Prize problem

[benlessard]

throwing all the H except 1 so that declarer has to think we are

 

1723. He still can play S right ?

[Zelandakh]

Your partner has played the nine and two of diamonds in that order, to indicate a doubleton.

I'm calling the director for my partner playing one of dummy's cards. Hopefully the distraction will give me a chance for the drug in coffee gambit...

[kenrexford]

Mike's suggestion seems the most plausible.

 

I considered briefly another remote possibility, but it requires a deep-thinking but insane partner and weird opponents.

 

This is the first opportunity partner will have to make an exotic play, his first chance to pitch. If Declarer actually started with 0-3-6-4 pattern, with partner making a weird lead, then partner, with 7-2-2-2 shape might have KJ tight in clubs and might strangely decide that this trick that a club Jettison play is required. Pitching the club might change his mind.

 

I also considered an insane Declarer who is distraught about not being in 6♦. Maybe pitching the club will convince him that the slam makes, and he will decide therefore upon some insane line.

[gnasher]

This is the first opportunity partner will have to make an exotic play, his first chance to pitch. If Declarer actually started with 0-3-6-4 pattern, with partner making a weird lead, then partner, with 7-2-2-2 shape might have KJ tight in clubs and might strangely decide that this trick that a club Jettison play is required.

One might hope that partner would keep his feet on the ground for long enough to count six diamonds, one club and one heart, and work out that he needs me to have ♠A.

[dburn]

Well, you have all been good sports, and maybe this problem as originally set was too tough. Still, I am sure you can solve it with this additional clue: declarer has the king of clubs.

[mikeh]

I'm sorry...but he has the club K and we are supposed to beat this? Obviously not...we are supposed to hold the overtrick? Frankly, I've lost interest. If the hand was about overtrick(s), post it as mp, not imps.

[hanp]

I agree with mikeh, what should I vote?

[karlson]

Given that we've gotten to this point, I'm not sure why everyone is taking it for granted declarer has 6 diamonds - partner hasn't pitched yet. Sure, the original problem's wording strongly suggested you assume this, but none of us would be anywhere near 100% certain of this at the table.

 

That said, no matter how many diamonds declarer has, I don't see the layout where I'm supposed to pitch the ♣7.

[wank]

my only guess would be that declarer has 5 diamond tricks, despite partner's signal, 1 heart trick and KJT of clubs. he probably wouldn't believe you'd ditch the singleton 7 immediately so he may play to the ace in case you've got Qxxx giving partner a 7330 shape.

 

why would partner signal a doubleton with 3? he's an idiot? he's got 109x and was preparing to follow with the 9 under the queen if declarer crossed and led it off dummy? he's a compulsive liar?

[kenrexford]

I have thought about the possibility that Declarer only has four diamonds, also, but this keeps leaving me in an endless loop of "so what?"

 

Declarer ends up, still, with four diamonds, a heart, and needs four clubs. Whatever number of clubs that he needs is irrelevant, though. He either gets all the clubs or not, unless partner makes a mistake, it seems.

 

I suppose that Declarer might have made a mistake, though, by severing communications in diamonds for unknown reasons. If declarer has KJ10 tight in clubs, he might try the sneaky Jack next, trying to catch partner afraid to rise with Qxx for hear of crashing honors. If he tries King first, the suit blocks.

 

OK. I'll bite that Declarer messed up by playing three diamonds like an idiot and that partner needs to see me pitch a club to know that I have nothing in that suit.

 

Still, that shouldn't be necessary. If partner has Q9x in clubs, he can cover the Jack (or 10) anyway. The suit still blocks, even if our King and Queen collapse together. Plus, the 9 sets up for him in that event, anyway.

 

If partner has to count in a possible King-empty six-card heart suit for the opening, maybe that affects things.

[dburn]

Given that we've gotten to this point, I'm not sure why everyone is taking it for granted declarer has 6 diamonds - partner hasn't pitched yet. Sure, the original problem's wording strongly suggested you assume this, but none of us would be anywhere near 100% certain of this at the table.

 

That said, no matter how many diamonds declarer has, I don't see the layout where I'm supposed to pitch the ♣7.

Obviously declarer does not have six diamonds. You may originally have formed that impression from the fact that partner has shown two diamonds, but in reality he has three. That being so, there is a danger you might (in theory, but not in practice) have anticipated...

