And another carding problem

[bluecalm]

European Team Championship 2010. Your partner is one of the best card players in the world who is partnering you for 10+years and plays methods of your choice:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s982ht73d986cak86&e=saq7haj9dqt3cjt97&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Play:

 

Jc, 6c, 5c, Qc

Ad, 3d, 6d, 4d

2c, 7c, 8c, 3c

Ac, 4c, 4s, 9c

Kc, 5h, 2d, Tc

8d, 7d, Jd, Qd

 

You have ♠AQ7 ♥AJ9 ♦T left. Your play ?

Assume you play UDCA with rev Smith (if applicable) and nat lav (if applicable). What would partner's carding mean for you ? What would you play ?

 

(This time it's really tricky because bidding square is center of the table, not the green square ! S is dummy N is declarer and we were first leader).

[gnasher]

You seem to have ♣Q and ♣A mixed up.

 

You haven't told us enough about our carding methods. There are two ways to cope with this situation:

- If your attitude to the lead is known, a discouraging Smith encourages the obvious shift, and vice versa.

- If your attitude to the lead is known, we play suit preference instead.

 

I play both of these styles in different partnerships.

[Finch]

Sorry I am confused by the club suit.

It seems that declarer discarded on the third club while partner followed, then followed to the fourth club while partner discarded? This gives us 14 clubs, but that's OK because the 2 has been played twice.

[bluecalm]

You seem to have ♣Q and ♣A mixed up.

 

Sorry, corrected. There is AK in the dummy.

 

You haven't told us enough about our carding methods. There are two ways to cope with this situation:

 

The purpose of this thread is to establish what partner's cards should mean and how you would solve it in your partnership.

It is very advanced elite level problem because Lauria and Versace screw it up (along with Nystrom Bertheau at the other table) :) .

 

It seems that declarer discarded on the third club while partner followed, then followed to the fourth club while partner discarded? This gives us 14 clubs, but that's OK because the 2 has been played twice.

 

It was supposed to be 2♦, not 2♣ on the 4th round. I mistyped. Thanks for correction.

Now what should the carding mean ? :)

[gnasher]

Jc, 6c, 5c, Qc

Ad, 3d, 6d, 4d

2c, 7c, 8c, 3c

Ac, 4c, 4s, 9c

 

Why didn't I split when declarer played a club up? I seem to have given him a trick for no reason.

[bluecalm]

Why didn't I split when declarer played a club up? I seem to have given him a trick for no reason.

 

Ask Lauria.

At the other table defender also hasn't split and Bocchi as declarer didn't put an 8.

[awm]

Partner's club plays were ♣5 - ♣3 - ♣4. The first was attitude, the next two (low-high) seem to be suit preference for hearts.

 

Partner's diamond plays were ♦4 - ♦7, also up the line. I like to play suit preference to declarer's leads rather than count (except when obvious) so this is also suit preference for hearts.

 

Partner seems to have a strong heart holding. I should switch to that suit. The point count around the table and partner's heart pitch suggest he does not have ♥KQ though. I will switch to a low heart to partner's king.

[bluecalm]

The first was attitude, the next two (low-high) seem to be suit preference for hearts.

 

Attitude is nor relevant once declarer played low. Maybe the first card was s/p ? or maybe just count ?

 

Partner's diamond plays were ♦4 - ♦7, also up the line. I like to play suit preference to declarer's leads rather than count (except when obvious) so this is also suit preference for hearts.

 

Is it suit preference for hearts or just lack of suit preference for spades ?

What would he play holding Qxx Qxx in both suits ? What about JTx Qxx ? What about Qxx Jxx ?

 

I am asking those questions because those dilemmas arise all the time and even elite 20+years partnership got it wrong (and another very good Swedish partnership at other table also got it wrong).

[inquiry]

Partner's club plays were ♣5 - ♣3 - ♣4. The first was attitude, the next two (low-high) seem to be suit preference for hearts.

 

Are you certain the ♣5 is "attitude"?

