Defensive problem

[jvage]

[hv=d=w&v=b&n=sq9543ht7da7643c7&e=s82hk54dqjckt8542]266|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

 

This is another hand from the weekend. I could have posted it as "Who is to blame", but here it is presented from my side.

 

The bidding:

Partner RHO You LHO

1♣....Pass..1NT... 2♥

Pass..Pass..3♣....3♥

Pass..Pass..4♣...Pass

Pass..4♥....Double All Pass

 

Partner and both opponents are junior internationals. We play 5 card majors and partner would open 1♣ with both 4-4 or 3-3 in the minors. I bid 1NT because I felt the hand was in between an inverted 2♣ (agreed to be at least invitational opposite a 11/12-14NT) and a weak 3♣, and because 1NT was likely to score well in MP if partner got the normal 12-14NT and passes. I doubled partly because I had the tablefeel from South's slow 3♥ that he was stretching. Feel free to critize my bidding.

 

Partner lead the ♠A. We got a simple agreement after an Ace-lead, in this position suboptimal (reverse count would be ideal :) ). I can play small to encourage (to show a doubleton or just to get partner to cash the K) or high to discourage. How do you plan the defense?

 

John

[Apollo81]

I'd play low.

 

I'd have bid 2♣, not 1NT. It's an overbid but it's better than grossly distorting your hand.

[Rebound]

I think I'd discourage to try to get a trump shift. That's just for the record. I'm interested to hear what the experts have to say.

[cherdano]

I would definitely play low. I would only falsecard at trick one if I know something about the deal that partner cannot possible know. If partner has 4 spades, he will know himself that he can't give me a ruff. If he has 3 spades, how can I tell that it would be wrong to give me a ruff? If I had ♥QJ9, it would be a different story.

 

Partner can find the trump shift himself.

 

P.S.: I don't like your bidding sequence. You gave opponents maximum room, then doubled with about -1/2 defensive tricks. I would rather flip a coin between 2♣ and 3♣.

[sathyab]

Given that you have two high spades for sure, you can beat this hand any time partner has Ace of clubs and holds four of fewer clubs by forcing dummy once. I'd encourage, as a spade ruff and high club could be our other two tricks. But my worry is that if pd has four spades he might shift to a Diamond playing me for Diamond King rather than the trump holding that I have. I wouldn't want a trump shift either if I can gurantee a trick by forcing dummy just once.

[pclayton]

Low - Hi.

 

If I discourage, a trump shift looks pretty natural, and it looks like diamonds may run if declarer has something like: xx, AQJxxx, ATxx, x. We still may not get it right, but we have an easy beat if declarer has 3 spades or is missing the A♣.

[Winstonm]

You did better than me - I would have sold out to 3H.

 

Now I have to assume this can be beaten, and that appears only when declarer has Jxx, AQJxxx, K10x, x. or Jx, AQJxxx, K10x, xx, or Jx, AQJxxx, xxx, Ax

 

Partner must surely be 4234.

 

Hand 1 we get 2S, a ruff, and a club.

Hand 2 needs a high club and another high club to force dummy and ensure a trick for the Kxx of hearts.

Hand 3 we need to get our diamond tricks going.

 

I think I will play high, discouraging a continuation, as there are two hands where a switch is preferred and only one where the continuation and ruff is the winner.

Partner will have to work out the best line - hopefully a diamond switch with the king and the club ace if minus the diamond king.

[jvage]

I agree my bidding may not have been optimal :huh:

 

I do think it's correct to double at pairs though. The actual results from the other tables are not surprising. If 4♥ makes undoubled we would get the same zero (you know it will be a bad result, it doesn't have to be a 0). If you get it 1 down undoubled you get about 30% (half the field got a larger plus playing our way, but some had made 9 or 10 in 3♥, the 2 other pairs in 4♥ had gone 1 down undoubled). 200 for 1 down doubled is known to be an excellent score (it would be a lone top). Even if you think the game will make more than half the time it is probably correct to double.

 

Some of the hands posted are not very likely. Since South got relatively few high-cards, I was pretty sure he had 7 hearts for his vulnerable 3♥. And I don't understand why some credits him with both the K and T in diamonds, while some others would like a trump-shift (risking that declarer draws trumps and establish either spades or diamonds).

 

Partners passes are also informative. I would have expected him to bid 4♣ himself with 5 clubs (espescially with a singleton heart). To me the most likely distribution of the unseen hands are 2722 and 4144. Of the relevant highcards partner got A/K of spades and either the ♦K (+ ♣Q or some jacks) or the ♣A.

[jvage]

I posted the first-trick problem because that was what was most heavily criticized by other players in the post-mortem that took place in the bar after the tournament :D

 

What happened was that thinking to little about the problem I encouraged (playing small). Partner (possibly also thinking to little, but he got less information than me about the hand) cashed the ♠K (declarer following with the T and J). Partner now switched to the ♦5. This is not a clear card, I think this should be an attitude position (small promising an honour). Declarer won in dummy, while I played the Q and declarer the 9. Now the ♠Q is played from dummy, and you get another problem. Any ideas?

[jvage]

Not much response on this problem, maybe because everyone would have bid better and avoided the problem :)

 

I only got two decisions to make, unsurprisingly I missed on both tests. When declarer played a high spade I ruffed, and that was the end of the defense. Declarer over-ruffed and played the club Q, and whatever we did declarer could ruff his last club and finesse my now doubleton trump K.

 

If I discard (declarer can do no better than to discard one of his clubs) and ruff the second spade declarer is unable to reach dummy after overruffing to take the trumffinesse. We would get 1 club and 1 trumptrick (or 2 trumptricks if he chooses not to overruff).

