Fluffy Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 ♠xx♥K10xx♦Jx♣AQ843 We vul, they nv, IMPs. (1 NT)-pass-(2♣)-X(pass!)-pass-(XX)-pass( 2 ♠!)-pass-(3NT)-all pass you doubled 2 clubs and then you find declarer has shown no club stopper (pass) and no 4 card major (2♠) partner leads ♣10, consistent with 10x, 109x, 109xx dummy has ♠QJxx♥Jxx♦Kxxx♣K3 declarer plays ♣3 from dummy, your turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 ♣Q and 4. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I think I would play declarer for Jxx. It's close though. If declarer has Jx, I might have just let declarer make an impossible contract. By the way, if I took the Q, then I would play ♣A and then hope partner works out to unblock. Given that declarer will have played the J, it should be pretty obvious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 There was a missexplanation here, 2♠ was intended as natural declarer had ♠AKxx♥Qxx♦AQxx♣Jx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 I hope the TD changed it to 3N-3? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted February 19, 2011 Report Share Posted February 19, 2011 There was a missexplanation here, 2♠ was intended as natural declarer had ♠AKxx♥Qxx♦AQxx♣Jx That makes a bit of a difference. With no 4-card major, declarer is bound to have at least 3 clubs: with 3352 he would probably have bid 2♦ 2nd round and besides that shape is only one of the many possible. Therefore you have a very strong case for ducking the club or play Q + small (this one is probably better, because it makes it clearer for pard). If 2♠ is intended as natural, then ♣QA is a lot more attractive. I don't say one'd play like that 100% of the time, but at least 50% or so would be normal. Frequency-based score adjustment is a possibility (i.e. 50% of 3NT-1, 50% of 3NT=). HOWEVER, if 2♠ is the correct, systemic, explanation, then no redress is due. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.