Discards

[ralph23]

♣♦♥♠

 

Yes, this one came up the other day so puleeeeze, no one whining "it's a book hand, it's a book hand....." Yes, I'm sure some book somewhere contains this theme. But the theme comes up all the time, even IRL and b/i's may have a hard time with it so....

 

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=skj87hq743d842ck4&w=s6432h52dkj3cq987]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

EW are silent. NS play 5 card majors with Bergen raises.

South deals and opens 1♥.

North bids 3♣, alerted as a Bergen raise.

South bids 4♥, ending the auction.

 

You, West, (since this isn't an opening lead problem :lol: ) get off to the inspired psychic lead of the 3 of ♦.

 

Declarer asks and is informed that your partnership plays "3rd/5th" length leads against suit contracts (and not 4th best length leads); and that therefore from a 4-card holding (or a 6-card holding), you lead not 4th best, but instead your 3rd best card. From 3, 5, or 7 card holdings, you lead low.

 

Partner wins the first trick with the ♦Ace and at trick 2, he returns the ♦5.

 

T2. Declarer plays low and you win your ♦ Jack.

T3. You lead your ♦King and partner follows suit, and declarer drops the ♦ Queen.

 

T4. You decide the time for heroics is over, and lead a trump, which declarer wins in dummy with the Queen of ♥, partner following small.

T5. Declarer leads a small trump from North, partner plays the ♥Jack and declarer wins the Ace of ♥ in his hand.

 

Trumps have obviously been all drawn at this point.

 

T6. Declarer now leads the King of trumps from his hand, and it looks like he is planning to play out 2 or 3 rounds of trump.

 

So you may need to find 3 discards. What are they, and why?

 

nb - your partner's first discard, on the King of ♥ at trick 6, is going to be the case ♦.

nb2 - there is no necessarily correct answer, but what is your reasoning behind your plays?

 

Adv & exp. pls hide your answers.

Edited September 7, 2007 by ralph23

[ArcLight]

 

Pard could have signaled in ♦ if he has an Ace, so I'll temporarily discount this. I assume its not part of the problem since you never gave us the spots played by declarer.

 

Declarer went to game opposite a Limit Raise so should have either a stiff or more than a minimum. So far he is ?=5=3=?. WIth a stiff spade and 4 clubs, he would be ruffing clubs, which he isnt doing. WIth a stiff Club and 4 spades He has his game, assuming he has the Club Ace, because the spade Q will drop, unless he finesses right away.

 

I think its more likely the side suits are 3-2.

If S/C are 3/2 then he will probably finesse them.

If S/C are 2/3 he would try and ruff them in hand.

 

I think ♠♣ are 3/2

 

Discard a couple of Clubs.

Our Spades are "worthless" but I want declarer thinking I'm protecting the Q.

I suspect pard has the Spade Q.

 

 

I like this problem

[jdonn]

There is a very simple logical reason to discard only clubs. If declarer had any more than 2 he wouldn't be drawing all dummy's trumps, he would be using them to ruff a club or two. So you play him to be 3532 and you don't want to help him guess spades by discarding any in case he has ATx, or for that matter if you discarded spades he might even guess to drop the queen if he holds Axx, which is a huge disaster.

[skjaeran]

Declarer has x53x distribution. If declarer had ♣Axxxx and a spade void, he'd establish the clubs by ruffing two. If he's got ♠A and 4 clubs, he could ruff one and discard one on the ♠K. So on the 3rd trump I can safely drop a club. On the 4th trump I can do the same. Declarer no longer can have more than a doubleton club - else he'd ruff one in dummy. Obviously his distribution is 3532. I'll keep my spades to give him a guess for the ♠Q.

[Finch]

The ♦3 lead is (very) aggressive but not ridiculous or psychic, particularly when partner did not double 3♣.

 

Of course, if you had invented the hand, you'd have given the leader KQx of diamonds.

[1eyedjack]

Declarer asks and is informed that your partnership plays "3rd/5th" length leads against suit contracts (and not 4th best length leads); and that therefore from a 4-card holding (or a 6-card holding), you lead not 4th best, but instead your 3rd best card. From 3, 5, or 7 card holdings, you lead low.

Not that it is in any way relevant to the problem, but I note that Vinje recommends leading 4th from a 6 card suit even when otherwise playing 3rd and 5th. He reckons that the odds of 3rd highest costing a trick outweigh the odds of partner misreading the length (and it mattering). In fact I personally dislike leading 3rd from a 4 card suit much of the time for the same reason, hence my personal preferance for "reverse 3rd and 5th" (ie 4th best!)

