Logical alternatives in the play

[greenender]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=s975h742dkj5ckqt3&w=sajhq3dqt864cj952]266|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

S opens 1NT (12-14) in third seat and everybody passes.

 

As W you lead your fourth highest ♦, which runs to the 5, 7 and 9. Declarer plays the ♣8 to the 5, K and 4, and plays a ♥ from dummy to the 6, J and your Q. You play standard count on declarer's leads.

 

What do you play now?

 

What other plays do you consider?

 

(It will be apparent that there is some UI flying around, but I'm not going to tell you what it is at this stage).

[CSGibson]

I probably play another diamond, trying to be passive/taking out dummy's entries. Other play I consider is a heart, but I don't feel a need to attack a suit that declarer is attacking. Spade or a club is far too likely to blow a trick, IMO.

[akhare]

♦ -- hope that pard has a ♥ entry and a third ♦ to clear them when he gets in...

[StevenG]

Ace of spades followed by Jack. If declarer has the club Ace, he doesn't have a spade stop, otherwise East may still be able to set up his spades with the club Ace as an entry.

[Coelacanth]

Ace of spades followed by Jack.  If declarer has the club Ace, he doesn't have a spade stop, otherwise East may still be able to set up his spades with the club Ace as an entry.

I think this is right. Partner has clearly ducked one of the minor suit aces hoping to maintain an entry to his long spades. Absent any UI, this is what I'm going to play as the only reasonable chance to set the hand.

 

Unfortunately, I don't know if this would be "obvious" to me without the UI concern. If partner tanked before passing out 1NT, I think (looking at my hand and dummy) that suggests long spades in a weak hand and I may be constrained from finding the spade switch.

 

If the UI is from partner's hesitation prior to ducking his ace, all that tells me is that he has that particular ace. I'm not going to set up any tricks for declarer by leading to that ace. I need to play a heart or a spade, and I don't see where knowing that partner has ♦A or♣A helps me to decide which.

[greenender]

Long ♠s doesn't seem likely, in view of the failure to open a weak 2, except...

 

Partner is marked with 4 ♥s, except against those who are likely to open 1NT with a 5-card major. (RHO is known to do this by agreement in his regular partnerships, but was playing with a pick-up partner). Accordingly, the likeliest reason for the tank in passing out 1NT (for that is part of what happened) is that partner has a borderline Astro or Landy bid with both majors (the pair concerned were actually playing some version of Astro).

 

The other part of the problem was that partner, who is a thoughtful player, played his (as it happened) singleton ♣ without a care in the world, whereas experience suggets that with the ♣A he would have paused at least momentarily whether he intended to win it or duck it. So there is UI that it probably isn't the ♣A that partner has ducked.

 

In addition, what do you make of partner's ♦7 at trick one, playing standard signals? From 7xx he could (should?) have played his lowest. If he has ducked the ♦A, then declarer has a ♠ stop, and it is at least plausible to play for your ♠'s to be an entry for your ♦ tricks, rather than for partner's presumed ♦A to be an entry to his ♠s, particularly given that playing for ♦ tricks doesn't give declarer a ♠ trick he couldn't win on his own.

 

I felt (as declarer) that the combination of the slow pass-out and the relatively (for this player) fast ♣ had made it much easier for W to play ♠s from the top, thus holding the contract, whereas a ♦ continuation would have led to nine tricks.

 

There was no ruling as I was directing, and it is my philosophy, for the most part, to let judgment rulings go when I'm a playing TD.

[Bende]

The other part of the problem was that partner, who is a thoughtful player, played his (as it happened) singleton ♣ without a care in the world, whereas experience suggets that with the ♣A he would have paused at least momentarily whether he intended to win it or duck it.  So there is UI that it probably isn't the ♣A that partner has ducked.

Won't this type of reasoning lead to all sorts of strange situations? It seems to say that if partner thinks before following with a low club I have UI and if he doesn't I also have UI. Perhaps the word "experience" in this sentence means that partner better learn to play in tempo to stop causing these problems.

[CamHenry]

I don't like a diamond; I think declarer has the A. I think he also has the HK, we've seen the HJ, so he's not got the CA and a spade honour. I'm going to play ace-jack of spades.