[kenberg]

I'll give you my hand, East, and the dummy, South. It's matchpoints, it's a club game where I don't know the opponents (or much of anyone). No one is vulnerable.
We are playing upside down count and attitude, and partner generally shows what he has.

opening lead, heart J

---

T1: ♥ J-2-3-A
T2: ♣ 3-2-J-7
T3: ♦ T-6-3-Q
T4: ♣ A-9-T-4

OK, now I have a choice. I am going to stipulate that partner would play his doubletono club as 7-T whether or not he has a trump card higher than the dummy and that he would play the ♥3 at T1 from KQ83 and from KQ3.

Is it clear to you whether I should lead a heart hoping to cash partner's King, or I should lead a club hoping partner can overruff the dummy?

I got this wrong, I am thinking I should have got it right. Maybe.

Or if I was supposed to do something else entirely, what?

[nigel_k]

If you have a cashing heart and partner cannot overruff dummy then declarer has A Ax AKJxx KQxxx. That means, North chose not to open 2♣, didn't cash ♠A before playing a club, and didn't cash a top diamond to cater to stiff Q. All of those are possible but the combination of all of them seems unlikely.

I would rather play declarer for something like Ax A AJxxx KQxxx. I would not have bid the way North did but it wouldn't surprise me at all in a club game.

[kenberg]

You will set the contract, Nigel. I'll give you the hands but then I still want to comment.

---

My thinking was that with North's actual hand, I would not play it as he did. I would lay down the two top diamonds and when the suit split3-2 I would be close to home. I can play AKQ of spades tossing a small club, If they ruff in I (as North) am delighted since I then have eleven tricks by way of five diamonds in my hand, a ruff on the board, two spades, two clubs, one heart. So they won't ruff in, no matter how spades lie. If spades split or the Jack falls I am home by just continuing with the spades. If spades are 4-2, J not falling, then I ruff the fourth spade and now lead a club toward the Jack on the board, planning to toss a small club on a spade if I get there. The only thing that can go wrong is that W might hold the Ace of clubs and the last, and high, diamond. Even then I am safe if clubs are 3-3, and when the clubs are 4-2 the actual North line of play is dangerous anyway.

So I thought he would not play it the way that he did with the hand that he had.

The problem with my thinking is, as you point out, it's not so clear that he would play it as he did with the hand that I need him to hold either. (Although cashing the spade ace and then leading a club toward the board would certainly get me to rise with the ace and play a heart.)

We got a bad board here, which seems a little odd since in fact the line of play I would have followed works just fine as the cards lie. Maybe it was played in no trump at other tables, there are only eight tricks there.

Mea culpa, but I am not quite ready to jump off a bridge over it. I found it interesting to think about later.

[the_clown]

kenberg, on 2013-November-10, 07:55, said:

You will set the contract, Nigel. I'll give you the hands but then I still want to comment.

---

My thinking was that with North's actual hand, I would not play it as he did. I would lay down the two top diamonds and when the suit split3-2 I would be close to home. I can play AKQ of spades tossing a small club, If they ruff in I (as North) am delighted since I then have eleven tricks by way of five diamonds in my hand, a ruff on the board, two spades, two clubs, one heart. So they won't ruff in, no matter how spades lie. If spades split or the Jack falls I am home by just continuing with the spades. If spades are 4-2, J not falling, then I ruff the fourth spade and now lead a club toward the Jack on the board, planning to toss a small club on a spade if I get there. The only thing that can go wrong is that W might hold the Ace of clubs and the last, and high, diamond. Even then I am safe if clubs are 3-3, and when the clubs are 4-2 the actual North line of play is dangerous anyway.

So I thought he would not play it the way that he did with the hand that he had.

The problem with my thinking is, as you point out, it's not so clear that he would play it as he did with the hand that I need him to hold either. (Although cashing the spade ace and then leading a club toward the board would certainly get me to rise with the ace and play a heart.)

We got a bad board here, which seems a little odd since in fact the line of play I would have followed works just fine as the cards lie. Maybe it was played in no trump at other tables, there are only eight tricks there.

