Defend this 1NT

[eyhung]

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sj73ht764da52ca65&e=sq64hj9dk764ckt83]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

 

South opens 1NT (11-13 balanced) and it gets passed out.

Lead: ♥2 (4th best, upside down count and attitude, no Smith)

 

Heart two, four, nine, KING

Spade two, nine, jack, QUEEN.

Heart JACK, three, eight, six

 

What would you shift to now, and why?

[JLOGIC]

diamond

[rduran1216]

I agree with diamond.

 

too many spot combinations where i may be giving up a trick in the club suit by leading it, so diamond looks safer.

 

I suspect declarers hand is something like

 

AKxx

KQx

10xx

J9x

[JLOGIC]

I agree with diamond.

 

too many spot combinations where i may be giving up a trick in the club suit by leading it, so diamond looks safer.

 

I suspect declarers hand is something like

 

AKxx

KQx

10xx

J9x

I doubt he has that

[rduran1216]

I agree with diamond.

 

too many spot combinations where i may be giving up a trick in the club suit by leading it, so diamond looks safer.

 

I suspect declarers hand is something like

 

AKxx

KQx

10xx

J9x

I doubt he has that

 

 

scratch that, I didn't see the third trick posted.

 

I still switch to diamond, S could still have

 

AKxx

Kxx

10xx

J9x

[Free]

♦ for sure.

[gnasher]

Partner's ♠9 is interesting. I'd expect suit-preference here - count is far more likely to help declarer than the defence. I also don't think he'd play the 9 unless he had either the 10 or the 8 to go with it, or he had no choice.

 

Considering the various possibilities:

- I don't think it will be A9 or K9 alone - partner would have led his other 4-card suit rather than a heart from AQxx.

- If it's from 98x, declarer has apparently tried to go down in a cold contract.

- If it's from 109x, partner might be trying to say his minors are about equal. If he has Qxx in each minor, either minor return lets it through, but a spade doesn't.

- If it's from A109 or A98, it probably doesn't matter what I do, but a spade is as good as anything.

 

I'd play back a spade.

[pooltuna]

Partner's ♠9 is interesting.  I'd expect suit-preference here - count is far more likely to help declarer than the defence.  I also don't think he'd play the 9 unless he had either the 10 or the 8 to go with it, or he had no choice.

 

Considering the various possibilities:

- I don't think it will be A9 or K9 alone - partner would have led his other 4-card suit rather than a heart from AQxx.

- If it's from 98x, declarer has apparently tried to go down in a cold contract.

- If it's from 109x, partner might be trying to say his minors are about equal.  If he has Qxx in each minor, either minor return lets it through, but a spade doesn't.

- If it's from A109 or A98, it probably doesn't matter what I do, but a spade is as good as anything.

 

I'd play back a spade.

The problem I see with a ♠ is that it is too passive if declarer has

 

AKxx

Kxx

Qxx

xxx

 

or

 

AKxx

Kxx

xxx

Qxx

 

then the ♠ gives up the contract regardless of which hand is held whereas either minor has some chance to break the contract. I am having a hard time deciding which minor as with a good 4 card ♦ suit [QJ9x, QT9x, etc) partner might have preferred to lead that instead of a ♥. Consequently I am inclined to return a ♣ but I am far from certain that it is better than a ♦. Perhaps a simul could help :D

[gnasher]

The problem I see with a ♠ is that it is too passive if declarer has

 

AKxx

Kxx

Qxx

xxx

 

or

 

AKxx

Kxx

xxx

Qxx

So you think partner played ♠9 from 109x AQxx Jxx QJx or 109x AQxx QJx Jxx. Why would he do that?

[pooltuna]

The problem I see with a ♠ is that it is too passive if declarer has

 

AKxx

Kxx

Qxx

xxx

 

or

 

AKxx

Kxx

xxx

Qxx

So you think partner played ♠9 from 109x AQxx Jxx QJx or 109x AQxx QJx Jxx. Why would he do that?

if it had suit preference overtones what would you return?

[eyhung]

I apologize in advance. gnasher has hit upon a good inference that was sadly missing at the table because I had misremembered the spots and the sequence of plays. Declarer had played spade ace at trick 2 and then spade to jack, and partner had petered to show 3, so in real life it was a practical certainty that declarer had AKxx -- I completely blanked on the spade situation because I was focusing my thought on the minors, not the known spades. My bad. I think gnasher's argument for a spade return on the problem presented above is quite good given a good declarer and partner.

[JLOGIC]

So you think partner played ♠9 from 109x AQxx Jxx QJx or 109x AQxx QJx Jxx.  Why would he do that?

What? We are told "udca, no smith", the spade 9 is a normal card giving count showing 3 to me.

 

I don't understand reading that much into it, I thought it was obvious from the way the problem was stated that this was supposed to be an individual bridge problem rather than playing with a partner who signalled suit pref or w/e here.

 

I mean it's even worse in the actual case if they actually played ace and a spade, partner had a chance to give count AND suit preference heh, so we should be able to get it right every time.

 

What are the odds that they don't have AKxx of spades when it goes spade to the jack at trick 2?

[gnasher]

So you think partner played ♠9 from 109x AQxx Jxx QJx or 109x AQxx QJx Jxx.  Why would he do that?

What? We are told "udca, no smith", the spade 9 is a normal card giving count showing 3 to me.

 

I don't understand reading that much into it, I thought it was obvious from the way the problem was stated that this was supposed to be an individual bridge problem rather than playing with a partner who signalled suit pref or w/e here.

