Defensive Play #2(a)

[ralph23]

You are East. It is the opening lead (by your partner West), and South is the declarer. Your side has not bid.

 

You play 4th best length leads, standard carding & signals, etc., nothing fancy.

 

Contract = 3NT by South, after 1NT-3NT auction.

 

a. W leads ♠4, dummy has ♠AJ9. You have ♠QT2. What do you play if:

1. Dummy plays 9.

2. Dummy plays J.

3. Dummy plays Ace.

 

b. Suppose dummy plays the 9, you play the ten, and you win. What do you lead at trick 2, assuming you do in fact believe (looking at your hand, dummy etc etc) that continuing ♠ is right?

 

Adv & Exp pls hide your answers.

[Quantumcat]

Well you want to keep your cards after dummy. Ten on the nine, Queen on the Jack. On the Ace, not sure, I guess the two, partner can still overtake one of your cards.

 

If your ten wins, I would lead back the Queen to knock out the Ace, then partner's presumed King will take care of the Jack. If I play back a low one, partner has to play the King to knock out the Ace, and I have to play the Queen to get rid of the Jack but I can't give partner all his low ones now.

 

I played in a small congress this weekend and my partner didn't do this in a similar situation. She had KQ8 and me AT to 6. Declarer was before me, had J third. I played a low one, she played her king, then a small one. We had just these three tricks and another (nonworking finesse on partner's side) for a bottom when we could have had 7 tricks (everybody else was in 4S 1 off, but our opponent decided J third was a stop, so could have been a sound top!! Sigh.)

[ralph23]

On the Ace, not sure, I guess the two, partner can still overtake one of your cards.

Are you pretty confident that partner has the King in this situation? Why or why not?

 

If you are pretty confident about partner's having the King, then if partner gets the lead again before you do, do you want to encourage partner to lead the suit again?

[Quantumcat]

You can't see the three so maybe partner led from something like 8 4 3 (8 just a random middle card) or just 4 3. If he has 3, declarer has 4 and bidding is normal but a doubleton, declarer has 5 and wouldn't open 1N (well a lot of people would but I presume he wouldn't). Anyway, even with 8 4 3 why would he lead that against 3 noies? He has to have the King.

 

I don't think it can be right to throw the Queen or the Ten or dummy will make an extra trick, won't it? Partner will figure out what you have and not believe your 2 as a choice. Having the King he plays a low one finessing dummy, then he overtakes my other card and cashes all his tricks so good to continue suit. Either partner will figure out that you're not discouraging and do the right thing or he won't, not much influence you can have on what he does.

 

Is this right? It seems too easy. I think I've missed the point of the problem.

[ralph23]

He [partner] has to have the King.

If declarer had the King, do you think he would play the Ace on the first trick? Of course, you can't see the entire hand, but consider the advantages (from declarer's viewpoint) of playing either the Jack or the 9, if he holds the King. Declarer reasons as follows:

 

1. If I play the Jack, I might win with the Jack.

2. If I play the Jack and East covers with the Queen, I still have a finessing position in dummy with the A9, and maybe West has the ten and the finesse will work. After all, West ought to have something high in ♠.

3. If I play the 9, I might win with the 9 (!!!). OK, not too much faith in this one. But it happens sometimes!

4. If I play the 9, East might have to play the Queen. Then, I can win my King and then I have 3 top tricks easily as my Jack is now good.

[ralph23]

I don't think it can be right to throw the Queen or the Ten or dummy will make an extra trick, won't it?

Will it?

 

Suppose you signal with the ten, when partner leads a low one and dummy rises with the Ace. You've already convinced yourself that partner holds the King by now (it's a dang good bet, don't you agree?).

 

So dummy now (after trick one is played, the ♠Ace winning) has ♠J9, and you have ♠Q2, and partner has (let's hope anyhow) ♠Kxx3.

 

If partner gets the lead, she can lead the ♠3, snarfing up dummy's ♠nine when you win your Queen, and then you return the ♠deuce to partner's ♠King, which in turn snarfs up the ♠Jack.

 

Yes, maybe declarer could have played it more thoughtfully.

 

But if you play the deuce of ♠ under the Ace, partner may believe declarer has the ♠Queen and may abandon the suit, or (heaven forbid) may get in and then lead the King!! You can take the KQ of ♠ then but the suit will be blocked.

 

What's the right play on trick one? Who knows....

[mhais]

if dummy plays 9 i will play 10, if dummy plays j iwill play q, if dummy plays ace i will play 10.

[1eyedjack]

I suppose that if a competent declarer is (virtually) certain to play the dummy a different way when holding the Queen in hand, there is a case for giving count under the Ace, declarer having already signalled to your partner, on your behalf, that you hold the Queen.

 

Such practice is not without dangers. For example, say you lead King from KQTx against NT, and dummy hits with Jxx. Many text books advise that you should give count rather than attitude in 3rd seat, on the grounds that declarer is "certain" to win the Ace at trick 1 in order to establish the Jx tenace sitting over Qx.. for a certain second trick in the suit. Were he to duck with (say) Axx, he risks a switch, with the second round of the suit coming through from RHO later in the play, limiting his tricks in the suit to 1. Thus (according to "the book"), if the King wins trick 1, he should assume his partner has the Ace (declarer having failed to play it) and a continuation is safe without risking a Bath coup.

 

The trouble with that reasoning is that declarer, holding Axx, can then safely duck trick 1, secure in the expectation of a continuation at trick 2, re-establishing the Bath coup. This might be important in order to sever communications between the defence, giving declarer an opportunity to knock out the opening leader's entry before that of RHO.

 

Which is not to say that an attitude signal in that position is better. Just that there are risks attached.

[Echognome]

I can't see any reason not to win cheaply or play the deuce under the A. The only reason I can imagine is if I need to signal to partner to continue the suit if he gets in. I cannot see any problems with blocking the suit though.