Mea culpa, but I am not quite ready to jump off a bridge over it. I found it interesting to think about later.

I have been there before many times, giving the opponents a top after because they make an absurd play and in my view there is no way they hold their actual hand.

On this hand however I think there is enough info to get this right. North is exactly 5-5 in the minors, (with 6♦s he will play from the top). If he doesnt have the ace of spades he is down anyway, so we assume he has it and 0-3-5-5 is also impossible. With stiff ace he would have played it before playing a club.

I confess that I need to be on a very good day to make this reasoning at the table, but its certainly worth thinking about it.

[kenberg]

Yes. I was focused on the fact that if he laid down the stiff ace of spades then I would never let him get to the board to pitch a heart on a spade. True enough, I wouldn't. But assuming that I, East, hop up and then play a heart, we get our club and our heart but my hopping has established his KQJ of clubs. Thus, with ♠, ♥ Ax and ♦ AKJ it woould go
T2 spade ace
T3 small club, I hop up.
T4 cash a heart.
T5 etc He now has to hope the diamond finesse is on.

Sort of a Morton's Fork. If I hop up I establish his clubs, if I don't I let him pitch a heart.

Well, just another day at the races.

[Trumpace]

kenberg, on 2013-November-11, 20:13, said:

Yes. I was focused on the fact that if he laid down the stiff ace of spades then I would never let him get to the board to pitch a heart on a spade. True enough, I wouldn't. But assuming that I, East, hop up and then play a heart, we get our club and our heart but my hopping has established his KQJ of clubs. Thus, with ♠, ♥ Ax and ♦ AKJ it woould go
T2 spade ace
T3 small club, I hop up.
T4 cash a heart.
T5 etc He now has to hope the diamond finesse is on.

Sort of a Morton's Fork. If I hop up I establish his clubs, if I don't I let him pitch a heart.

Well, just another day at the races.

Perhaps this (cashing SA at trick 2) is an interesting deception opportunity for declarer holding Ax, A, AKxxx, KQxxx.

btw, perhaps there is an additional (weak) inference (in support of club ruff) in declarer blasting to 5D (and going past 3NT)?

[kenberg]

Trumpace, on 2013-November-12, 11:39, said:

Perhaps this (cashing SA at trick 2) is an interesting deception opportunity for declarer holding Ax, A, AKxxx, KQxxx.

This also occurred to me, but only after a lot of thought. I'm not that clever at the table and I assume that my opponents aren't either. Usually this is correct. In the thread asking for one quick sentence of bridge advice I suggested that we should assume our opponents are neither idiots nor geniuses. But who knows, maybe when the time comes I will remember this and try it.

Trumpace, on 2013-November-12, 11:39, said:

btw, perhaps there is an additional (weak) inference (in support of club ruff) in declarer blasting to 5D (and going past 3NT)?

Perhaps. But with A and Ax either way I imagine 5m can seem preferable to 3NT. In some ways Ax in spades, stiff A in hearts, might be the preferable holding to Ax in hearts for a 3NT contract since a back up plan of trying to run some spades might work if the minors don't cooperate.

[Zelandakh]

Did noone else look at the play and immediately conclude that the ace was singleton without even thinking about it? It is MPs and North jumped directly to 5 of a minor without exploring for 3NT or slam. How many would have done that with Ax in the unbid suit? Even beginners will usually look for 3NT before 5 of a minor with such a hand if they know how. When you add to that the harder analysis from Nigel it seems like a no-brainer to play for the ruff.

[kenberg]

OK, I think I am convinced.

[PhilKing]

I reject the stipulation about ♥KQx - partner should play the queen at trick one with three hearts.

[kenberg]

PhilKing, on 2013-November-13, 17:32, said:

I reject the stipulation about ♥KQx - partner should play the queen at trick one with three hearts.

It's true that my stipulation was only an opinion. And quite possibly wrong now that you point it out.
Certainly another reason why I could have gotten it right.

Particularly useful: Thinking about partner's choices should be more productive than thinking about the choices of a declarer whom I don't know.