5-level defense

[sathyab]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=st92h43dk87ckjt43&w=saj6h97dt5432ca95]266|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Playing in a club game where North is known to be a decent player, the bidding goes (1h)-p-(1nt)-2s-(4h)-4s-(p)-p-(5h)-all pass.

 

You lead the Ace of Spades, partner plays the 3 of spades, playing UDCA, after considerable thought. How do you continue ?

[whereagles]

If pard had the ♦A, he might have discouraged spades. I'm going to credit declarer with 7 hearts to the AKJ or better and A of diamonds. That doesn't leave pard with much more than 6 spades and perhaps the ♣Q. I'm going to lead a low club now.

[mikeh]

I am answering this before drinking my morning coffee, so my synapses may be sputtering even more than normal.

 

I rule out a small ♣ for two reasons: there can be no hurry to play a small ♣: declarer's ♣s are not going anywhere. The only exception is if partner holds precisely Qx and declarer misguesses and we get to give partner a third round ♣ ruff. On any other holding, a small ♣ cannot gain and may lose. A good declarer, holding xx or xxxx in ♣s will ask himself (or herself) why West would be switching to a low ♣ from Qxx. Other than spy v spy ruminations (no good player would lead from Qxx so I should lead from Qxx because declarer won't believe it), there is no reason for declarer to put in the J rather than the K.

 

A high ♣ makes more sense, on the basis that maybe declarer is 1=7=1=4, maybe with x AKQxxxx A Qxxx... leaving partner with not much for his 2♠ bid.... but that's ok... I certainly want my non-vul partners to bid 2♠ over 1N with KQxxxx xx QJxx x.

 

Partner had to encourage ♠s because discouraging would have suggested a ♦ shift.... those playing 'obvious shift' systemically suggest a ♦ shift here by discouraging ♠s and even those who do not formalize the signal would think that a ♦ shift was the most logical. So partner had to encourage ♠ to hope that you would look deeper, and realize that a ♠ continuation had to be wrong and that partner did not want a ♦ shift.

 

So I play A and another ♣

[awm]

So there's no issue with partner's tempo here? It seems like partner clearly indicated a problem, which could easily be "I really want you to shift to clubs but am afraid discouraging spades would get me a diamond shift" or "I have singleton club, and would like you to shift to clubs if you have the ace, but not if you have the queen."

 

I think I'd feel ethically obligated to continue a spade (the suit partner signalled for) rather than try to find some magical shift that I know may be available due to partner's break in tempo.

[mikeh]

I understand the ethical issue, but surely the game has not devolved to the point that we are forced to make a poor play... a play that literally can never gain.... merely because partner, at the 5 level, thought about his play??

 

The critical test must be whether the cards played, independent of tempo issues, clearly and logically suggest a certain course of action, and my choice of the ♣A is, I think, based on analysis of the play and the auction, not the tempo.

 

As an aside, many commentators have suggested that declarer should ALWAYS take a few seconds to call the card from dummy at trick one. Few follow this, and we do not know if this declarer did. Of course, it may be that 3rd hand took such a long time that even this becomes irrelevant.

 

Let's face it: an encouraging ♠ can never suggest a ♦ switch, regardless of tempo. An encouraging ♠ should never be a strong ♠ come-on, regardless of tempo.

 

It is a truism, often overlooked, that it is impossible to convey more than two bits of information in one card. We can say: we dislike ♠s and therefore ask you make the 'normal' switch or we can say: we prefer ♠s to the 'normal' switch. We cannot further say: we would like you to make the 'unusual' switch.

 

The tempo break could be interpreted in that fashion, but so what? The encouraging ♠ already, in tempo, contemplated a ♣ switch IF leader's hand suggested that this was appropriate: and leader's hand does.

[pclayton]

Lets rule out what pard could have done. Obvious Shift usually saves the day in these situations, but lets try to logic it out.

 

Could declarer have a ♠xx? Possible but highly unlikely. The people I play against tend to double 4♠ with 2 spade losers. So I'm throwing this out.

 

Pard can discourage spades to get a ♦ shift. So I'm not leading a ♦. Also, a trump is pointless.

 

♣Qx is possible in pard's hand, but where are our club losers going? So I'm not shifting to a small club, even though we get it -2 if declarer gueses wrong. Declarer can't strip the hand with only 2 small hearts in dummy anyway.

 

So I'm trying A♣, ♣.

 

As far as the ethical issue, I think if you can completely reason out a hand and find the right defense, that you should be off the hook. Furthermore, if declarer played rapid-fire at T1, I wouldn't worry about partner's hitch anyway.