 

BTW if posting a problem in B/I forum I think you should probably explain what a Bergen raise means, if it is used and relevant - especially with the prevalance of players who play reverse-Bergen and think it is standard.

[skjaeran]

Not that it is in any way relevant to the problem, but I note that Vinje recommends leading 4th from a 6 card suit even when otherwise playing 3rd and 5th. He reckons that the odds of 3rd highest costing a trick outweigh the odds of partner misreading the length (and it mattering). In fact I personally dislike leading 3rd from a 4 card suit much of the time for the same reason, hence my personal preferance for "reverse 3rd and 5th" (ie 4th best!)

Helge Vinje was a leading Norwegian expert on defensive methods, the author of "Det norske fordelingssignalet: nøkkelen til godt motspill" (The Norwegian Distribution Signal: the key to good defence. As far as I know this book was never translated) in 1960 and "Presisjonsmotspill i bridge" in 1976, also published as "New ideas in defensive play" in 1979.

 

In Vinje's first book the count method known all over the world as "Standard count" was published for the first time, having been in use by the leading players in Academic Bridge Club in Oslo for some 3-5 years.

 

The Norwegian lead was also described in this book. The main idea is to tell partner at early as possible the number of cards in the lead suit when leading a spot card - in the same way as you give count. Thus you lead high-low from an even number and your lowest (low-high) from an odd number. Form four you thus normally lead your 3rd highest card, on occasion your 2nd (for example froom K532, since the 5 is easier read as 'high' than the 3). From 6 you lead 4th, since the 5th will often be read as the lowest in a 5-card suit).

[ralph23]

♣♦♥♠

 

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=skj87hq743d842ck4&w=s6432h52dkj3cq987&e=sq5hj6dat95cj6532&s=sat9hakt98dq76cat]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

As everyone noted, the "best" solution is to discard only ♣. You are trying to look like a man who holds the Queen of ♠. Your reasoning, as explained in the hidden above, is basically:

 

"Declarer was dealt 8 cards in the red suits. When partner returns the ♦5 at trick two (the lowest available ♦), and the diamonds ride for around for 3 entire rounds, you know that partner started with 4♦s; had he started with 3♦s, he would not have led the ♦5 at trick 2, but instead e.g. the ten (his higher of two remaining).

 

Declarer therefore has 5 black cards.

 

If he lacks a black ace, he will be going down, so we'll disregard that possibility and assume he has both black aces.

 

If declarer started with 4♠, then partner has a stiff ♠ and nothing I do matters.

 

If he started with 1 or 2♠s, then he has 4 or 3 ♣s; but then he would have ruffed some ♣s in dummy, so this can't be true.

 

So I must assume he has 3♠ to the Ace and ♣Ax, and is wondering who to finesse for the Queen of ♠; maybe he has something like ATx."

 

If you don't voluntarily throw any ♠s, and declarer plays off his two top ♣s before touching ♠s, he may play you to have the ♠Queen and go down. If you carelessly toss a couple of ♠s because "they're so small and worthless" he may lead a ♠ to dummy's King and finesse your partner.

Edited September 9, 2007 by ralph23

[1eyedjack]

Perhaps a rider to this is that had you in fact held Qxxx of Spades instead of xxxx it might be wise to discard a spade (perhaps 2?) to try to create the impression that you do not have the Queen.

 

But then, if Garozzo did that, maybe you should assume he has the Q if he discards a Spade.

 

But then if Zia was playing against Garozzo, perhaps back to square one.

 

I will stop here before my brain starts to fizz

[ralph23]

Perhaps a rider to this is that had you in fact held Qxxx of Spades instead of xxxx it might be wise to discard a spade (perhaps 2?) to try to create the impression that you do not have the Queen.

 

But then, if Garozzo did that, maybe you should assume he has the Q if he discards a Spade.

 

But then if Zia was playing against Garozzo, perhaps back to square one.

 

I will stop here before my brain starts to fizz

Yep, which is why I said in the OP, "there's no necessarily correct answer." A good player might try Spy v. Spy and discard a ♠ from Qxxx. Or not. Double reverse upside down psychology with a triple twist.

 

The point for the b/i's is to recognize the situation as one in which you must "help your partner" --- he's subject to being finessed and you must try to convince declarer to guess the wrong way.

 

How do you execute that purpose? No one knows for absolute positive sure. I, for one, would hold onto ♠s as long as I could, but a good player might discard one, but that ruse could backfire. Or holding them might backfire. Who knows?