[lalldonn]

Sorry the hand is from memory so some of the spots are made up. I believe I have everything relevent correct.

---

You are playing precision, so your 1♥ opening was limited to 15 points if that matters to you. Partner leads the three of hearts. You win the ace as declarer drops the king. Now what? It was matchpoints but if you want to give a different imps answer then feel free.

[quiddity]

I switched to a low diamond.

[PhilKing]

Depends how good declarer is.

[lalldonn]

PhilKing, on 2012-November-29, 16:06, said:

Depends how good declarer is.

Feel free to elaborate.

[rhm]

PhilKing, on 2012-November-29, 16:06, said:

Depends how good declarer is.

I know what you mean

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-29, 16:39, said:

Feel free to elaborate.

Declarer's stiff king may be in spades rather than hearts ...

South has: ♠K ♥Kxx ♦Qx ♣AJ8xxxx

So we should just continue hearts. Diamond king also works on this layout.

Heart is necessary if South has:

♠K ♥Kxx ♦Qxx ♣AJ98xx

Though that looks like a possible 2NT bid.

[lalldonn]

Is that really what you would play for against any declarer? Maybe I'm out of my league not just assuming that kind of thing is going on at the table. Well it was day 2 of the BRP but declarer was not Helgemo, not that it would matter.

[PhilKing]

lalldonn, on 2012-November-29, 17:53, said:

Is that really what you would play for against any declarer?

Er, given that my answer was "depends how good declarer is" you can take my answer as "no".

Unless you meant "is there any declarer you would defend this way against" in which case the answer is possibly "yes".

Back to the drawing board.

[bigbenvic]

Why hasn't partner bid 2♥? IF declarer has stiff K then pards has 3 and I wonder if he has 5 clubs? Could declarer have Kxx and be trying to stop the heart ruffs?

Are there any agreements re leading my suit? what will pards lead from 973? With my partner it would not be the 3 as it would promise an honour, so I'd play low heart.

Assuming that's not the case, At imps I'd probably think about the K♦ hoping to sever communications before declarer can set up ♠ and get back there to run them. That seems a bit heavy handed as if pards has 5 ♣ it might be better to tap declarer. Also if decarer has the Q, he can ruff the third round of ♦ and that might be all he needs.

Everything has lots of flaws, the K♣ could allow time to hook a spade, ruff a spade draw trumps, use the Da to get back and dump some losers on ♠

If I lead a ♦, it hopes for pards having the Q or the J and declarer guessing wrong (if J) but if he has QJ then I've given up 2 tricks.

The spade may allow him to set up ♠, draw trumps and claim lots of tricks.

The ♥ may also allow him to use the J for a pitch and enough time to set ♠, draw trumps and claim lots of tricks.

The ♣ may allow him the chance to set up ♠ as well, so which is the best worst option.

Assume pards has 3 hearts, declarer is 2146 2137 1147 1156 or 0157 (I'll dismiss 8 clubs or more as unlikely!) Pards didn't support so he is minimum, and 3334 is a possibility, it explains why no raise! that would make declarer 1147 so only the ♦ gives him any problem.

If pards has 3 hearts, ssome shape, not 5 ♣ and didn't bid, he must have only 4HCPs and the Q or J of diamonds rates highly to a part of his hand.

I lead the 9♦ and cross my fingers a little bit.

Edit, I started typing response, had to go to a meeting, came back finished it and noticed phils response, I would have typed a lot less had I seen his! Sorry.

[rhm]

Switch to the ♣K.

Assuming declarer's ♥K to be singleton, partner is probably 3♠=3♥=3♦=4♣.
To beat this partner's clubs must be ♣Q97x or better
I play partner for ♠Kxx ♥973 ♦xxx ♣Q97x, which looks reasonable to me.
This gives declarer ♠x ♥K ♦QJTx ♣AJ8xxxx
A red suit play is fatal. A spade switch probably survives, but not really indicated.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhilKing]

rhm, on 2012-November-30, 05:24, said:

Switch to the ♣K.

Assuming declarer's ♥K to be singleton, partner is probably 3♠=3♥=3♦=4♣.
To beat this partner's clubs must be ♣Q97x or better
I play partner for ♠Kxx ♥973 ♦xxx ♣Q97x, which looks reasonable to me.
This gives declarer ♠x ♥K ♦QJTx ♣AJ8xxxx
A red suit play is fatal. A spade switch probably survives, but not really indicated.

