Just do it?

[MFA]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s963hq96dak94c963&w=sk8ha843dj5cjt872]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

South 1NT - North 3NT.

 

You choose to lead the ♣J - 3, 4, K. Here partner shows reverse count, low from doubleton, etc. With the ♣9xx in dummy partner is unlikely to unblock ♣Q from Qx.

 

Trick 2: ♥J, 4, 6, 7. Partner's ♥7 is reverse smith. Essentially, he would play a small heart with ♣Q and a big one without ♣Q.

Trick 3: ♥2 ...

 

Decision time. If you win, please state your defense when partner complete his smith's signal with either ♥5 or ♥T.

 

Please no spoilers from posters who recognize the deal from Oostend.

[Hanoi5]

AK

[gnasher]

It might be right to win and, if partner completes a peter, switch to spades, catering for Jx KJ0x Qxxx AKQ. On the other hand, if declarer has Qxx KJ10x xxx AKQ that would be bad. I expect that partner would play high-low on either of these layouts. Maybe it's just a guess.

[wclass___]

KJ0x

=?!

 

Jx KJTx QTx AKQ

[gnasher]

KJ0x

=?!

I meant KJ10x.

 

Jx KJTx QTx AKQ

At least my example hand contained 13 cards, even if one of them was a zero. Yours seems to have only 12.

[wclass___]

meant ♠Jxx :D

[paulg]

With the ♥9 in dummy, I wonder if partner would consider the ♥10 too valuable for a Smith peter and hence you can deduce little if he plays it on the second round?

[gnasher]

With the ♥9 in dummy, I wonder if partner would consider the ♥10 too valuable for a Smith peter and hence you can deduce little if he plays it on the second round?

I think it depends on his spade holding. With very strong spades where he knows that a spade is likely to be necessary he would play the 10; with a hand where he doesn't see an urgent need for a spade switch he wouldn't.

[MFA]

With the ♥9 in dummy, I wonder if partner would consider the ♥10 too valuable for a Smith peter and hence you can deduce little if he plays it on the second round?

I think it depends on his spade holding. With very strong spades where he knows that a spade is likely to be necessary he would play the 10; with a hand where he doesn't see an urgent need for a spade switch he wouldn't.

Yes, sounds very reasonable.

[MFA]

Declarer had:

 

xx, KJx, Qxxx, AKQx

 

So it was necessary to rise with the ace and switch to spades, which I didn't. Having decided not to rise and switch to spades, even if partner was playing high-low in hearts, I figured it would be better to duck the second heart as well. Sometimes declarer will need three heart tricks for his contract (♦Qx or Qxx without the ♦T), and then I would get a third chance, since I'd get to see a discard from partner that might help.

 

It is somewhat of a guess to switch to spades or not. But I think it is right to do so. Even when it's "wrong" (declarer has ♠Qxx), it might not cost. Declarer could have the ♠J or ♠T, for instance. Or enough tricks holding ♦QTx as well.

 

Should partner have doubled 3NT with AQJTxx, xxx, xxx, x?

[gwnn]

ugh I definitely don't think so, so many things could go wrong. thanks for the hand though I think it was instructive

[Edmunte1]

1) I think that the signalling method worked out badly. If partner could show attitude on first trick, he can show some S/P on the heart tricks

2)I think that xx(x) KJ10x Qxx(x) AKQ is as likely as Qxx(x) KJ10x xx(x) AKQ, but passive play works only if declarer is missing some 10's