Apollo81 Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Favorable, MPs ♠AJ9532♥5♦JT4♣Q97 p-(1♦)-1♠-(2♥)p-(2NT)-p-(3NT)-all pass There was a significant hesitation before the 2NT bid. Part 1: your lead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Did someone take the 2♠ card out of my bidding box? I see no reason to lead anything but a low spade. A heart is a 2nd choice, but I'd have to really trust my table feel for this to be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Did someone take the 2♠ card out of my bidding box? I see no reason to lead anything but a low spade. A heart is a 2nd choice, but I'd have to really trust my table feel for this to be right. agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andy_h Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Spade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Part 1 should be unanimous, including the question about the 2♠ option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Part 1 should be unanimous, including the question about the 2♠ option. One might just pretend it had gone 2♠ 3♥ p 3NT and not poison the problem... I have to admit a spade seems obvious, other than that the hand is here. The tank only makes it more obvious if anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 The tank only makes it more obvious if anything. Maybe we're supposed to grab the stiff King on opening lead? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 The tank only makes it more obvious if anything. Maybe we're supposed to grab the stiff King on opening lead? LOL Come on, no one tanks before notrump with a stiff king, just like no one tanks with QJ doubleton before choosing one. I think I want to play poker against you. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 The tank only makes it more obvious if anything. Maybe we're supposed to grab the stiff King on opening lead? LOL Come on, no one tanks before notrump with a stiff king, just like no one tanks with QJ doubleton before choosing one. I think I want to play poker against you. :) Did you miss the "LOL?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Sorry I couldn't tell the difference between "LOL just kidding no one tanks with stiff king" and "LOL jdonn just blew to a stiff king even though his opponent tanked to warn him." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted May 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Suppose you lead a heart. You see this dummy: ♠K4♥KQ872♦Q65♣A86 Declarer ducks, and partner wins the ♥J and returns the ♠10. You encourage, and declarer wins the ♠K. Declarer now plays another heart, partner winning the ♥A, declarer following low again, and you pitch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wclass___ Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Is this really a problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Is this really a problem? I ditch a club. If partner has another spade, the game will be over before the ♣Q gains any significance. If partner doesn't have another spade, declarer is highly likely to have, at most, two clubs. As I could appearently solve it, you're probably right, it is not really a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 I don't see what I'm supposed to do here. If declarer has Qxx 10xx AK9x Kxx, we're going to get a good result whatever I do, because the normal 4♥ is likely to make or go one down. If declarer has Qxxx 10xx AK9x Kx, 4♥ is going down on a spade lead or switch, so somehow I have to persuade declarer to go down by taking a third-round diamond finesse. However, declarer also knows that 3NT making is a good score, so he won't risk this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Well, the merits of the spade lead are proven now. That 10, and dummy having only two spades, means we wouldn't have made any pitches yet. Actually, it's kind of funny. The play in spades is weird. Declarer probably should have let the spade 10 win had this been the opening lead, and he probably should have let the 10 win on the switch. So, a competent Declarer probably has 2/4 spades. So, I suppose I need to know how competent Declarer is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I find it amusing that out of the last four responses, only one actually suggested a play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Is this really a problem? Yes there are some MPs riding on this pitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I don't see what I'm supposed to do here. If declarer has Qxx 10xx AK9x Kxx, we're going to get a good result whatever I do, because the normal 4♥ is likely to make or go one down. If declarer has Qxxx 10xx AK9x Kx, 4♥ is going down on a spade lead or switch, so somehow I have to persuade declarer to go down by taking a third-round diamond finesse. However, declarer also knows that 3NT making is a good score, so he won't risk this. It's MPs, so even if declarer is always making or always going down there are some points riding on the number of over/under tricks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted May 