Rainer Herrmann

This sounds sensible, but op lost me when he said declarer was not Helgemo.

[quiddity]

rhm, on 2012-November-30, 05:24, said:

Switch to the ♣K.

Assuming declarer's ♥K to be singleton, partner is probably 3♠=3♥=3♦=4♣.
To beat this partner's clubs must be ♣Q97x or better
I play partner for ♠Kxx ♥973 ♦xxx ♣Q97x, which looks reasonable to me.
This gives declarer ♠x ♥K ♦QJTx ♣AJ8xxxx
A red suit play is fatal. A spade switch probably survives, but not really indicated.

Rainer Herrmann

Reasonable imp argument, but at matchpoints I don't see why we should play for declarer to have the ♦Q and not the ♣Q.

edit: On the other hand, a trump play can also work if partner has ♣Jxxx since he can put a diamond through when he still has a club.

[rhm]

quiddity, on 2012-November-30, 14:54, said:

Reasonable imp argument, but at matchpoints I don't see why we should play for declarer to have the ♦Q and not the ♣Q.

edit: On the other hand, a trump play can also work if partner has ♣Jxxx since he can put a diamond through when he still has a club.

Assuming that declarer to be 1♠=1♥=4♦=7♣, declarer has probably the ♣A from partner's pass. The lower minor suit honors are not clearly marked by the bidding.
I can not see why a diamond switch should be indicated matchpoint wise. Since declarer has more diamonds, he is more likely to hold the ♦Q.
Chances that declarer has both ♣Q and ♣J and no ♦Q, where a diamond switch may save a trick is 16%
Chances that declarer is missing at least one of the lower club honors but has the ♦Q, where a diamond switch is fatal, is 35.5%
In the remainder of the cases, declarer has either all minor suit honors or partner has the diamond queen and a club honor, where a diamond switch is not necessary.
But there are layouts where a diamond switch costs even though partner has the diamond queen.
For example give partner both minor suit queens and declarer ♦JTxx and a diamond switch costs a trick, because you are entitled to 2 diamond tricks, if you wait for partner to attack diamonds.
If declarer is ♠x,♥K,♦JTxx, ♣AJ87xxx, he is down on a trump switch.
Maybe you do not pass 2♣ with ♠Kxx, ♥972, ♦Qxx, ♣Q9xx, but I think that is anything but clear cut.
Give partner ♠Kxx, ♥972, ♦Qxx, ♣Jxxx and again only a black suit switch saves the overtrick

Also after a club return declarer has to take the spade finesse, maybe right, but not so clearly indicated.
Give partner ♣9xxx and ♦Q. From declarer's point of view the ♠J and ♠K could be switched, certainly reasonable from the bidding.
On this layout (spade honors switched between East and West), if declarer takes the spade finesse to the ♠queen he is down. If he plays to the ♠ten he makes an overtrick and just makes if he plays to the ♠A.

Of course my assumption maybe wrong, but then show a reasonable layout supporting your view.
Good Bridge at IMPs is frequently also good matchpoint wise. Exceptions exist of course, but are not as frequent as people generally assume.

Rainer Herrmann

[lalldonn]

I played a spade at the table which I now believe is a mistake (though not for the reason it cost). I believed then and still believe a diamond is a mistake since it's just too likely declarer will win the queen plus get a free diamond ruff. I'm now convinced a club is correct. I think I was too focused at the table on killing the spade suit without giving up anything in diamonds.

Declarer actually held - K xxxx AQJxxxxx (I wouldn't have bid that way either). I think partner is correct vul at mps playing precision not to raise with Kxxx xxx QJT xxx though I think he should have led a diamond.

[lalldonn]

PhilKing, on 2012-November-30, 14:40, said:

This sounds sensible, but op lost me when he said declarer was not Helgemo.

I'm not sure how that comment lost you. I wasn't sure how to respond to the claim that you might play for something that you should not play for against any declarer, so I wanted to assure you that this declarer in particular would never make that play.

[PhilKing]

lalldonn, on 2012-December-01, 13:15, said:

I'm not sure how that comment lost you. I wasn't sure how to respond to the claim that you might play for something that you should not play for against any declarer, so I wanted to assure you that this declarer in particular would never make that play.

Because it just did not seem very interesting. None of the active defences had any appeal when compared to a club.

The Kxx false card is pretty common where I come from, but whatever.