Defending 2H

[louisg]

[hv=d=w&v=b&e=sxxhqdaxxxxxct9xx&s=sakxxhtxxdjxckjxx]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West opens 1H, and rebids 2H after partner's 1NT response.

 

Trick 1: Spade lead, won by your SK

Trick 2: Trump return, won by dummy's HQ

Trick 3: Club lead off dummy to declarer's CQ and partner's CA

Trick 4: Spade from partner to your SA (carding indicates that partner started with 4 cards in spades)

 

I suspect that, presented as a problem, most here will find the correct defensive plan. How do you defend, and how sure are you that you would have defended the same way at the table?

[pclayton]

I'm crediting Declarer with something like ♠?xx ♥AKxxxx ♦Qx ♣Qx. I don't think declarer is 3=6=1=3 (the club to the Q makes zero sense) and I don't think we can beat it if declarer is 3=6=3=1.

 

Pard probably leads the ♠Q from QJ on this bidding, so I'm putting declarer on the Q or the J.

 

If declarer has the ♠Q, thats 8 tricks, unless we can develop an uppercut and cash our minors. If I shift to the J♦, Q, K, duck, what can we do? If we take our club trick, declarer simply ruffs a club back to hand. If partner persists in diamonds, declarer just plays ♦A, ♦pitching a club. There's nothing damaging I can do.

 

If Declarer has ♠Jxx, we may have this beat off the top, although now a diamond is potentially fatal if declarer has ♦QT, although if declarer has the ♣8, I can be squoze. If Declarer has the ♦K, Declarer always had 8 tricks.

 

I'll be interested in what others have to say.

[mikeh]

we have to assume that declarer has 3=6=2=2 shape (his line looks odd, to me, with Qxx in clubs, not to even consider that partner may have defended differently with Ax.

 

We also need to assume that declarer lacks the spade Q and the diamond K.. either of these cards gives him his 8th trick.

 

We cannot afford to switch to a diamond, lest declarer hold Q10 and guesses correctly.

 

It looks easy enough to cash the king of clubs before playing the 3rd spade, so that partner can make declarer ruff, and then declarer is toast if he started with Jxx AKJxxx Q10 Qx or equivalent.

 

We need to eliminate declarer's second club, lest, in the endgame, we are forced down to Jx K or J KJ in the minors... declarer can then prevail, with Q10 of diamonds and a small club, if he reads the position.

 

We should have no trouble getting this right even if partner has Ax of clubs, and declarer made an interesting play at trick 3, and partner failed to get his club ruff..

 

 

Edit: just read phil's post, and point out that cashing the club K extracts the hypothetical 8 from declarer's hand, so kills that squeeze

[louisg]

Mikeh's analysis is clearly correct, and in actual play the contract made when I woodenly returned a spade before cashing a club (maybe the ♣J is better than the ♣K so there's no risk that partner tries to give us a club ruff) and declarer guessed the ending holding the dreaded ♦QT doubleton.

 

I was really hoping with this posting to stimulate a discussion of why this possibility fell into my blind spot at the table, and whether it would for others as well. I realized that partner needed the ♠Q and ♦K to beat this, but gave no thought at the table to the location of the ♦T or the risk of an endplay. It also seems counterintuitive to cash a winner in a suit where dummy has a possible trick source (yes, I realize that there aren't sufficient entries available, but without seeing the specific need to make the play it just feels funny).

 

Any thoughts?

[pclayton]

Well, not all of us can solve it on paper either, so don't feel too bad if you didn't get this right at the table.

 

I'd like to think if we were on our 'A' game we can solve problems like this though.

[nige1]

[hv=d=w&v=b&e=sxxhqdaxxxxxct9xx&s=sakxxhtxxdjxckjxx]266|200|Scoring: IMP

West opens 1H, and rebids 2H after partner's 1NT response.

Trick 1:  Spade lead, won by your SK

Trick 2:  Trump return, won by dummy's HQ

Trick 3:  Club lead off dummy to declarer's CQ and partner's CA

Trick 4:  Spade from partner to your SA (carding indicates that partner started with 4 cards in spades)

I suspect that, presented as a problem, most here will find the correct defensive plan.  How do you defend, and how sure are you that you would have defended the same way at the table?[/hv]

we have to assume that declarer has 3=6=2=2 shape (his line looks odd, to me, with Qxx in clubs, not to even consider that partner may have defended differently with Ax.

We also need to assume that declarer lacks the spade Q and the diamond K.. either of these cards gives him his 8th trick.

We cannot afford to switch to a diamond, lest declarer hold Q10 and guesses correctly.

It looks easy enough to cash the king of clubs before playing the 3rd spade, so that partner can make declarer ruff, and then declarer is toast if he started with Jxx AKJxxx Q10 Qx or equivalent.

We need to eliminate declarer's second club, lest, in the endgame, we are forced down to Jx K or J KJ in the minors... declarer can then prevail, with Q10 of diamonds and a small club, if he reads the position.

We should have no trouble getting this right even if partner has Ax of clubs, and declarer made an interesting play at trick 3, and partner failed to get his club ruff..

Edit: just read phil's post, and point out that cashing the club K extracts the hypothetical 8 from declarer's hand, so kills that squeeze

Hard problem Louisa :) Well done MikeH :) Thank you both :)

[mikeh]

As to why it fell into your blindspot, I can only guess. But I suspect that the problem arose because you did not mentally play the hand out.

 

You clearly got to the point of knowing that you had to play declarer to be 3=6=2=2 (or 3=6=1=3 with an odd play at trick 3), but you failed to visualize how the hand would look at the critical time.. as declarer played his last heart.

 

This is a very common failing, and one that I think all but the very best exhibit at some time or another... personally, when I am thinking this way on every hand, during a session, I describe as 'seeing all the cards'.. and it is both a good way to play and a too-rare experience for me.

 

BTW, it is an extremely useful tool as declarer as well.

[gnasher]

You don't have to envisage the squeeze in order to switch to a club. If you play a third spade without cashing the club, partner, looking at Qxxx xxx Kxx Axx, might play declarer for xxx AKJxxx J10 QJ and switch to a diamond away from the king.

[louisg]

You don't have to envisage the squeeze in order to switch to a club.  If you play a third spade without cashing the club, partner, looking at Qxxx xxx Kxx Axx, might play declarer for xxx AKJxxx J10 QJ and switch to a diamond away from the king.

I don't agree with this. If I had AKxx xxx Qx Kxxx I should switch to a diamond myself. Furthermore, partner needs to consider the possibility that declarer was 4-6 in the majors (in which case he would need to give me a spade ruff).

[Fluffy]

I agree with louisg that posted as a problem it asks to cash a♣ before playing a spade, I often miss this things at the table (because my opponents do not endplay me ever maybe).

[gnasher]

I don't agree with this. If I had AKxx xxx Qx Kxxx I should switch to a diamond myself. Furthermore, partner needs to consider the possibility that declarer was 4-6 in the majors (in which case he would need to give me a spade ruff).

True, but even if we think North can work it out, it's still best not to give him the chance to do the wrong thing.