Defend this

[MrAce]

[hv=pc=n&n=skt2hk8dqj4cakj76&e=sqj94hj9dktcq8542&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=p4hppp]266|200[/hv]

 

You are North, pd is expert with national titles, opponents have represented their country in international events, experts. Over unexpected 4♥ bid lets say you decided to pass since pd is coming from pass.

 

You led ♣A and partner playing ♣T and declarer ♣9. Agreements are standart count and attitude + trump suit pref signals. How would you plan the defense and why ?

 

Also agree with pass over 4♥ ?

 

IMPS

[Trumpace]

What is the scoring?

 

At IMPS I guess I would play DQ without thinking too much :). Even if pard has club singleton, we don't really need to give him a ruff. It is not going anywhere.

[MrAce]

What is the scoring?

 

At IMPS I guess I would play DQ without thinking too much :). Even if pard has club singleton, we don't really need to give him a ruff. It is not going anywhere.

 

Sorry, i added the IMPs in original post.

[ahydra]

I'd place decl with 8 hearts to AQJ and one of the pointy aces, so it's a case of what his shape is. Say 3811 then a diamond looks fine, expecting to get the club, a heart, a spade and a diamond/spade. 1831 is pretty much the same.

 

Suppose he has 3802 where now suddenly you're only making 1 trick in spades and your DA isn't going anywhere. A diamond still works here - you expect to get in with HK and then you can cash the 2nd club now you've discovered the diamond void.

 

I'm actually failing to see any hand for decl where the DQ is wrong atm, so I'm probably not looking hard enough? And IMPS, undoubled, I'm not caring too much for the 2nd undertrick if it is there.

 

FWIW I'd have passed over 4H also - hand too flat.

 

ahydra

[Phil]

This diagram gives me vertigo.

 

I think you will get owned if you don't double on hands like this.

 

The main time the ♦Q doesn't seem to work is if declarer has both pointed aces and a doubleton club - Ax AQxxxxx Ax 93. There's also a few layouts where declarer is a red 6-5 without the ♥Q, but I think we are beating it regardless.

 

I could be missing something here.

[whereagles]

totally agree with Phil, especially in respect to the first sentence :rolleyes:

 

The anti-compass notation has been appearing over and over. There must be some bug in the script.

[MrAce]

This diagram gives me vertigo.

 

I think you will get owned if you don't double on hands like this.

 

The main time the ♦Q doesn't seem to work is if declarer has both pointed aces and a doubleton club - Ax AQxxxxx Ax 93. There's also a few layouts where declarer is a red 6-5 without the ♥Q, but I think we are beating it regardless.

 

I could be missing something here.

 

It would be quite a view to place a preempter with 3 aces Phil, and his pd is not coming from pass.

[Phil]

It would be quite a view to place a preempter with 3 aces Phil, and his pd is not coming from pass.

 

The diagram shows he is in 3rd seat. My recollection anyway - I'm on my PDA.

 

edit - OK its a 2nd seat preempt and there will not be two outside aces. I'll stick with my ♦Q.

[dake50]

Need lots to persuade me off DQ. Don't see lots.

 

Close on value for Double. I choose that.

Clear double with 4+Spades. A 4S upside possible.

Will partner stomach a few 4H-X= losing 120+50 =5 imp?

Will he choke seeing he's in 4S on S:4-3, getting S:2-4?

Toss these onto the loses side of double.

Hate missing penalty bonanza 500+ - this one feels like: CKA +HK +SK +DKA.

[rhm]

I can at least construct a layout where it is right to continue with a small ♣.

 

Give declarer

 

♠-,♥AQTxxxx,♦A8xx,♣93

 

and the bidding would be reasonable,though a second seat 4♥ preempt would not be every bodies choice. Now only a ♣ continuation ruffed, followed by a trump would defeat 4♥.

But on balance the ♦Q at trick 2 has to be right

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

I can at least construct a layout where it is right to continue with a small ♣.

 

Give declarer

 

♠-,♥AQTxxxx,♦A8xx,♣93

 

and the bidding would be reasonable,though a second seat 4♥ preempt would not be every bodies choice. Now only a ♣ continuation ruffed, followed by a trump would defeat 4♥.

