[Trumpace]

IMPS/Rubber.

---

What are your discards on the clubs, and why?

[JLOGIC]

Standard operating procedure in this (very common) situation is to come down to a stiff heart, in case declarer has AQ of hearts so they don't have a free endplay (and likewise, because you would stiff your HK if you had it).

I notice people often pitch the 9 of hearts (or whatever their highest heart is) in this scenario, that is a complete giveaway to me, because RHO is much less likely to save the 3 of hearts early in the hand, and pitch his higher hearts, as that requires a lot more foresight, so if you want to exploit some standard tendencies assume LHO has the lower spot if RHO has played multiple rounds of the suit without playing the low spot, LHOs just think they're being ZOMG tricky by pitching the highest one.

Pitch your diamond first here though (on the CQ), as if you pitch a heart immediately declarer can just cash the HA, cross to the CK, and lead a heart up if they are 3334 with AQ of hearts.

All of this should be run-of-the-mill even if you haven't thought about the exact hand that much, it should be standard technique to hold enough winners that you can beat the contract if you are put in.

[vianu2]

And what ? pitch a diamond first, then pitch a heart on the next club then declarer will take the ace heart ; if u don't have the stiff king then declarer will play the last club to RHO and he will make the Q heart at the end.
I don't see there is any defense.
You only have to choose who will be endplayed : you or your pd.

[wyman]

If declarer has ♥AQ, can't he just lead a club up and a heart back to the Q, taking 2 + 2 + 2 + 3 = 9 ? [or HA, CK, heart toward the Q?]

I don't disagree that you should pitch a diamond here and a heart on the club to the K. I just thought it strange that this heart holding was your example. Am I missing something? I'm terrible at visualizing layouts.

[aguahombre]

Justin was talking about technique and defensive concepts on hands such as this. If there is no defense, that doesn't change what a proper try should entail.

[wyman]

aguahombre, on 2011-August-16, 11:23, said:

Justin was talking about technique and defensive concepts on hands such as this. If there is no defense, that doesn't change what a proper try should entail.

Me too, so maybe the issue is what a proper try entails. My point was that if declarer has HAQ, there's nothing we can do, and my understanding of what a proper try entails starts with visualizing layouts where we have a legitimate chance to set the contract.

And like I said, I agree that we need to keep 4 winners and a potential entry card in hearts, since there can be no harm in it: we still set the contract if we get in, and keeping the H9 takes an option away from south. But I just didn't find the issue of HAQ and 3334 with south compelling, precisely because in that case, we're never beating the contract.

[Trumpace]

Apologies for the badly formed problem.

[JLOGIC]

wyman, on 2011-August-16, 11:53, said:

Me too, so maybe the issue is what a proper try entails. My point was that if declarer has HAQ, there's nothing we can do, and my understanding of what a proper try entails starts with visualizing layouts where we have a legitimate chance to set the contract.

And like I said, I agree that we need to keep 4 winners and a potential entry card in hearts, since there can be no harm in it: we still set the contract if we get in, and keeping the H9 takes an option away from south. But I just didn't find the issue of HAQ and 3334 with south compelling, precisely because in that case, we're never beating the contract.

Wyman, the point is you might have Kx of hearts, and stiff your K (if you don't you will get endplayed 100 %). Therefore, you give declarer a guess. He will probably guess right, but he might not. It is a common error to assume declarer knows what you have. The more losing options you give them, the more chances they have to go wrong.

Cliffs: If you come down to 1 heart, declarer might try to drop your now stiff K. If you come down to 2 hearts, declarer can claim.

[JLOGIC]

Trumpace, on 2011-August-16, 12:20, said:

Apologies for the badly formed problem.

Huh? This was an excellently formed problem. These are the types of plays that come up all the time that matter. Grinding out little extra chances, deceptive or technical, is the crux of bridge, and what makes the difference between the very good and the great.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-17, 00:52, said:

Wyman, the point is you might have Kx of hearts, and stiff your K (if you don't you will get endplayed 100 %). Therefore, you give declarer a guess. He will probably guess right, but he might not. It is a common error to assume declarer knows what you have. The more losing options you give them, the more chances they have to go wrong.

Cliffs: If you come down to 1 heart, declarer might try to drop your now stiff K. If you come down to 2 hearts, declarer can claim.

But as Vianu2 pointed out, if declarer has Jxx AQx Qxx AQxx, he can play to drop your singleton king and then claim. Partner will be down to ♥KJ and ♣Jx, so declarer exits with a club and waits for a heart trick.

Our only legitimate chance is that declarer is off-range, with Jxx AJx Qxx AQxx. With that hand he can still make by playing a club to dummy and a heart up, ducking if partner splits. To give him a losing option, we should still discard down to a singleton heart.

[Trumpace]

JLOGIC, on 2011-August-17, 00:53, said:

Huh? This was an excellently formed problem. These are the types of plays that come up all the time that matter. Grinding out little extra chances, deceptive or technical, is the crux of bridge, and what makes the difference between the very good and the great.

Thank you

By badly formed I meant not being able to put the point across in a compelling way, (For eg: With 3334 and AQx hearts, declarer has a 100% line, no matter what you do) and the point of interest could likely be dismissed as irrelevant on this hand (in fact, I suppose it was, by a couple of posters).

[Free]

If we're looking to defeat the contract, then we need to hope declarer has to find some ♥s for his contract. If he fails, we need partner to cash 4 tricks.

So, if declarer holds ♣AQJxx, he doesn't even need the ♥s. If he held ♣AQTxx he would've played differently. Even with AQxxx he wouldn't block himself imo. So my guess is he has at most 4♣s without the ♣J and ♣T and is trying to discover where to find the ♥K (if ♣ break 3-3 he doesn't need ♥ either). Partner has 3-5(6)HCP, so he may just have ♣JTxxx and ♥KJxxx/KQxxx, which would be perfect to have a chance of defeating 3NT.

If we give the show away and make it clear that partner has ♥K, declarer will finesse and make his contract. But if we can make it look like we have the ♥K, declarer has 2 options: either cash ♥A hoping for the drop, or endplay us in ♦ hoping we have to bring the ♥ trick. It looks to me that discarding a ♦ first and a ♥ next is the best we can do. If declarer decides to cash ♥A, partner will need to have ♥KQxxx (otherwise a ♣ endplay will give declarer his 9th trick). But declarer can also make a mistake and play ♥A, ♥Q when partner holds ♥KJxxx.