sathyab

Arend and I were at the table when this hand came up. It was so interesting, that I saved the hand to analyze it a teaching table later. Quite a few variations are truly double-dummy. If declarer doesn't follow the exact sequence of plays, defense can prevail, but single-dummy, defense finds it hard to exploit it. But there're some useful single-dummy angles too. For EW this feels like a chess problem "mate in 13 moves" :) Declarer starts off by ducking the first ♥. Takes the second one, one high ♦ from hand and another to end in dummy. Now play the remaining high ♦ from dummy. ♣ discard by West is fatal double-dummy as we can see, but even single-dummy, West has to hope that partner has one useful card, the ♠K, as a ♣ card doesn't help directly. So let's say he pitches a ♠, East can spare a black card easily. On the next ♦, West can't still afford a ♣, but if he blanks his ♠A, it's over for the defense. Declarer plays a ♣ to the Q, cashes one more ♦. West still can't afford a ♣ discard, so a ♥ now. Declarer cashes high ♥ and tucks West in with a ♠ for a ♣ end-play. So West's second pitch is a ♥. Defense hasn't given up on the hand yet, they can still get 2♥, 2♠ and a ♣. Now declarer plays a ♣ to Q, cashes the last ♦. West can not blank either of his black Aces, so has to pitch a ♥. After 5♦, two ♥ and a ♣, remaining cards are: West Ax Q - Ax. East in the meanwhile is down to Kxx - - J9 and dummy is QTx - - Kx. Now declarer cashes high ♥, East is forced to pitch a ♠, as does dummy. Declarer exits a ♠ and whoever wins the last ♠ is end-played to give declarer the game-going trick in ♣. Single-dummy, should declarer give up on the finesse for ♣J ? Not clear. If he did, he could go down in the five card ending above when it was makeable.

Couldn't 7♠ be in the picture if you had 4-4-3-2. Is there any way you can still get to a ♠ contract after a 2♦ start ?

Why would North bid 4♠ ? His hand is totally balanced. His partner could easily have only 3♠ and some extras and might even be waiting to double 4♥. And when it got around to South, there was nothing do except pass.

I agree, most people would be hesitant to lead away from KTx. It can work badly on so many lay-outs of the suit, which is why they got a near top. Don't you wish the recaps could include the lead so you don't have to keep wondering at post-mortem how could have played the hand differently/better ? Nice job getting to the finals.

Bidding and play are two different things. E-W bidding will probably not be written up in BW, well not as an example of how to bid for sure. But bad/gamble or however else you want to characterize the double by West, it definitely clued East to play him for quick tricks in his hand. If West passed it's not unreasonable for North to raise to 4♠. If West simply led a ♥ now, is the defense any easier ?

Realize that Bridge is not Chess. If they were the same, bad Bidding, inferior lines of play or defense would never (or seldom) work.

Nice hands. I didn't get the second one on my first attempt, but still felt good to make 12 tricks. Being able to play a hand again so easily is a great tool for practice. Great Job !

This was the entire hand. [hv=pc=n&s=sqj2haj73dj84c943&w=skh965dakq953ckq7&n=sa8654hk4d6ca8652&e=st973hqt82dt72cjt&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=pp1d1sp2s3d3sppdppp]399|300[/hv] If North had ♠AJ I don't think he could go wrong. But as South has two ♠honors, it requires careful play. The bidding was identical at the OT except for the double and declarer made 9 tricks. Not sure if it was because of the double, declarer who's known to be a very fine player went down 2.

I didn't bid 3♦, but my guess is it was probably because of the disparity in length and strength of red suits. If you catch partner with 4-4-2-3 distribution, you'll probably get to 3♥ which may not play well with your weak trumps.

[hv=pc=n&w=skh965dakq953ckq7&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=pp1d1sp2s3d3spp]133|200[/hv] 3S was self-alerted as being competitive.

Oops ! For some reason I kept thinking the problem was to avoid a ♣ ruff, but the problem is more fundamental, as we can not afford a ♣ loser at all.

If RHO can win the first trick in a suit that we attack, he can always play back a ♣ and get a ruff, assuming there's a ruff available and that he can over-ruff dummy. So we have to play a ♦ and hope LHO wins it as RHO is likely to have length and strength in trumps. Playing a ♣ toward dummy is of course dangerous as LHO will win it and return the suit right away.

