skjaeran Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 [hv=d=w&v=b&n=sk5hj7532dj4ca653&s=saq92hk96dak3ct92]133|200|Scoring: IMPW N E SP P P 1NTP 2♦ P 2♥P 3NT P 4♥[/hv]West leads the ♦5 (3rd/5th). Dummy's jack win, east following with the duce (std count). How do you plan the play. The next two tricks when I declared the hand is hidden below. You lead a low trump to the 4, 9 and ace. West switch to the ♣7, you take the ace and east follow with the queen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bhall Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 I wouldn't even have got to first base. Because of entry problems after a ♣ switch, I would either have played low to the ♥K or low toward the ♥J (after playing a second ♦). Following your start, if the ♥s are 4-1, it appears we must rely on the ♠J10 falling, so that we can pitch all the remaining ♣s from dummy (after throwing one on the 3rd ♦). What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted September 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 I wouldn't even have got to first base. Because of entry problems after a ♣ switch, I would either have played low to the ♥K or low toward the ♥J (after playing a second ♦). Following your start, if the ♥s are 4-1, it appears we must rely on the ♠J10 falling, so that we can pitch all the remaining ♣s from dummy (after throwing one on the 3rd ♦). What am I missing? The ♠JT aren't falling I'm afraid. You can still make though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 I wouldn't even have got to first base. Because of entry problems after a ♣ switch, I would either have played low to the ♥K or low toward the ♥J (after playing a second ♦). Following your start, if the ♥s are 4-1, it appears we must rely on the ♠J10 falling, so that we can pitch all the remaining ♣s from dummy (after throwing one on the 3rd ♦). What am I missing? The ♠JT aren't falling I'm afraid. You can still make though. (I assume we all play a heart to the king after your start.)If hearts are 1-4, I see nothing better than playing RHO for 4432 and ♣KQ (cash diamonds, three spades, ruff a space, club exit). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted September 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 I wouldn't even have got to first base. Because of entry problems after a ♣ switch, I would either have played low to the ♥K or low toward the ♥J (after playing a second ♦). Following your start, if the ♥s are 4-1, it appears we must rely on the ♠J10 falling, so that we can pitch all the remaining ♣s from dummy (after throwing one on the 3rd ♦). What am I missing? The ♠JT aren't falling I'm afraid. You can still make though. (I assume we all play a heart to the king after your start.)If hearts are 1-4, I see nothing better than playing RHO for 4432 and ♣KQ (cash diamonds, three spades, ruff a space, club exit). That's right Arend. RHO: J863 QT84 T92 KQ A lucky lead, since it's impossible to make 4♥ without it. The hand came up in a teams game 2.5 years ago. Opponents went -1 in 3NT at the other table. 3NT was made at 2 tables, but nobody else managed 10 tricks in hearts. Not so strange after the lucky lead and my view handling trumps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 I want to go backwards. After the nice part of trick 1, all we need to to is play the hearts for 2 losers to make the contract. I don't know the percentage play, but let's compare low to the king on the first round, and low to the 9 on the first round. If we play low to the king, assume we are playing towards the jack next. The holdings RHO has when it matters which I play are: Qx (x2) - low to the king losesQ10x (x2) - low to the king loses xx (x1) - need to start with low to the kingQxx (x1) - need to start with low to the king AQ10x (x1) - need to start with low to the 9AQxx (x1) - need to start with low to the kingA108x (x1) - low to the king wins This means that low to the 9, followed by low to the king on the next round, is right on the suit in isolation. It's not quite as simple as that, however, because after losing the first round of the suit a club is going to be returned and you need either to play for them to be blocked (take the first one or the second one?) or to cash all your winners. That makes getting to dummy to lead the second trump towards hand a rather dicy matter, and we're at risk of losing a bonus trump to a trump promotion. So I'm not convinced that low to the king isn't better after all. Anyway, we've played this masterful trump to the 9 losing to the ace, and a club comes back. Well, it's possible that LHO has A8 doubleton, but suppose it was singleton Ace. Now we need to endplay RHO. There are two ways to do this: i) Play RHO to be 4432 with KQ doubleton club, or LHO to have A8 doubleton heart - as given (we can afford to cash the HK) ii) Play RHO to have any 4432 - duck the club return, win the next trick, three spades and a spade ruff, two more rounds of diamonds, now down to 3 trumps in dummy and two trumps and a club in hand, ruff the club low in dummy, rho can overruff but is endplayed. This loses to a singleton club on your right, but surely LHO would have led from QJxxx, KQxxx or even KJxxx rather than Qxxxx in diamonds? This doesn't need precisely KQ doubleton on our left (or a failure to unblock). If RHO has only 3 hearts we may still be OK as long as three spades are holding up - at some point LHO may ruff in, but we just over-ruff and play a heart to the King. Also picks up RHO being 4333, but loses to 3334. I think this is a better line. So gold star for the heart to the 9, but I think you should duck the club return! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted September 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 I agree with your analysis Frances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted October 1, 2007 Report Share Posted October 1, 2007 This was a new suit combination for me. And it's not in the Encyclopedia either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted October 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2007 This was a new suit combination for me. And it's not in the Encyclopedia either. The trumps you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.