 

I mean partner leads the JACK and dummy plays low from AK8x. I would think that it will become OBVIOUS to partner in just a second that I do not like clubs, so attitude and count are gone. The ♣5 becomes suit preference for me. When North wins the ♣Q that makes it clear. This is an EXAMPLE of varing from the normal rule of attitude to trick one. If dummy had played A or K, the club signal WOULD have to be attitude.

 

One would think with 3 clubs, he might have played 5 for spades, 4 for hearts, 3 for diamonds, but that is asking too much. I think 5 just is for a higher suit, the 4 would be neutral and the 3 would work out for a lower suit.

 

On the first round of ♦ parnter played low, to confirm the S/P signal is for hearts (not spades) because he played a low diamond. I use the first suit they lead as S/P. When Declarer ran ♣'s partner had a chance to signal strongly in hearts by playing 4=3. He instead played 3=4, I think this denys the ♥K. With heart king he would have played the higher club first the second time too. This is again a violation of usual rules in that usually count would be given in clubs now, but here that is not needed.

 

We know north has ♠K (parnter didn't signal for spades, ♣Q, ♦AKJ (it seems), for 13 hcp. The 1NT bid seems to include a heart honor. The King would be 16 hcp, the queen 15.

 

On second round of diamonds, partner ♦7 would be original count (only play remaining count with normal signals, not upside down ones). It looks like declarer was 4=3=4=2 or 3=4=4=2 (ok he could have five diamonds, but I don't think he throws one from five). I have already botched the defense by not covering the second club. Partner's play in club (5=3=4) convince me that exit with a diamond here and hold declarer to 7 tricks is best at this point. I will be playing partner for ♠J and ♥Q and be ducking declarer's major suit exit.

 

If partner had played ♣ as 5=4=3 I would exit a low heart here.

 

 

 

[bluecalm]

Declarer ran ♣'s partner had a chance to signal strongly in hearts by playing 4=3.

 

Maybe he was afraid it will be for spades ? He doesn't know that he will have a chance to play 2 cards to diamond suit just yet or if declarer's suit is ♦ at all (it could be ♥ and in that case by playing 5-4-3 he will encourage disastrious ♠ switch.

I for one would be pretty sure that partner has K♠ if I saw 5-4 of clubs.

 

This is again a violation of usual rules in that usually count would be given in clubs now, but here that is not needed.

 

Maybe if he doesn't have neither of AK♠, AK♥ he would just play neutral club (a 4) to the first trick ?

Or maybe first club card should always be as loud as possible, because he doesn't know yet that he will have a chance to play all 3 of them ?

[gnasher]

Attitude is nor relevant once declarer played low

That's not true. ♣J might be from J10x. Therefore partner would like to be able to encourage with 9xxx.

 

Against that, with xxx he should give count, so that with J109x we know to split on the second round. Therefore he should also give count with xx. I suppose that means that with 9xxx he should give count as well, and hope that we can work it out.

 

With 9xx he would show two, so that declarer won't know whether to finesse the 8 on the second round.

[bluecalm]

That's not true. ♣J might be from J10x. Therefore partner needs to be able to encourage with 9xxx.

 

Depend no style. I can't imagine myself or my pd ever leading JTx of third in minor suit against this auction but yeah, general point is valid.

 

Anyway, full deal:

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s982ht73d986cak86&w=sjt53hk854d74c543&n=sk64hq62dakj52cq2&e=saq7haj9dqt3cjt97&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=p1nppp]399|300[/hv]

 

Versace played clubs in 5-3-4 order according to vugraph archives and Lauria didn't split clubs and then let 2 tricks and the conract go by playing a diamond back.

At the other table Bocchi played A♦ and club after winning the first trick but didn't put an 8♣. Without cashing A♣ he played 8♦ and finessed. Bertheau let the contract go by playing A♠ (Nystrom played clubs 5-4-3 and diamonds 4-7). 7imps swing on this one, so not minor by any means.