 

This wasn't a matchpoint problem, mikeh - the conditions are exactly as I have given them. In truth, it wasn't a problem at all at the table - nobody would really discard ♣7 for any reason at all, let alone the actual (and only) reason why that discard alone would defeat the contract.

 

But here is a box, and here is some space outside the box in which you are at liberty to think. Or not, as it pleases you.

[Dirk Kuijt]

I don't pretend to have an answer, nor to be good enough to think of one.

 

But, let me raise a point which no one seems to have commented on. Why did declarer pitch a club from dummy on the second round of hearts, instead of a spade? He knows the hearts are ready to run. If we get in, the small spade is pretty worthless to him, while if he can run the clubs (as well as his diamonds), he takes 12 tricks. True, this isn't matchpoints, but it seems silly to throw away an IMP.

 

I admit to being baffled; I don't see how pitching a club can be a deceptive play, so what is going on?

[jdonn]

Given that we've gotten to this point, I'm not sure why everyone is taking it for granted declarer has 6 diamonds - partner hasn't pitched yet. Sure, the original problem's wording strongly suggested you assume this, but none of us would be anywhere near 100% certain of this at the table.

 

That said, no matter how many diamonds declarer has, I don't see the layout where I'm supposed to pitch the ♣7.

Obviously declarer does not have six diamonds. You may originally have formed that impression from the fact that partner has shown two diamonds, but in reality he has three. That being so, there is a danger you might (in theory, but not in practice) have anticipated...

 

This wasn't a matchpoint problem, mikeh - the conditions are exactly as I have given them. In truth, it wasn't a problem at all at the table - nobody would really discard ♣7 for any reason at all, let alone the actual (and only) reason why that discard alone would defeat the contract.

 

But here is a box, and here is some space outside the box in which you are at liberty to think. Or not, as it pleases you.

Take it from a dburn fan. The presentation of this problem has officially become quite annoying. It was annoying before, but it has switched from annoying in the "why would the 7 of clubs be right?" sense to "how much more sarcasm is required before we find out the answer?" sense.

[bluecalm]

Obviously declarer does not have six diamonds.

 

Well in that case my analysis is valid again and I remind everybody that I discarded 7♣ in 3rd post of this thread :)

[gnasher]

Obviously declarer does not have six diamonds.

 

Well in that case my analysis is valid again and I remind everybody that I discarded 7♣ in 3rd post of this thread :)

Except that you are trying to persuade declarer that your partner chose not to raise hearts with xxxxxx Qxxx xxx -.

[dburn]

This is what was going on.

 

[hv=d=e&v=n&n=skq3hjdqj2ca86542&w=s1074hq43d984cq1093&e=sa92hk1098765d73c7&s=sj865ha2dak1065ckj]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

On the third round of diamonds, East actually discarded a spade - and West discarded a club. Before anyone played to the next trick, however, West discovered that he still had a diamond.

 

So West played his diamond, and his club became a major penalty card. South thereupon played a spade to dummy's king and East's ace and, as was his legal right, required East to lead a club. Because East still had a club, declarer now made the rest, but if East had discarded that club on the third round of diamonds, he would have been at liberty to cash his remaining hearts.

 

No, I don't know why declarer played the hand as he did - it would seem normal to cross to dummy in diamonds and play a club to the jack, thus going down four. But perhaps South considered the club finesse a lesser chance compared to playing RHO for ignorance of basic safety plays to guard against partner being about to revoke. And who is to say that he was wrong?

[pooltuna]

cute!

 

Well we all got Burned again as usual whereas the actual East only got burned! :)

[gwnn]

thanks dburn for another important defensive lesson :)

[bluecalm]

Haha, very nice problem :rolleyes:

[jdonn]

Compliments, even sarcastic? I can't remember being more disappointed in an answer after waiting so long...

[Pict]

I enjoyed this because I often encounter positions I can't understand until I see what partner and oppos have done.

 

If only logic solved all problems.

[gnasher]

I thought this was very funny.

[jdonn]

I suppose the lesson I have taken from this is I would never make it in England.

[Codo]

nice one....

[hanp]

What's the problem Josh?

 

Maybe you expected another "hey, look at me playing at the same table as Zia"-type of thread, but it turned out to be just a cute puzzle and a funny story.