Play problem

[phil_20686]

You are playing in grand vs defenders who are expert but not WC. (this is from the u25 europeans a few years back (?vienna?) - i *think* that your lho may be alex hydes, but am not sure, definately vs the english u25's though). This is the counterpart to the lead problem that I posted a few days ago.

 

 

[hv=d=n&v=b&n=skqxxhxxxdakqxxxc&s=saxxxhakxdxxckqxx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

 

Uncontested you bid:

1d-1s

4d-4n

6c-6h

7s

 

lho has a short pause (3-5 seconds) and leads a low club. On the auction north showed solid diamonds and two keycards with a club void and the queen of trumps.

 

Your spade pips are not good enough to pick up any 4-1 breaks.

 

What is your line?

[Fluffy]

ruff 2 clubs in dummy draw trumps and claim if diamonds break or ♣-♦squeeze seems obvious

 

a heart lead would had worked better I guess

[mikeh]

You really need to be at the table, altho the description of the action was helpful. An under-25 internationalist is going to be familiar with many standard deceptive situations, and the underlead of an Ace when dummy is known to be void is a classic, altho I've never had the opportunity to do it. Consider....what holding would LHO have to make clubs a good lead? He lacks either the K or the Q....and declarer is unlimited in terms of his holdings.....if declarer holds AQ, the lead may be a disaster.

 

otoh, if one holds either 4 or 1 diamond, the chance to induce a ruff in dummy immediately is very attractive.....and there is little downside.

 

So against a weak player, ruff and hope that both pointed suits are 3-2, but against an intelligent, imaginative player with some knowledge, and the willingness to make interesting plays (and that sounds like it fits the circumstances here)...pitch a heart.....I'd put the chances of LHO holding the club Ace at about 80% and that makes the play better than hoping for 3-2 diamonds.

 

Of course, a genius defender is a step ahead of me: 'I hoped you'd think that I'd think that you'd think that....'

 

BTW, I haven't read the companion lead question and will do so now...hoping to see the club A in the leading hand :)

 

Edit: having looked at the hand, all I can say is that

at least everyone knows I was being honest

 

[Fluffy]

thx for the honesty mike, I admit I have my doubts that you weren't a bit biased because it is a problem thuogh.

 

I was surelly biased by knowing LHO hand also, I can't fail to preccess known data :).

 

EDIT: There is no squeeze line, so ducking the club is appealing,

[jjbrr]

Ya. Mike's thought process is very reasonable, and a good indication of why a ♣ lead is better than the alternatives when you can see they're cold.

 

Am I miscounting or don't I just need one ♣ ruff if everything splits, Fluffy? Maybe it's better to ruff the ♣, pull two rounds of trumps, two rounds of diamonds, and hope to claim.

 

Edit: wrong, not enough transportation. ignore me. just need 1 ruff and pointed suited 3-2

[Fluffy]

no squeeze damnit, unless the guy with 4♦ and ♣A also has 5♥, my bad. Now discarding is much more appealing.

[phil_20686]

Edit: having looked at the hand, all I can say is that

at least everyone knows I was being honest

I didnt say that the companion hand was the hand on lead, only that it was relevant, what you need to know is

how many people find the club lead from a hand like that in teh companion thread, vs how many people would find the club lead from a hand including the ace and four or 1 diamonds?

 

 

EDIT: I am obviously trying to be ambigous until there are a few more comments, then i will tell you whether the hand on lead had the ace of clubs or not.

[Fluffy]

Edit: having looked at the hand, all I can say is that

at least everyone knows I was being honest

I didnt say that the companion hand was the hand on lead, only that it was relevant, what you need to know is

how many people find the club lead from a hand like that in teh companion thread, vs how many people would find the club lead from a hand including the ace and four or 1 diamonds?

 

 

EDIT: I am obviously trying to be ambigous until there are a few more comments, then i will tell you whether the hand on lead had the ace of clubs or not.

doh!, I was gonna say that finally there was a problem where all you had to do is draw trumps and claim!, and you see some top players fail to do so :). Nice problem anyway.

[jjbrr]

I think a low ♣ lead is still clear regardless of your ♣ holding. If the opponents aren't nuts, your lead won't matter. A low club disrupts some communication, hopefully.

 

The problem here is that if this is a junior event, anyone at the table might, in fact, be nuts.

[Fluffy]

Vienna '98?, ohhhh.. better try to forget that tourney :)

[gnasher]

Ruff, draw two trumps keeping a winner in dummy, cash two diamonds. If they're 3-2, draw the trump and claim.

 

If diamonds are 4=1 and spades are 3=2, ruff the diamonds good, draw the other trump and try to squeeze RHO in the round suits.

 

If diamonds are 1=4 and spades 2=3, I can play the same squeeze, but it requires RHO to have 14 cards.

 

Running the club at trick one strikes me as madness. As jbrr says, the auction calls for a club lead from almost any holding - if the diamonds really are solid, the only hope is a trump trick; if diamonds aren't solid, forcing dummy is almost certainly the best defence.

[Finch]

Running the club at trick one strikes me as madness. As jbrr says, the auction calls for a club lead from almost any holding - if the diamonds really are solid, the only hope is a trump trick; if diamonds aren't solid, forcing dummy is almost certainly the best defence.

When I was a junior I saw at least one grand slam let through by opening leader not leading his ace.

 

I once won a fairly serious KO match by leading my cashing ace against a grand when dummy had promised a void.

[atlantajon]

I have to assume 3-2 ♥ since it was said that our spots are not good enough to pick up 4-1 trump. So the whole issue is the ♦ suit. If it is 3-2....we have 13 by ruffing the ♣ lead. However, if the ♦ are 4-1, then I need the hand with the 4 ♦ to hold the long ♠ . So, that line is ruff ♣ and play K♠ and ♠ to A. Then AK ♦ ruff ♦ and ♠ to Q and claim.

 

all the while thinking of a good excuse to tell partner as to why I didnt just pull trump and play on the !d suit...when that was the line.... and trying to explain to partners why we lose 15.

 

atlantajon......LOL

[phil_20686]

[hv=s=sxxxhqjxxdxcaxxxx]133|100|[/hv]

 

was the actual leaders hand. Some very good players thoguht it was right to run the lead. Aparrently it should take longer than a few seconds to find the ace when you have xx(x) diamons and not the ace of clubs, but more obvious to lead a club when you have a stiff/4 diamonds including the ace.

[gareth]

You are playing in grand vs defenders who are expert but not WC. (this is from the u25 europeans a few years back (?vienna?) - i *think* that your lho may be alex hydes, but am not sure, definately vs the english u25's though). This is the counterpart to the lead problem that I posted a few days ago.

LHO was Ollie Burgess. It must have been either Torquay 2002 or Paris 2003. I remember hearing that one match (perhaps Denmark v ?) was flat in grand off one when both sides underled their ace.