Play 3H

[kgr]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=sxxhjtxdxxxcaj9xx&s=saxxha9xxxxdkxxcx]133|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

1♥-(DBL)-2♥-(2♠)

3♥-All Pass

 

LHO leads ♠K that you duck and he continues ♠J for your Ace.

What is your plan?

 

 

 

 

 

...I wonder:

If it is best to start with the ♥ finesse (in case LHO has ♥x) or rather with ♥A (in case LHO has ♥H).

If you start with finesse and it looses then use your other entry for another ♥-finesse playing for (H-Hxx) and probably -1 OR play to ♦K (♥'s 2-2 and ♦K with RHO) for smaller chance to make it.

[Free]

I think it's better to start with the Ace, it wins when either opponent has a stiff honour, or when ♥ split 2-2.

[benlessard]

finesse is clearly better if H are alone.

 

KQ-----xx is 1 case

 

void---KQxx is 1 case

X-----KQx is 2 case.

 

But since you are in 3H you must avoid losing 3 D trick you are force to play D from dummy so you are missing 1 entry to take double finesse in D so playing A first is best.

 

In a vacuum

K----Qxx

Q----Kxx

 

is equal to

 

X-----KQx

x-----KQX

 

but after the X a stiff honnor seems more probable.

 

and in both case you succeed if they are 22 (assuming A of D is RHO)

[kgr]

Thanks for the answers!

finesse is clearly better if H are alone.

 

KQ-----xx is 1 case

 

void---KQxx is 1 case

X-----KQx is 2 case.

 

But since you are in 3H you must avoid losing 3 D trick you are force to play D from dummy so you are missing 1 entry to take double finesse in D so playing A first is best.

You can also take viewpoint that ♦A is with LHO and play for -1 or -2? Using your entries for the ♥ finesses and give up on the ♦K.

 

In a vacuum

K----Qxx

Q----Kxx

 

is equal to

 

X-----KQx

x-----KQX

 

but after the X a stiff honnor seems more probable.

Do you mean that if I play a ♥ from dummy and RHO plays a small ♥ then it is more likely that he has HHx than Hxx (probably because of restricted choice)?

....I wonder if this is really true?

 

 

 

Thinking about this....To make this contract I need RHO to have the ♦A. Because LHO doubled, it is probably better to play him for a ♥ honor if he doesn't have the ♦A.

[gnasher]

If you decide to take two heart finesses, there is no need to lead the first one from dummy. On the bidding, RHO doesn't have Hxx, and he probably doesn't have a void. Hence you can lead the first trump from hand, then use one of your entries to lead the next trump from dummy.

 

However, I'd just play trumps from the top. If LHO had a small singleton in hearts, he might have bid 3♠.

 

You can also take viewpoint that ♦A is with LHO and play for -1 or -2

That's unduly pessimistic. You already know of ♠KQJ on the left, and there are another 11 HCP that LHO can have apart from ♦A. Also, RHO did bid, so he will have some values.

[cloa513]

Do you know its ♠ KQJ(x) could be just ♠KJxx or even ♠KJx- not unreasonable given the bidding?

 

How about cash A♣, rough a club, rough a spade, rough a club (if not overroughed then they they have a lead problem) then choose between low heart or high heart depending on what has dropped.

[gnasher]

How about cash A♣, rough a club, rough a spade, rough a club (if not overroughed then they they have a lead problem) then choose between low heart or high heart depending on what has dropped.

Having done that, how will choosing to lead a low heart help you? You have no entry to dummy to finesse against RHO's heart honour.

 

Not only that, but you will go down even when ♦A was onside, and lose an extra trick to a trump promotion when LHO is 3-2 in the majors with ♥Hx.

 

In any case, I can't see when this line gains.

[kgr]

Thanks all for the answers.

I ruffed a ♠ and took the loosing ♥-finesse. I later used ♣A entry for playing to ♦K (also loosing).

LHO had ♥Q singleton and also had ♦K.

So I did go -2. My partner said that if I choice to go for the ♥-finesse then I had to take it twice, but I only took it once to defend against ♥x with LHO.

 

I still wonder about that restricted choice question above:

If I play a small ♥ from dummy and RHO plays small, then it is more likely that he has HHx then Hxx?

[benlessard]

Do you mean that if I play a ♥ from dummy and RHO plays a small ♥ then it is more likely that he has HHx than Hxx (probably because of restricted choice)?

....I wonder if this is really true?

 

No, in a vacuum

 

K--Qab

Q--Kab

 

are equivalent to

 

a--KQb

b--KQa

 

so H---Hxx is equal to x--HHx

 

however since LHO double and RHO showned the A of D. A forced assumption if LHO has the A of D your doomed so you have to assume RHO has the A of D, (if you were in 2H or in MP or in a doubled contract where -200 and -500 make a difference its a different story)

 

So if we assume RHO has the A of D its not likely he has HHx in H since with that any any soft card in minors he might bid 2NT instead of 2S or hell be tempted to X 3H.

 

In recap

 

1st.. your are in imps your first goal is to make your contract.

2nd.. for your contract to have any chance you need the A of D in RHO and you need to play low D from dummy so we are always assuming that RHO has the A of D.

3rd You need an entry to play low D so you wont be able to finesse H twice.

 

4th If H are 2-2 you are ok. If H are HHx --x you are dead. So only cases that matters is H--Hxx and x--HHx .

 

5th if rho has the A of D its not likely he also has KQx of H.