 

Declarer had:

JT

AQ98xxx

K9

Qx

 

Partner had:

AKxx

J

T852

AJ9x

 

There are several ways to beat 4♥, but we succeded in giving declarer his doubled game :(

 

John

[Apollo81]

Not much response on this problem, maybe because everyone would have bid better and avoided the problem :)

 

I only got two decisions to make, unsurprisingly I missed on both tests. When declarer played a high spade I ruffed, and that was the end of the defense. Declarer over-ruffed and played the club Q, and whatever we did declarer could ruff his last club and finesse my now doubleton trump K.

 

If I discard (declarer can do no better than to discard one of his clubs) and ruff the second spade declarer is unable to reach dummy after overruffing to take the trumffinesse. We would get 1 club and 1 trumptrick (or 2 trumptricks if he chooses not to overruff).

 

Declarer had:

JT

AQ98xxx

K9

Qx

 

Partner had:

AKxx

J

T852

AJ9x

 

There are several ways to beat 4♥, but we succeded in giving declarer his doubled game :(

 

John

If you played a low spade, this board is pard's fault. He should cash the ♣A and then play a minor suit card...not a third spade.

[Winstonm]

Not much response on this problem, maybe because everyone would have bid better and avoided the problem :)

 

I only got two decisions to make, unsurprisingly I missed on both tests. When declarer played a high spade I ruffed, and that was the end of the defense. Declarer over-ruffed and played the club Q, and whatever we did declarer could ruff his last club and finesse my now doubleton trump K.

 

If I discard (declarer can do no better than to discard one of his clubs) and ruff the second spade declarer is unable to reach dummy after overruffing to take the trumffinesse. We would get 1 club and 1 trumptrick (or 2 trumptricks if he chooses not to overruff).

 

Declarer had:

JT

AQ98xxx

K9

Qx

 

Partner had:

AKxx

J

T852

AJ9x

 

There are several ways to beat 4♥, but we succeded in giving declarer his doubled game :(

 

John

I think you are mistaken in your analysis - if partner continues to the spade Q and you discard, that is declarer's 10th trick - he loses 2S and 1C. All he has to do is take the finesse now while in dummy with 10x of hearts and recross with the diamond Ace.

 

The key is to discourage the spade, as I said earlier.

 

To properly defeat this hand requires partner to hold the heart J and switch to either minor after cashing the spade A. Ergo, a spade discouragement is indicated.

[cherdano]

I really don't see how cashing the second spade can be right. Setting up dummy's 5-card suit when declarer's loser in that suit can't go away...hmm.

[jvage]

I think you are mistaken in your analysis - if partner continues to the spade Q and you discard, that is declarer's 10th trick - he loses 2S and 1C.  All he has to do is take the finesse now while in dummy with 10x of hearts and recross with the diamond Ace.

 

The key is to discourage the spade, as I said earlier. 

 

To properly defeat this hand requires partner to hold the heart J and switch to either minor after cashing the spade A.  Ergo, a spade discouragement is indicated.

Winston: I think you missed the play, partner never played a third spade. He cashed the A and K (after I had encouraged) and switched to a diamond, won in dummy. Now declarer cashed the spade Q, and at this time the only possible entry to dummy is a club-ruff.

 

I started by saying it could be posed as "Who is to blame". We had several chances, but IMO neither action was an egregious error. Partner cashing the second spade was short-sighted, but at the table it is easy to reason "Partner encouraged and may even have a singleton" and then start thinking when it is to late (in this case there was still hope, but it made it more difficult).

 

Edit: A side-issue is that the trick one problem also highlights a pet-peeve of mine. I hate it when people think for ages before either encouraging or discouraging (this is equivalent to some Smith positions more frequently discussed). A good partner knows much more about the position if you start thinking after declarer takes his time and then plays from Dummy. In this case I encouraged on the lead before I had analysed the position completely, to make my play in tempo (declarer had a normal trick one break).

[pclayton]

I think you are mistaken in your analysis - if partner continues to the spade Q and you discard, that is declarer's 10th trick - he loses 2S and 1C.  All he has to do is take the finesse now while in dummy with 10x of hearts and recross with the diamond Ace.

 

The key is to discourage the spade, as I said earlier. 

 

To properly defeat this hand requires partner to hold the heart J and switch to either minor after cashing the spade A.  Ergo, a spade discouragement is indicated.

Winston: I think you missed the play, partner never played a third spade. He cashed the A and K (after I had encouraged) and switched to a diamond, won in dummy. Now declarer cashed the spade Q, and at this time the only possible entry to dummy is a club-ruff.

 

I started by saying it could be posed as "Who is to blame". We had several chances, but IMO neither action was an egregious error. Partner cashing the second spade was short-sighted, but at the table it is easy to reason "Partner encouraged and may even have a singleton" and then start thinking when it is to late (in this case there was still hope, but it made it more difficult).

 

Edit: A side-issue is that the trick one problem also highlights a pet-peeve of mine. I hate it when people think for ages before either encouraging or discouraging (this is equivalent to some Smith positions more frequently discussed). A good partner knows much more about the position if you start thinking after declarer takes his time and then plays from Dummy. In this case I encouraged on the lead before I had analysed the position completely, to make my play in tempo (declarer had a normal trick one break).

After two spades, how can it be wrong for pard to lay down the A♣? If you want a ♦, you'll discourage (yes I know we are catering to -2 and more).

 

Pard shouldn't be directing the defense here, he can't possibly tell what is needed.

 

Also agree that there's no reason to cash a 2nd high spade.