Is it really normal to give count against 1NT, in the suit that declarer plays first, when there are obviously no entry problems, and when both dummy and declarer are known to be balanced?

 

To me, "UDCA" means "When we give count or attitude it's upside down", not "We give upside-down count or upside-down attitude in every suit that's played".

 

What are the odds that they don't have AKxx of spades when it goes spade to the jack at trick 2?

We're pretty sure that declarer is 4=3=3=3, aren't we? What is he supposed to do at trick two with Kxxx Kxx QJx QJx?

[gnasher]

if it had suit preference overtones what would you return?

I'd return a spade. That was what I meant when I said in my earlier post "I'd expect suit-preference here ... I'd play back a spade."

[JLOGIC]

Is it really normal to give count against 1NT, in the suit that declarer plays first, when there are obviously no entry problems, and when both dummy and declarer are known to be balanced?

Yes. Standard bridge is cuont when declarer plays something AFAIK. If you play something else like suit preference I think that should be mentioned rather than only specifically saying no smith imo.

 

We're pretty sure that declarer is 4=3=3=3, aren't we? What is he supposed to do at trick two with Kxxx Kxx QJx QJx?

 

This was in reply to me asking what are the odds declarer doesnt have AKxx, but if declarer has this hand then leading back a minor is fine anyways, but if declarer has this it means partner didn't give count with AT9 of spades so I doubt it's possible.

[gnasher]

Yes. Standard bridge is cuont when declarer plays something AFAIK. If you play something else like suit preference I think that should be mentioned rather than only specifically saying no smith imo.

Are you saying that it's standard to always signal length? To me it seems really unwise to signal length with a dummy like this one, where declarer will often have to guess which suit is breaking.

 

If I didn't think partner's card was suit preference, I'd think it was just nothing at all. But that also suggests a spade return.

Edited September 9, 2010 by gnasher

[hanp]

I won't burn my fingers using the word standard. I have noticed though that 99% of Dutch bridge players give honest count in these situations. Something I keep in mind for when I'm declarer.

[JLOGIC]

I assume my partner is signalling. If he wants to falsecard because he thinks it won't matter that's fine. I think this would be a good spot to falsecard since I must assume declarer has 4 spades and not 5 as with 5 he has 7 tricks. I did not read anything into his signal anyways, did I?

[gnasher]

The spade layout that everyone seems to be playing for is actually a good example of why you shouldn't give count in this sort of situation.

 

If declarer has ♠AK8x, partner's count signal means that he will play spades from the top and make three tricks in the suit. If your style is not to give count in this situation, partner will play x-9 or x-10, and declarer may well take a third-round finesse. (Though on this particular deal he probably shouldn't, because the lead suggests that partner is 3433.)

[JLOGIC]

The spade layout that everyone seems to be playing for is actually a good example of why you shouldn't give count in this sort of situation.

 

If declarer has ♠AK8x, partner's count signal means that he will play spades from the top and make three tricks in the suit. If your style is not to give count in this situation, partner will play x-9 or x-10, and declarer may well take a third-round finesse. (Though on this particular deal he probably shouldn't, because the lead suggests that partner is 3433.)

That's only if they know you give count. You just have to falsecard vs people enough to make them think you can falsecard.

 

Anyways my point was never that partner is not falsecarding, it was that I do not think you can assume partner is giving suit preference with no agreements to that effect.

 

I will note again you were the one defending based on partners signal, my defense is not based on partners play at all.

 

Why do you think a spade is best if partner has not signalled (or do you think that)?

[gnasher]

Why do you think a spade is best if partner has not signalled (or do you think that)?

I suppose it depends on how he has not signalled.

 

If the 9 is his lowest, he has A109 or K109. If it's A109, as you said it doesn't matter what we do. If it's K109 and declarer has Axxx Kxx QJx Qxx, a diamond lets it through, because we get strip-squeezed.

 

If the 9 is random, so that it might be a non-signal from 109x, we're back to a guess, I suppose. Even then, it's not clear that a diamond is better than a spade. A diamond is playing for declarer to have ♣Qxx or better and ♦J9x or worse. A spade is playing for declarer to have ♣Jxx and ♦J10x, which is less likely.

 

However, if partner is playing his cards at random, he's only playing the 9 from 1/3 of the 109x holdings, and I still get half of the time that he has K109. That probably doesn't swing it far enough in my direction, but I can't be bothered to do any arithmetic.

Edited September 9, 2010 by gnasher

[eyhung]

Fascinating discussion here on signalling, I'm glad I posted the hand. FWIW I do believe suit preference is not standard below the top-level, but if I were playing with a top partner I expect it to be standard. Just for completeness, on the actual hand partner had QJx of diamonds and Qxx of clubs (declarer had J9x of clubs), so a diamond or the club king (to induce a misguess) would have been fine.

[gnasher]

I didn't mention K98, where again a spade return is best.

 

PS: Sorry, Eugene, that we spent so much time talking about the incorrect deal and not about the one you actually wanted to post.

[awm]

I'm trying to work out why a diamond is better than a club (ignoring any suit preference implications from partner's carding).

 

It seems like if declarer has the queen of the minor you switch to, it's potentially bad (giving up a tempo). If partner has the queen and jack, then you made a great switch. If partner has the queen and declarer has the jack, then you did well when partner has the next lower card and badly when declarer does (i.e. if declarer has ♦JTx or ♣J9x then switching to that minor costs, otherwise it's good).

 

Overall it seems very symmetric to me, so I'm not sure why several people seem to be convinced that a diamond is much better.

[eyhung]

No problem, I obviously was more culpable in not getting my spots/plays right when I posted the hand.