do is pray hearts are 3-1 and still take the safety play in diamonds if they are.

[655321]

Siegmund, on 2010-October-23, 12:28, said:

As to the play, forgetting to ruff T1 and preserve CA as insurance against 4-0 trump break was pretty awful. If you get that right the only thing left to do is spot the safety play in diamonds (doesn't matter if you block the spades, you don't need 3 spade tricks.) Given the mess you've made of it so far, well, I guess the best you can do is pray hearts are 3-1 and still take the safety play in diamonds if they are.

Umm, tricks 1 and 2 were fine, we have 9 trumps and the contract is still 100%. Playing the ♥J instead of the ♥A at trick 3 was a bit odd, but you are actually OK if trumps are 4-0 because spades won't be 8-0 on the bidding, so you can cross to the ♠Q, draw the last trump, and still cross back to a spade to play a diamond up.

Comments like 'pretty awful' and 'Given the mess you've made of it so far' might be better saved for when they are applicable.

[nige1]

ON BBO, unless the double of 6♥ was alerted and explained, Pooltoona's irritation should be directed at his LHO not partner.

[pooltuna]

nige1, on 2010-October-23, 17:37, said:

ON BBO, unless the double of 6♦ was alerted and explained, Pooltoona's irritation should be directed at his LHO not partner.

Not sure if Lightners fall under general bridge knowledge or require an alert. Anyone not taking the safety play of low to the T♦ when their RHO plays the 9 and is my partner deserves my irritation whether it works or not, if he is my opponent he only gets a smirk

[bucky]

pooltuna, on 2010-October-25, 14:12, said:

Not sure if Lightners fall under general bridge knowledge or require an alert. Anyone not taking the safety play of low to the T♦ when their RHO plays the 9 and is my partner deserves my irritation whether it works or not, if he is my opponent he only gets a smirk

Just curious, did your partner indeed misplay the diamond for down 1? I thought he was just trying to bring up your blood pressure in first 3 tricks (note that none of these actually cost anything, unless hearts were 4-0 AND spades 8-0)...