When partner opens 2nt, I am not familiar with any methods specifically geared toward figuring out if AK of a suit is missing. Most people would simply check for Aces and bid 6nt if two are not missing. Given that, it's interesting that responder bid a direct 6nt. Was he afraid that say 4♣ could be doubled ? Or may be he had exactly 13 and could therefore eliminate the possibility of two missing Aces, assuming partner rarely upgrades a 19 count to a 2nt.

I was interested in 0-5 ♦ break as well. For someone who started out with the idea of either a double squeeze or black suit squeeze against RHO it was not quite clear how to cope with a ♠ return after a ♣ duck to RHO. That the loss of a black suit squeeze is compensated by a ♥ finesse in a simple 1-1-0-1 ending made it easier for me to comprehend.

Curious to know what the 100% line is.

Hands like this are really tough at MP. It's a very aggressive double, but I think it makes sense. The difficult part is for partner to be on the same page as you as to why you doubled and trust that you have a reason for your double. Here he has to trust that you would not double with a stiff ♥. But he may assume that you have ♣KJ for your double, which is not unreasonable and not see the urgency to shut the dummy out. Whether you beat it or not, partner needs to understand that the double was right, as beating it a trick undoubled when everyone else is making +130 was going to be well below average.

You've never played a compound squeeze, I haven't even successfully followed a line of play until now. I loved the second-ending which is consistent with RHO being 6=3=2=2. I thought you were giving up on the double squeeze as you were throwing the ♣ threat from hand, until I realized that dummy's ♣ is the threat in the 3-card ending :) A +1 one for each of the double squeezes in the six-card ending :)

, OK, right that works. If they return a second ♠, I don't know if you can combine chances for a double squeeze and black-suit squeeze against RHO. I'd probably give up on the double and simply go for the black-suit squeeze.

If RHO has only 5♠, he will almost surely have another suit. If it's ♣ there's a simple black suit squeeze against him. If he has ♦ (unlikely see my post above), his partner can be squeezed in rounded suits. The problem is how to combine the various chances. My line gives up on LHO being short in both pointed suits, but works against other lay-outs.

No, it doesn't. In the three-card ending RHO can come down to two ♥ and a ♠. It's the fact that you have the ♠ link that forces him to retain an additional ♠. That's the reason why I went to dummy to play a ♣ in the first place to prevent a second ♠ being returned.

♠ Right that does screw things up. But ducking a ♣ doesn't work if RHO wins and returns a ♠. That was the reason why I went to dummy to play a second ♣, so RHO can't win and play back a second ♠. So may be it's best to overtake the 1st ♦ itself after one high ♣. Then the double works even if RHO has Hx in ♣. In theory LHO can be short in both pointed suits, but in practice, if anyone is short in ♦ it's going to be RHO.

Unblock ♠9 from dummy win in hand. High ♣. ♦K, ♦J when LHO follows overtake, ♣, if honor appears claim, otherwise duck. LHO is out of ♠ now for RHO's 2♠ missing so many ♠ spots. LHO comes back with a ♥. Win in hand. High ♣ as RHO discards, run ♦ throwing a ♠ when RHO guards a ♠. Now to hand with the ♠A. LHO is known to be 2♥ and one ♣ now has to come to a stiff in each of the suits. RHO has a ♠ and a ♥ left. Non-simultaneous double squeeze.

These signals are getting a little complicated as there are three suits are involved. First he played low on the first ♥ to say he liked ♣ (or that he didn't like anything better than ♣). If he had the ♠A, should he have echoed in ♥ to suggest interest in another suit (♠, obvious to both defenders) ? I trust partner's first Smith signal and the low ♠. Not quite so sure if the remaining ones were also thoughtfully played by partner to convey suit preference. It's almost as if there're 8 combinations, like/dislike ♣, have/not have ♠A, have/not have ♦J. This is beginning to resemble vector generation used in Chip Verification ... I liked the answer that didn't rely so much on signals. Most declarers tend to take the 2nd finesse with AQJx. If your declarer played the way he did when he did have AQJx, he probably did better than his counterparts. Or may be he played it the way he did because there was no other way to play it.

It's not out fondness for dog walking that I want to bid the hand differently. I expect competition if I bid the limit of the hand right away. 3♥ making 3 or 4 scores better than 4♠ X -1 at this vulnerability. So, I am not worried if they don't bid my game for me. I am more concerned about them finding a cheap sacrifice against my game.

Even if North passes this hand, and the bidding goes p-(p)-1♥-(1♠), North is stuck for a bid. Unless you have 2♣ available as Drury, you have to underbid terribly or overbid a bit. I'd not be surprised if people that did'nt have a conventional 2♣ bid 2♠.