jchiu Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 Second in hand, at unfavourable vulnerability, you pick up ♠ AK85 ♥ Q9863 ♦ Q2 ♣ 86 Dealer, at your right, opens a strong notrump, over which you bid an aggressive 2♣ to show both majors. Lefty, following fast denies, instantly places 3N on the table. You lead the ♥6 and see ♠ 1096 ♥ J4 ♦ A9B3 ♣ AQ109 ♥ 6-J-7-2♦ A-4-10-2♦ B-5-J-Q You play upside down carding, give your answer for both IMPs and Matchpoints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmc Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 What did declarer play under the J and 8 of hearts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 What did declarer play under the J and 8 of hearts? And what did partner play on the first two rounds of diamonds? And is it IMPs or matchpoints? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
655321 Posted March 28, 2008 Report Share Posted March 28, 2008 You lead the ♥3 and see ♠ 1096 ♥ J6 ♦ A9B ♣ AQ108 And clearly we were so excited at the sight of the ♦7 in dummy that we forgot to see dummy's 13th card... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jchiu Posted March 31, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Edited, after obtaining a copy of the hand records ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Any Smith here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Top spade. It would be nice to get a count signal on this so I know whether to continue high or low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Top spade. It would be nice to get a count signal on this so I know whether to continue high or low. Maybe at MPs. We might need both spade entries to cash our hearts however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Top spade. It would be nice to get a count signal on this so I know whether to continue high or low. Maybe at MPs. We might need both spade entries to cash our hearts however. On what hand could a heart possibly set? Declarer obviously has hAK dKJ, so you can never get the hearts setup before he has 9 tricks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Top spade. It would be nice to get a count signal on this so I know whether to continue high or low. Maybe at MPs. We might need both spade entries to cash our hearts however. On what hand could a heart possibly set? Declarer obviously has hAK dKJ, so you can never get the hearts setup before he has 9 tricks. Never mind me, all of my posts are brain dead. 15 sessions last week :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Partner should give count at trick one, so his hearts are 1075, 107 or 7. Not playing Smith, partner's diamond spots should be suit preference, so he doesn't have ♠Q. He may have ♣K, or may not have either honour. We can beat the contract when:- He has ♣K and three spades, and declarer has only three diamond tricks.- He has ♠Jxxx. Playing IMPs, I cash a top spade and examine partner's signal. If he has Jxxx, I cash the suit; otherwise I lead a low spade and wait for partner to get in with ♣K. Let's hope we're on the same wavelength about how he signals in this position. It's harder at matchpoints. Ducking a spade costs a trick when declarer has five diamonds and ♣K, or ♣KJ, or ♣K plus a fourth heart (I get squeezed), or four spades plus ♣J (partner has no spade to play when in with ♣K). I may already be ahead of the field, as other declarers may play the diamonds differently. However, I think I'd still play to defeat the contract - partner is more likely to have ♣K than not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Not playing Smith, partner's diamond spots should be suit preference, so he doesn't have ♠Q. or he just has a doubleton diamond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 Not playing Smith, partner's diamond spots should be suit preference, so he doesn't have ♠Q. or he just has a doubleton diamond Why would I have agreed to play with such a person? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 Whatever the earlier cards mean, you won't be able to tell partner's spade holding for sure until you cash the ♠A or ♠K, and possibly not even then. I certainly wouldnt trust a random person to give count on this trick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted April 1, 2008 Report Share Posted April 1, 2008 I usually address this sort of question in the context of a partnership between good players, rather than two individuals of unknown ability thrown together by fate. Whilst that might not always be the case in real life, it is both a reasonable expectation and a better setting for a bridge problem. I'd prefer to have discussed some of this, but even playing with a good player with whom I had no agreement other than "udca", I would expect count on the first trick (what use is attitude?), suit preference on the second one (what use is count?), and therefore count when I cash ♠K. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowerline Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 Assuming standard count, declarer started with ♥AKxx. I can't solve this one without partner's help. So I assume partner would have played hi-lo in ♦ if he has ♠Q or ♠Jxxx without a minor suit king. Conclusion: a low ♠ now. Steven 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.