[Hanoi5]

---

What do you play? Why?

[vianu2]

10 P for the title . And a vote.
To answer... what do we play? bridge... why? because we have nothing else to do...
3♠ ( i like the suit:)
Edit: lol 3 was the lead so 2♠ now ( i still like the suit)))

[Yu18772]

For me (leads are 2nd/4th) - playing the 2 would show partner that I started with 5 card suit, hoping partner would figure out to play it again (I would guess that partner has 3 spades and south has 4 with QTxx, so if i take the K spades are dead).
vinau - I think you missed the "Next" button

[rhm]

Hanoi5, on 2011-August-14, 22:33, said:

---

What do you play? Why?

The ♠J might be from ♠AJx, ♠AJT or ♠AJTx (to unblock).
If it is from ♠AJxx it does not matter, but a low card would be more appropriate, not least because declarer might mis-guess.

I discount ♠AJTx, because partner should have raised with that holding. I know some play differently but I think they are wrong. (If West is completely broke and can not stand a good 4 card raise, he should not bid 1♠ in the first place, doubler will almost never bypass 1♠ with 4 cards)

So I would play the ♠2

Rainer Herrmann

[wyman]

I would play the ♠2 (in tempo) showing partner count. I would make the encouraging-in-spades attitude signal if I have one at T3; I play reverse smith and UDCA, so this will be clear on a red suit lead (I have the lowest unseen card in each red suit), and if partner wins the first club, yuck. GLP working it out. If two clubs are played, I'll get my ♦10 on the table, and we should be good unless declarer has 9 tops.

Agree with rhm that partner cannot have ♠AJ10x.

[Phil]

Agree with Wyman, except once you play the ♠2, that Smith does not apply.

If we didn't like our lead (and wanted something else), then we should hide the 2.

[FrancesHinden]

If declarer has Q10xx in spades why didn't he duck at trick 2? That's one holding he shouldn't have (unless he can't afford 3 quick spade losers).
And if partner has AJ10 he probably should play the 10 on the first round.

So maybe AJ10x is a definite possibility.

p.s. I'd have bid 2S over the redouble.
p.p.s given that I'd have bid 2S over the redouble, I wouldn't raise 1S to 2S looking at some pile of rubbish like AJ10x xx Kxx Qxxx

[vianu2]

I would return 10 from A J10x and J from A J10, and X from A10xx etc

[Free]

Small ♠. Partner shows an odd number of ♠s, it won't be 5♠s from AJ so it must be 3. This means declarer has 4 of them and we need to keep ♠K for communication. Hopefully partner can prevent declarer from taking 9 tricks.

[gnasher]

What Frances said.

[rhm]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-August-15, 14:47, said:

If declarer has Q10xx in spades why didn't he duck at trick 2?

Because there are not enough declarer out there, who are good enough to play like that.
In my view this a typical book argument, but a losing one at the table unless you are playing at a very high level.
Jumping with the given West hand might not be so clever if partner has a strong over-call in ♣ and little in ♠.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

rhm, on 2011-August-16, 03:22, said:

Because there are not enough declarer out there, who are good enough to play like that.
In my view this a typical book argument, but a losing one at the table unless you are playing at a very high level.

It says "Advanced and expert" at the top of the page doesn't it?

Anyway, with ♠AJx, partner might have saved us a problem by playing the jack at trick one.

Quote

Jumping with the given West hand might not be so clever if partner has a strong over-call in ♣ and little in ♠.

That's not a very likely scenario, with an opening bid on the left and a redouble on the right, and even when it occurs 3♣ may play OK. That risk is easily outweighed by the gains from taking away their bidding space when partner has a normal takeout double.

[Free]

gnasher, on 2011-August-16, 05:00, said:

Anyway, with ♠AJx, partner might have saved us a problem by playing the jack at trick one.

Yeah, and by doing so he may as well give away the contract if we held KT9xx...

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2011-August-16, 05:00, said:

It says "Advanced and expert" at the top of the page doesn't it?

Anyway, with ♠AJx, partner might have saved us a problem by playing the jack at trick one.


That's not a very likely scenario, with an opening bid on the left and a redouble on the right, and even when it occurs 3♣ may play OK. That risk is easily outweighed by the gains from taking away their bidding space when partner has a normal takeout double.

"Advanced and expert" is subject to interpretation and I assume it refers here to our play not necessarily to that of the opponents. If somebody had said, declarer is a world class expert, I would reconsider.
I at least know from experience that crediting opponents with too much competence is one way of losing in this game.
I do not mind jumping to 2♠ with the West hand, but consider it borderline. If this is an all expert game, as you seem to assume (you can not have it both ways), the RDBL certainly warns about a misfit.
Claiming doubler should pass 1♠ with ♠AJTx and at the same time claim West should jump is for me the a bit over the top.
West is not obliged to bid over the RDBL if he holds a balanced yarborough with 4 little ♠.
Yes partner might have played the jack on the opening lead, but this would have been less clever if your lead was from ♠KT93

Rainer Herrmann

[mfa1010]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-August-15, 14:47, said:

If declarer has Q10xx in spades why didn't he duck at trick 2? That's one holding he shouldn't have (unless he can't afford 3 quick spade losers).
And if partner has AJ10 he probably should play the 10 on the first round.

So maybe AJ10x is a definite possibility.

+1

Quote

p.s. I'd have bid 2S over the redouble.

+2
Seems textbook to me.

Quote

p.p.s given that I'd have bid 2S over the redouble, I wouldn't raise 1S to 2S looking at some pile of rubbish like AJ10x xx Kxx Qxxx

+3

[FrancesHinden]

rhm, on 2011-August-16, 05:58, said:

Claiming doubler should pass 1♠ with ♠AJTx and at the same time claim West should jump is for me the a bit over the top.

The rest of your post is just disagreeing with me, which is fine, but I don't understand this comment. As I would jump with five spades here, partner shouldn't be raising on minimum hands with four spades so this is at least an internally consistent position.

[FrancesHinden]

vianu2, on 2011-August-15, 22:46, said:

I would return 10 from A J10x and J from A J10, and X from A10xx etc

Yes, you are giving count on the way back. But you aren't solving all problems: now when partner wins the ace and plays the 10, you can't tell if he has AJ10x (win) or A10x (duck).
This hand is a prime example of the fact that some of these positions are technically insoluble.

[FrancesHinden]

rhm, on 2011-August-16, 05:58, said:

"Advanced and expert" is subject to interpretation and I assume it refers here to our play not necessarily to that of the opponents. If somebody had said, declarer is a world class expert, I would reconsider.
I at least know from experience that crediting opponents with too much competence is one way of losing in this game.

I'm not a world class expert and I'm up to ducking from that holding.
Your second statement I've quoted here is true to an extent, but in general if I am playing weak opponents I expect to win anyway, so the problem is less interesting.

[rduran1216]

depends who my partner is. But since its clear he has at least 2 hearts, I can't imagine he made a takeout on a lousy 3244 11 count. If he did, then its his fault when I play the K.

I play the K with confidence, partner surely has a 4243 11 that he should never be raising to 2 spades with, and he's started unblocking for us.

Play the K.

[rhm]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-August-16, 14:19, said:

I'm not a world class expert and I'm up to ducking from that holding.
Your second statement I've quoted here is true to an extent, but in general if I am playing weak opponents I expect to win anyway, so the problem is less interesting.

I'll take note should I ever have to defend against you.
I also "know" to duck with this holding, but I readily admit that at least I do sometimes miss such plays at the table.

Rainer Herrmann