 

Would you played better ? :)

[gnasher]

I think that:

 

- Partner's first club was count (see my previous post).

 

- Partner is now known not to like clubs, because he's shown an odd number, and I wouldn't lead from J10 doubleton in a minor against 1NT.

 

- Because partner's attitude to clubs is known, his diamond play doesn't relate to the club suit. Depending on our agreements, it is either

(a) Reverse Smith, "Obvious Shift" style, ie discouraging a spade shift, or

(b) Suit preference for hearts (or for "not spades")

Luckily that amounts to the same thing.

 

- His ♣34 were also suit preference. If he had no strong preference between the majors, he would have played 4-3 to cancel the earlier message. Therefore he has real preference for hearts.

 

- As he has already shown a liking for hearts, ♥5 is count.

 

- I should have split on the second round of clubs (sorry, did I already mention that?)

 

- Declarer's hand is something like Kxx Qxx AKJxx Qx, so the winning defence is to cross to partners' king to get a spade back.

 

- To make sure he does that, I should play ace and another heart.

 

I vaguely remember this hand, but I don't remember this being the correct answer.

 

 

Edit: That probably looks a bit suspicious, but I really did write this before Bluecalm posted the full hand.

 

Further edit: If I think partner's ♥5 is count, why do I think declarer has three of them? The logical conclusion from my analysis is that declarer has Kxxx Qx AKJxx Qx, or Kx Qxxx AKJxx Qx. Neither of those seems very likely, but anyway, if he has those my defence will still work.

Edited March 30, 2011 by gnasher

[bluecalm]

Further edit: If I think partner's ♥5 is count

 

yeah.. but those are Italians, they have this strange idea, that odd encourage :-)

[inquiry]

(Nystrom played clubs 5-4-3 and diamonds 4-7). 7imps swing on this one, so not minor by any means.

 

Would you played better ? :)

 

I would have carded with Nystrom's hand jsut as he did, for the reasons I suggested in my post. And look he has the hand I said he would have if he had played clubs 5=4=3 in that order. That is how it should be played in my opinion (I would have covered teh second club too, but that is a different issue).

 

Nystroms carding seems perfect to me.

[gnasher]

yeah.. but those are Italians, they have this strange idea, that odd encourage :-)

Then why did you say it was UDCA and natural Lavinthal?

 

This was a good problem, which (as you see) it took most of us several days to think about. It would have been an even better problem if you'd told us what the actual carding agreements were, and if you hadn't posted the full hand whilst we were still talking about it.

[bluecalm]

his was a good problem, which (as you see) it took most of us several days to think about. It would have been an even better problem if you'd told us what the actual carding agreements were, and if you hadn't posted the full hand whilst we were still talking about it.

 

It would be too easy if I said "5♥ is encouraging for hearts", right ?

Maybe it wasn't ? I haven't talked with Versace obviously. I can only read their convention card and draw some conclusions from other hands I saw. I thought this problem is solvable and interesting without going too much into ♥ spot as it was played at other table.

 

I am not a bridge writer, next time when I come across hand like that I will do better :)

[bluecalm]

It would be too easy if I said "5♥ is encouraging for hearts", right ?

Maybe it wasn't ? I haven't talked with Versace obviously. I can only read their convention card and draw some conclusions from other hands I saw. I thought this problem is solvable and interesting without going too much into ♥ spot as it was played at other table.

 

I am not a bridge writer, next time when I come across hand like that I will do better with presentation :)

[gnasher]

It would be too easy if I said "5♥ is encouraging for hearts", right ?

Maybe it wasn't ? I haven't talked with Versace obviously. I can only read their convention card and draw some conclusions from other hands I saw. I thought this problem is solvable and interesting without going too much into ♥ spot as it was played at other table.

 

I am not a bridge writer, next time when I come across hand like that I will do better :)

 

Real bridge writers happily change the facts to suit their purpose. You should have left their carding as UDCA, and changed the discard to ♥4.

[han]

Or change the suit to K865.