Dinarius

Yes, of course, you're right. Even if the player with ♣️K also has the ❤️K - which he must have for the French line to have any chance, he can lead away from it coz North's third ❤️ means there's no ruff and discard, or at least it still leaves him with a losing ❤️ But, while the Italian started correctly, his finish was almost as bad. Encouraging for mere mortals like me. 😊 D.

[hv=pc=n&s=sk6ha9763d4cat732&w=sjt9753hk8d873c86&n=sa4hqt4dakqtcqj94&e=sq82hj52dj9652ck5&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=p1h1s2c2s3c3s4np5hp6cppp]399|300[/hv] This hand arose today in the European Open. In this case it was in a match between France Open Senior and Vinci. Both reached 6♣ The first time it was played, the French declarer played A♣(playing for the drop) and the stripped the hand of ♠ and ♦ He then threw in East, who was forced to play a ♥ or yield a ruff and discard. When the K♥ was wrong, he was minus one. The Italian declarer took the successful trump finesse and then almost made a mess of the hand. (worth replaying). All he had to do (after stripping ♦/♠ was run the Q♥. West must then give him a free finesse in ♥ or a ruff/discard.) The commentators expressed dismay at the way the French declarer played the hand. They praised the Italian for his line (and criticized him for almost making a mess of it then.) What I'd like to know is this...... Was the French declarer correct in combining chances by cashing A♣ first and then playing for the 50% (I think) chance of the K♥ being right, rather than the straight 50% ♣ finesse? Or was the Italian correct (as the commentators seemed to think) in finessing in trumps? Did the French declarer, in fact, give himself and tiny extra percentage? It was board 14 this morning. Thanks. D.

At what point is a card legally played from Dummy? 1. Declarer calls for a card. Dummy picks up the wrong card from that suit (they mishear or whatever) and places it on the table. a. Can Declarer ask for it to be taken back and replaced by what they actually wanted? b. The next player, defender, quickly plays their card (visible to everyone) before Declarer has time to ask for it to be taken back. Is it now legally in play? i.e. too late to be taken back? I would presume so. 2. Declarer is, say, running a suit from hand. Dummy is left with, say, 10, 3, of that suit. He needs the 10 as an entry to another suit on the table. But, Dummy, who has been playing the cards for Declarer, plays the 10. Can Declarer ask for the card to be taken back, and replaced by the 3? 3. Dummy simply touches a card in Dummy. Must that card be played, or can Declarer ask for his intended card. (I'm assuming Defender has not followed to the play) 4. Anything I've left out? Are rules applying to these situations Federation-specific, or world wide? Thanks. D.

Pass. There's no question, for me.

Agree with almost all of what has been said. To me there isn't even a question. I bid 2♦. Constructive and forcing. D.

I PASS now. But, I'm not sure about my first bid. Realistically, I have only one bid. So, I'd seriously consider 3♣ as my first bid. I have considerable, but narrowly focused, playing strength. It will take very little from Partner to make 9 tricks. Any takers? D.

4♦ is "forcing"? Forcing to what, precisely? And if it's forcing, what would 4♥, by Partner, mean? Thanks. D.

I totally disagree that 4♥forcing is impractical. If it is, he can't merely compete in another suit (♣ or ♦) as he wanted to do here. To my mind, partner is screaming, "I have no defence to 3♥ - he can't, you're looking at 4 of them! - I can't bid 3NT on my own, and I don't have enough to force with 4♥. Nor do I have enough to bid 5♦ on my own." So, he competes with 4♦- to which you have NOTHING to add. "Look after the averages and the tops will look after themselves." as they say. Doing that here, by passing 4♦, will be the winning action in the long run. D.

As I asked in my first reply: Is partner forcing, or merely competing? To my mind, he is merely competing. And this is what appears to have been the case here. If Partner wants to force he can Double (if it's not for penalties at this level), or bid 4H. He could also have bid 3NT with ♣K,x and ♥K,x and a stack of diamonds. Granted, this is highly unlikely, and so it proved here. (4NT now by Opener is still bonkers, in my view) If Partner had a stack of diamonds and a 5/6 loser hand, I would have expected him to bid 5♦on his own. He didn't. What's more, he bid the last suit I wanted to hear AND, I'm both minimum for my original opening AND unsuitable for his hand. Passing will gain most of the matchpoints, most of the time, in this situation. This was no exception. I would expect 4♠, 4♥ (by them, obviously) and 4NT to not have a prayer. And I would expect 5♦to be gambling, at best. (Also, if 5♦makes, and there are one or two in it, I'm probably getting a second top, or near second top for my 4♦+1.) D.

I'm not surprised that passing was the winning action. That's what I intimated in my first reply. As I already wrote, 4♦️ does not improve your 7 loser hand one iota. In fact, you could argue that 4♦️ is the last bid you want to hear. It is like the dreaded 2NT response, neither here nor there. At matchpoints, taking an almost certain plus score, when a misfit is suggested, is rarely the wrong course of action - and so it proved here. Also, by passing, you are waiting in the long grass to double 4❤️ If they carry on. I would expect a diamond lead to slaughter 4❤️. Passing is a win/win action, in my view. D.

First question: "Is partner forcing or merely competing?" I assume the latter. I started with a seven loser hand, and 4♦️doesn't improve it greatly. I have three quick tricks, but I expect a stack of ♠️ on my right. So, I'm not bidding 4♠️. The best player I ever played with said that sometimes you have to "manufacture" a bid. Is that what partner has done here? Could 4♦️be first round control agreeing ♠️? Or does he hold seven or eight ♦️AKQ etc...? I presume the latter. And if he's that confident of 4♦️, why not bid five? I have nothing extra to offer over my original opening bid. Up to what level were negative doubles agreed? Passing and taking an almost certain plus score might not be bad at this scoring. 5♦️may well go down to ❤️ and ♠️ ruffs. Wouldn't consider bidding 4NT natural for a second with ♣️J, X, X. Am dead curious. 😎 D.