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Well, the merits of the spade lead are proven now. That 10, and dummy having only two spades, means we wouldn't have made any pitches yet. Actually, it's kind of funny. The play in spades is weird. Declarer probably should have let the spade 10 win had this been the opening lead, and he probably should have let the 10 win on the switch. So, a competent Declarer probably has 2/4 spades. So, I suppose I need to know how competent Declarer is. So you'd vary your play based on declarer's perceived skill level? I assume this means you'd pitch a spade if you think declarer is competent, and something else otherwise? What's the something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Well, the merits of the spade lead are proven now. That 10, and dummy having only two spades, means we wouldn't have made any pitches yet. Actually, it's kind of funny. The play in spades is weird. Declarer probably should have let the spade 10 win had this been the opening lead, and he probably should have let the 10 win on the switch. So, a competent Declarer probably has 2/4 spades. So, I suppose I need to know how competent Declarer is. So you'd vary your play based on declarer's perceived skill level? I assume this means you'd pitch a spade if you think declarer is competent, and something else otherwise? What's the something else? Well, let's see. I've already made an idiot lead after an idiot bid. Had I made the normal lead that the field would make, a small spade, then presumably Declarer at the other tables would have had a problem. Some would have flown the spade King, perhaps because they hold Qxxx, but I'd know that soon, like because partner's 10 drops under the king, or when Declarer goes back to his hand somehow to lead a heart, with partner actually having a second spade, and I'd be in that event enjoying all of my spades. Some declarers, however, may have ducked the spade on both sides, perhaps because they have Qxx and heard a jump overcall. Partner wins the 10, to his surprise, and probably returns another spade. In that event, I will have won the Ace and cleared the suit. I have no idea what actually happens at the other tables, because I don't know what partner has. However, I can infer something from Declarer. If Declarer bought my 1♠ bid, he may have spurned the safety play as an all-in play. If he's convinced I have the heart Ace, however, he'd presumably lead up toward hearts again. That wins when I have Ax. So, his play seems to be based on some sort of major problem, which seems unlikely, or a belief that spades cannot be profitably attacked by partner, or both. His line is weird, though. I don't get why he's not attacking hearts by leading at them again. That is, unless it gains him nothing. We have taken two hearts tricks and have an assured spade trick coming. So, can Declarer already count 9 tricks and just needs one more from hearts? That with no spade problem? I could imagine ♠Q8xx ♥10x ♦AKxxxx ♣K. He could lead a club to the King and then a heart up, but he expects no gain. We take the heart Hack on opening lead. A spade is returned to the King. He expects to play the heart King to my Ace, but he doesn't really care. I could then cash the spade Ace, but then we'd be done. We'd get our three tricks, and he expects six diamonds, two spades, two clubs, and a heart, for too many tricks. If I don't cash the spade Ace, he has his 10 tricks but has no line for 11 anyway. If he sets up two tricks by leading toward hearts, he gains nothing, because I'll know to cash out anyway. So, bored, he just leads the heart King. When partner wins, however, partner has no way to get to me. This creates a new problem. Declarer has lost two tricks but now has only 10. One more to go. But, he has no more transportation, except possibly overtaking his club with the Ace, but that just costs a trick outright. So, in the end, I'll just assume that Declarer made a mistake like me and throw a club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wclass___ Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Is this really a problem? Yes there are some MPs riding on this pitch LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I don't see what I'm supposed to do here. If declarer has Qxx 10xx AK9x Kxx, we're going to get a good result whatever I do, because the normal 4♥ is likely to make or go one down. If declarer has Qxxx 10xx AK9x Kx, 4♥ is going down on a spade lead or switch, so somehow I have to persuade declarer to go down by taking a third-round diamond finesse. However, declarer also knows that 3NT making is a good score, so he won't risk this. It's MPs, so even if declarer is always making or always going down there are some points riding on the number of over/under tricks. I spent one paragraph talking about our matchpoint expectation if declarer is 3343. Then I devoted another paragraph to our matchpoint expectation if he's 4342, and declarer's proper matchpoint strategy if that's the layout. It seems rather odd to respond to that by telling me what the form of scoring is. 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.