Thin 4s imp contract

[Mbodell]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqj4h82dt84cj742&n=s8753hakjt6daj62c&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p(%3C10)p1h(%3C16)p1sp4sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

The play (opponents play standard leads, udca, and are good enough to not always signal honestly nor always dishonestly):

 

T1 ♦7-2-K-4

T2 ♠T-Q-K-3

T3 ♦9-6-Q-8

T4 ♦5-T-3-J

T5 ♠5-2-A-6

T6 ♠J-♣3-♠7-♠9

T7 ♥8-4-A-7

T8 ♥K-9-2-5

T9 ♦A-♣5-♣2-♣6

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s4hdcj74&n=s8hjt6dc]133|200[/hv]

 

T10 ♥J-3-???

 

East has shown up with ♠T92 ♥(Q?)973 ♦KQ5 and some clubs

West has shown up with ♠K6 ♥(Q?)54 ♦973 and some clubs

 

Edited: to change one of the ♠T into the 9 in the trick-by-trick.

Edited February 21, 2011 by Mbodell

[Fluffy]

LHO had a bad lead in clubs, so AQ or A, still he has 11 HCP at most, so he has all the room for ♥Q.

 

The only thing I can think aboyt is that spades 2-3 give LHO more room to have ♥Q and I would had played regular finese (low to 10) a couple of tricks ago. Now I ruff

[Phil]

I will play for the drop.

 

I wouldn't call the beer lead from 9-7-3 'standard', at least on the west coast. If the opponents are playing 2nd/4th leads, I think its clear to not hook the diamond a 2nd time and play on hearts. Otherwise I agree with your line.

 

I would not put any weight into their heart carding. Good opponents tend to randomize their spots in these situations.

 

I don't agree with Fluffy at all about the inference from the non club lead since there are many club holdings besides AQ/AJ that are unattractive for the lead. However, had I held something like ♥Qxx, I would be making an aggressive lead from a holding like KJ / Kx, in spite of 1♥ being limited.

 

How would I defend holding as RHO holding T9x Qxxx KQx ??? It seems normal to tap dummy and let partner get in with a trump for a 2nd diamond. I don't know if I'd false card at T1, because if partner has two trump tricks and weaker clubs, we might have deceived the wrong player. I would never tap dummy if I held ♥xxx since you are forcing declarer into the winning line of simply hooking partner out of the heart in many cases.

 

There is a minor inference from West's pass in 3rd seat with a 2=2=3=6. He might have preempted w/w, or opened 1♣ with many hands.

 

Would like to hear from the math guys, but I can guess they might say that 3=3 in hearts + 5=4 in clubs > 2=4 in hearts + 6=3 in clubs. Coupled with dropping the ♥Qx in West it seems way better.

 

You also have the ♠10 being played twice, but it doesn't affect the problem.

[Mbodell]

I ruffed and it was right at the table.

 

I think of the lines immediate finesse, ruffing finesse, ruff no matter what it is clear that immediate finesse is no good. Just considering that there as many combinations of Qxxx=xx (10 combinations) as there are of xxx=Qxx (10 combinations) and even with one extra space in west hand that isn't going to make up for the xxxx=Qx (5 combinations) that you are missing.

 

Once you've seen all the spots though the position of the Q for the ruffing finesse versus ruff no matter what should favor the ruff no matter what (West has an extra vacant space for spades and an extra vacant space for "non-Q hearts") but I wasn't sure how to rationalize that with the implied information from the club suit, lack of club lead, and lack of bidding.