Exactly my thinking, because lead is almost certainly a singleton. But, if South covers you ruff, right? And then what? Is the only hope now that lead was a doubleton and you knock out Ace diamonds? Thanks. D.

The bidding is as follows: North East South West 1♥️ Dble. 3♥️ 4♦️ 4♥️ 5♦️ Pass Pass Dble. Pass Pass Pass East ♠️A Q 7 5 2 ♥️6 5 ♦️K 10 9 4 ♣️A K West ♠️4 ♥️7 ♦️Q J 8 6 5 2 ♣️Q J 10 8 4 North leads ♣️9. How do you play the hand? D.

Fromage, What's T-Walsh? Thanks. D.

Phew! Thanks for the replies. A few things emerge.... 1. There is no right answer. 2. An agreement is necessary. When I posed the original question, I should have been more generic about the 4,3,3,3 holding. I didn't want answers that took the specific qualities of the above holding into consideration, though I guess that was inevitable. And, yes, 4,3,3,3 holdings do suck. Tactically, one consideration is that all the weak NTs and non-Vul Variable NTs will be playing in 1NT opposite partner's weak hand. I do like the suggestion above that, at Pairs scoring, you have the opportunity to find a 4/4 major fit (your 4 could also be in Hearts) and you should consider looking for it. Thus, one agreement might be; 1. At Pairs, rebid the Major. Partner can pass, raise to the two level, or bid 1NT, as appropriate. 2. At Teams, rebid 1NT with 4,3,3,3. You are now playing with a large chunk of the room anyway. 3. At Teams, if you're rebid (after opening 1♣)is the Major, then you are unbalanced. i.e. the Club suit opening was genuine and Partner can Pass, support the Major, revert to Clubs, or bid NT. The above is an attempt to make maximum tactical use of the fact that you have chosen to play Strong NT/5 Card Majors. Make sense? Thanks. D.

You hold the following; ♠ K,10,7,3 ♥ J,10,2 ♦A,Q,6 ♣ K,4,3 As Dealer, you open One♣. Partner responds One♥ Do you rebid One♠ or One NT? Thanks. D.

Thanks for the replies. Ignoring the above hand, but using the same bidding sequence; in your systems, what would a jump to 3♠mean? So.... 1♦1♥ 2♣ 3♠ ....would indicate what? Thanks. D.

♠ J,10,9,7 ♥ A,K,8,7,2 ♦A,9 ♣ K,9 Playing 12-14 NT and 4 card Majors, the bidding goes: Partner You ♦1 ♥1 ♣ 2 ? Fourth suit isn't forcing. Thanks. D.

Thanks again for the replies and for the above link. On the play of the second ♥ from Dummy East follows, so I have now seen all three spot cards. Only the ♥Q is missing. So, I think that this line from solution 1. here is key: "That means you can counter the bias by pretending that East has only one extra unknown card instead of two. You cash the club king and lead toward the ace. East follows. Now he has zero extra unknown cards. So it's a toss-up. The finesse and the drop are equally likely to fail (or to succeed, for those of you with positive attitudes)." In short, I think that it is indeed a "toss up" and that "eight ever, nine never" is as good a guide as any, despite the play of the nine on the first ♥. Pity. I thought I was being more analytical. D.

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I obviously thought too much about it and finessed, losing to ♥Q,9 doubleton. Not 'playing with the room' (who were "Eight ever, nine never", simply playing for the drop) the loss of an overtrick cost me a duck at Pairs scoring. Everyone else was making 11 tricks. D.

The contract is four hearts. Dummy holds; ♥ K,8,7,5 Declarer holds; ♥ A,J,10,6,2 West leads ♠K, having overcalled the suit once. I took the view that, having overcalled ♠, West was slightly more likely to have shortage in ♥ So, I decided to play small to the ♥K first. West played ♥9 on my ♥2. I won with the ♥K and played the ♥5, East playing small to both tricks. Do you now play West for exactly ♥Q,9 and play for the drop, or do you finesse, playing East for ♥Q,4,3? In other words, does the forced play of the ♥9 by West look like a singleton or not? Thanks. D.

The second of your explanations is sheer elegance. :) The theory of restricted choice (which I presume is what you're referring to) hadn't dawned on me. Many thanks. D.

I've been looking at this page........... http://www.bridgehands.com/P/Probability_of_Card_Distribution.htm I'm specifically interested in the first one - i.e. missing two cards. What I want to know is this; why is 1 - 1 52% and not 50%? Why must one play for the drop? E.g. Missing K,x.... The possible distributions are; K,x......- -.......K,x K........x x........K Correct? So, the finesse loses to 1 and 3, and wins in 2 and 4. i.e 50% Right? And playing for the drop loses to 1 and 2, and wins in 3 and 4. i.e. 50% Right? So, why in the above link is the drop a slight favourite at 52%? Thanks. D.

Agreed. 2H. D.

Thanks for the replies. Yes, in our methods, from A,K or A,K,x,x... we lead the A. So, partner either had one of the above, or he was leading from A,x,x... in order to get a look at dummy, before proceeding further. My holding was actually, J,2, so I played the J to give count. Partner in fact held A,K,x,x. He now played small taking the J for a singleton. I disagreed with this reading, as do you above. That's all I wanted to know. Thanks. D.