Declarer play problem from Würzburg - 1 / 2

[Gerben42]

Playing in the beautiful city of Würzburg, I had two declarer play hands that might be interesting problems. Here is the first:

 

[hv=pc=n&w=s5hkqt94dk8cakt54&e=st876haj6d652cq62&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1s2h2s3h3s4c4s5hppp]266|200[/hv]

 

I overcalled 2♥ since we play weak/strong 2-suiters and this hand fell in the middle at this vulnerability. Then with 4♣ I gave partner information on what to do over 4♠. With all his cards in my suits, he tried 5♥. The contract is rather thin, but you can make partner happy by making it. All the prerequisites are fulfilled: ♦A is with opener and trumps break 3-2.

 

The defense starts with ♠K, followed by ♠J, which you have to ruff.

[mtvesuvius]

Seems pretty good now :) Now there is simply the problem of the Club suit. If we cash two rounds of trump and try to ruff clubs, if the hand with 1♣ also has 3 trumps (fairly likely) then they can ruff in. This hand is not a problem on 3-2♣, and playing for 4-1♣ onside appears to aid in communication, as well as being statistically the best chance. I draw 3 rounds of trumps ending in dummy and play a diamond.

[Gerben42]

Sorry Adam, down 1.

[1eyedjack]

Looking forward to the answer to this one.

I can make it if North has ♣Jxxx and ♥xxx by just drawing two rounds of trumps before playing on the minors.

I can make it of South has ♣Jxxx and ♥xx(x) by playing on Adam's line.

In both cases I can make it if Clubs break 3-2 by drawing (if necessary) the last trump before playing further on Clubs. But I cannot see how to cater for both of the bad Club breaks in a single line.

I had a brief thought about dummy reversing the Spades but I don't think that works either.

On balance I would go with South having ♣Jxxx rather than ♦Axxxx, so at the table I would go down, along with Adam.

In the end I cheated by shoving some examples into Bridge Captain, but it didn't help.

[Gerben42]

 

The clue is to look at the auction: Opponents with 18 HCP and "only" a 5 - 3 fit in ♠ bid 1♠, raised to 2, then 3, then 4. What's going on?

 

For opener to have a 3♠ bid, he should have a shortness. The shortness can either be in ♣ or ♦. If it were in ♥, a ♠ continuation when in with ♦A will make us short, ending all hope of making this. If it's in ♦, that means ♦ are 7-1, also we need him to have the ♦A to have a chance of making the contract. This sounds really remote. So it is almost certain that if we can make the contract, opener has a shortness in ♣! This also explains the auction: Opener has a 2-suiter in ♠+♦, and responder put on some pressure with 4♠ with almost all values in opener's suits. Now that we know this, how should we play?

 

[NickRW]

If I might make a general comment, Gerben, your analysis depends on opps having some common sense. The average B/I player, and indeed many advanced players, play much if not nearly all of their bridge against random players who cannot be relied upon to have much common sense at all. This makes visualisation of their likely holdings difficult to impossible and therefore elevates what ought to be a relatively easy problem into a much harder one. I am not singling you out at all - other expert players post problems in the B/I forum in a similar manner.

 

Of course this strongly suggests that aspiring players should deliberately seek out the absolute best opps they can find even if this means being beat up routinely for a while.

 

Nick

 

P.S. In plain English - against the people I play against - I don't know what you suggest I should know.

[Cyberyeti]

If I might make a general comment, Gerben, your analysis depends on opps having some common sense. The average B/I player, and indeed many advanced players, play much if not nearly all of their bridge against random players who cannot be relied upon to have much common sense at all. This makes visualisation of their likely holdings difficult to impossible and therefore elevates what ought to be a relatively easy problem into a much harder one. I am not singling you out at all - other expert players post problems in the B/I forum in a similar manner.

 

Of course this strongly suggests that aspiring players should deliberately seek out the absolute best opps they can find even if this means being beat up routinely for a while.

 

Nick

 

P.S. In plain English - against the people I play against - I don't know what you suggest I should know.

Exactly, in the club game here you can get completely stitched up by opps doing silly things when you rely on their auction. Discovering my white v red opp had opened 3♠ off QJ109xxx, KQJxx, x, void for example was a recent case. He ruffed the first club and led a diamond towards dummy's KJ, and I didn't fly the ace.

[vuroth]

Agree. Sorry Gerben, but your analysis is a null tell in the games I play.

 

Actually, both 3♠ and 4♠ seem pushy, so both players are either short somewhere or crazy. Once hearts split 3-2, I would tend to think the crazy bit is confirmed for at least one of them, and give up trying to infer anything out of the bidding at all.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=s5hkqt94dk8cakt54&e=st876haj6d652cq62&d=s&v=e&b=3&a=1s2h2s3h3s4c4s5hppp]Playing in the beautiful city of Würzburg, I had two declarer play hands that might be interesting problems. Here is the first:

I overcalled 2♥ since we play weak/strong 2-suiters and this hand fell in the middle at this vulnerability. Then with 4♣ I gave partner information on what to do over 4♠. With all his cards in my suits, he tried 5♥. The contract is rather thin, but you can make partner happy by making it. All the prerequisites are fulfilled: ♦A is with opener and trumps break 3-2. The defense starts with ♠K, followed by ♠J, which you have to ruff.

[/hv]

Good problem! Hard to suss out at the table. Even with all Gerben42's hints. Gerben42's line has merit. You need RHO to hold ♦A and you need ♥ to break. If ♣ break then there is no further problem.

1. If you think RHO is likely to have 4 ♣ you can draw trumps and finesse later.
2. If you think LHO is more likely to hold 4 ♣, then it is reasonable to draw two rounds of trumps and test clubs. If ♣J drops or ♣ turn out to be 3-2, then you resume drawing trumps; but if they are 4-1, then you ruff the fourth round. This assumes that RHO may have 5251 shape which would certainly justify his bidding.

[Gerben42]

This was the full deal:

[hv=pc=n&s=saq432h87daq974c8&w=s5hkqt94dk8cakt54&n=skj9h532djt3cj973&e=st876haj6d652cq62]399|300[/hv]

 

I'm not sure about my clues being non-applicable in a simple club game. In the actual hand, North was really really pushy but even a beginner South would normally not bid 3♠ on a minimum balanced hand, which really is the only clue you need.

 

Still even if you know opponents are not so good, it's best to play them not to be stupid. If it's a regular game, you'll then be more aware of the times you were proven wrong and can use that against the players.

 

Note that although 4♠ was pushy, it wasn't completely crazy. 4♥ seems quite cold unless ♠ break and ♦K is in front of the Ace. But if this is the case, 4♠ makes!

 

@Vuroth: If something like that happens, congratulate your opponent and hope you play against him more often. He got lucky once, but will pay dearly for such bidding in the future.

[bucky]

I think Gerben's line has merit on its own. Even though the opponents may be goofing around, it is still fair to assume spade breaks 5-3. You also need hearts break. So his line only fails (while an alternative line works) when North holds 3361 shape, in which case the opening lead may very well be the singleton club.

[pretzalz]

I'd just point out that the hand isn't hopeless on 4-1 hearts. Say South is 5152 instead of his actual hand. Ruff trick 2, play a heart to dummy, and a diamond off. South rises ace to play a third round of spades which you ruff and cash a trump in West getting the bad news. Now start playing clubs. North has to follow to the first 3, but what does he do on the fourth? If he ruffs, you overruff, cross to the DK, draw the last trump, and claim the last club. So he pitches a diamond. Now cash the DK and crossruff the last 2 tricks...