[neilkaz]

If pard had the ♦A, he might have discouraged spades. I'm going to credit declarer with 7 hearts to the AKJ or better and A of diamonds. That doesn't leave pard with much more than 6 spades and perhaps the ♣Q. I'm going to lead a low club now.

Maybe I don't play in bridge clubs often enough, but there are none close to me, and the games run too late at night, and ethical issues like this always crop up.

 

Anyhow, if I was declaring and you shifted away from the ace in this situation after PD's long thought as to what to signal, I'd scream "director" so loudly that half the club would need to turn down their hearing aids.

 

Just my opinion.. I don't expect much agreement .. neilkaz ..

 

PS I know most here are very ethical and experienced, and it really is UI to even mention PD's long hesitation in signalling.

[whereagles]

I don't follow your reasoning, but ok.

[neilkaz]

I don't follow your reasoning, but ok.

There's a decent possibility that the long hesitation is UI and was interpreted as such by the opening leader if he, after receiving what looks like an encouraging sig from PD, switches to a low ♣ away from his ace. Yes I can see that opener may ruff my next ♠ etc etc etc.

 

So if this problem had originally been presented, as it should have been, without mentionin the long hesitation here, they would be no ethical issues to consider.

 

As it stands, I'll let the director decide whether there was UI or not.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[whereagles]

Well, I honestly think you don't have a case, but ok.

[Codo]

Playing mps, you have to decide: How mayn tricks must I take.

In this case, I see no way, that we can make 4 Spade, so 3 tricks will be nice.

If they can make 5 ♥ anyway, I better don´t allow them to make twelve tricks.

 

In both cases, the ace of Club looks fine. For me it looks so clear cut, that I can see no reason to make a different play due to a long hesitation.

 

And yes, obvious shift makes this a piece of cake: Pd would signal with an honour for the unusual shift and we have no problems at all.

[lowerline]

We have one spade trick. Our club trick isn't going anywhere. Why not continue spades and let declarer figure out where his eleventh trick is coming from?

 

Steven

[Halo]

I'll switch to a diamond.

 

This will gain when declarer has doubleton club and Axx diamonds.

 

On the ethical issue I am not sure that partner tells me anything by thinking about the hand at trick one.

[dake50]

Whatever the agreement is, UDCA here, this is so obvious suit preference that I think partner's play asks Club.

[sathyab]

This hand drove me insane trying to figure out what he could have for 5h. So I played for a distribution, or rather the only distribution, that seemed consistent with the bidding and signals available after trick 1. I placed declarer with x AKQxxxx A Qxxx. This is not a terrible gamble, as you know whatever cards partner has are going to be in the minors, so you hope to find better clubs than diamonds. For the defense unfortunately, Ace of clubs and a club continuation is the only way to beat the hand on this lay-out. It never occured to me that declarer could have xx AKQTxxxx Ax x, yes a 2-8-2-1 hand ;)

 

No matter how long your hearts, you're looking at two spade losers and chances are you'll find either the Ace of clubs or the King of Diamonds, but probably not both. So with that hand I'd double knowing that partner could have the perfecto.

 

In defense, having "figured" out the hand, I played the Ace of clubs, partner playing the six from Q876. He apologized for not playing the eight, although honestly the only card that could have stopped me from continuing clubs was the Queen and that would be very hard to find and be wrong when declarer has a doubleton club.

 

BTW, I absolutely loved partner's 2s bid with KQxxx x QJx Qxxx. Yes, you could pass and hope to balance at the two or three level later, but if it goes 4h on your left, you're out of the auction forever.

 

I mentioned that partner took a while before playing to the first trick, because it did happen and I'm pretty sure at least some of the players would be calling the director rather than congratulating you on your brilliant defense, had it been right. Partner does have a problem after all, he's worried about how many spades would cash and what his signal might mean. It'd be interesting to send this hand to a reputed director with the 1714 hand for declarer and see how he/she would rule.

[Winstonm]

Third hand has the right to think before playing a card. A likely problem being considered is whether or not to play the K of spades or the 3. The King could be wrong if declarer held singleton Jack and Axx of clubs.

[cherdano]

I don't understand partner's problem at trick one. Why isn't encouraging spades (with a low one, not K of course) automatic?

[sathyab]

He did encourage with the smallest spade possible. From his point of view even if the second spade doesn't cash, it's probably safer than any switch from partner probably. But the opening leader's the one who may be reading too much into an innocent come-on signal in spades perhaps. I guess what you're asking is: why should the spade bidder not play the lowest spade in tempo ?

[whereagles]

Come to think of it... I realized it's wrong not to continue spades (pause or no pause). There's uncertainty as to whether the 2nd spade cashes, so the priority is for pard to encourage if he knows the 2nd spade is cashing. So his signal can only mean: "play another spade. I don't want any switch".