But on balance the ♦Q at trick 2 has to be right

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

You are very close Rainer :) Almost there, BUT when it comes to playing ♦ Q, i wonder what tricks defenders are hoping for, to defeat ? I mean we took 1♣ and will eventually score a ♥ trick, if pd has ♦ Ace, where can declarer possibly park those ♦s if we dont play ?

 

I think thats enough hint, no ? :)

[Trumpace]

if pd has ♦ Ace, where can declarer possibly park those ♦s if we dont play ?

 

 

 

How about a spade on CQ?

 

Say declarer has xx, AQxxxxxx,Ax,x?

 

If you play CK (which I guess is what you are hinting at) declarer can cash HA and throw a spade on CQ, reaching dummy with DK.

If you play low C, declarer gets an immediate discard.

 

And if pd has DA, declarer could have

 

Axx, AQxxxxxx, x, x and gets a discard on low club from you.

[MrAce]

How about a spade on CQ?

 

Say declarer has xx, AQxxxxxx,Ax,x?

 

If you play CK (which I guess is what you are hinting at) declarer can cash HA and throw a spade on CQ, reaching dummy with DK.

If you play low C, declarer gets an immediate discard.

 

And if pd has DA, declarer could have

 

Axx, AQxxxxxx, x, x and gets a discard on low club from you.

 

No i wasnt hinting on any particular play, i was just giving a thought since everyone seems in a rush for ♦ tricks.

[Trumpace]

No i wasnt hinting on any particular play, i was just giving a thought since everyone seems in a rush for ♦ tricks.

 

Why do you think playing DQ is a rush for diamond tricks? It seems to be only lead with minimal risk of blowing a trick. Defense can go passive on this hand and DQ serves that purpose.

[MrAce]

Why do you think playing DQ is a rush for diamond tricks? It seems to be only lead with minimal risk of blowing a trick. Defense can go passive on this hand and DQ serves that purpose.

 

I would agree with you if not blowing a trick was our goal.

 

You are allowed to blow a trick if that move defeats 4♥ more often than the moves which seems not blowing a trick :)

[Trumpace]

I would agree with you if not blowing a trick was our goal.

 

You are allowed to blow a trick if that move defeats 4♥ more often than the moves which seems not blowing a trick :)

 

Yes, and that would mean we need to go active. Here there does not seem to be a need for going active.

 

In any case, DQ is both passive and active! :-)

[gnasher]

Maybe a low spade is right? If declarer has x AQ10xxxx Axxx x, partner's trump switch will take away one of his ruffs.

 

That costs the contract if he has Axx AQxxxxxx - xx. He'll win the spade in dummy and play a heart to the queen. Then I'll have the unpleasant choice of cashing the club, which allows him a discard whilst he still has an entry to dummy, or not cashing it and being strip-squeezed. However, that gives partner eight diamonds, so it's not very likely.

 

It would also cost if declarer had the Ax AQxxxxxxx x x or Ax AQ10xxxx Ax xx, but these are also unlikely, for different reasons.

[rhm]

Maybe a low spade is right? If declarer has x AQ10xxxx Axxx x, partner's trump switch will take away one of his ruffs.

 

That costs the contract if he has Axx AQxxxxxx - xx. He'll win the spade in dummy and play a heart to the queen. Then I'll have the unpleasant choice of cashing the club, which allows him a discard whilst he still has an entry to dummy, or not cashing it and being strip-squeezed. However, that gives partner eight diamonds, so it's not very likely.

 

It would also cost if declarer had the Ax AQxxxxxxx x x or Ax AQ10xxxx Ax xx, but these are also unlikely, for different reasons.

 

Assuming declarer has A8xx in ♦s (a big if) and seven ♥s. If declarer's remaining black card is a low ♠, you need to play a ♠. If it is a ♣ you need to play a small ♣.

There is no way to know, but a small ♠ is more likely to be right. If partner might have opened a weak two vulnerable with ♠A8xxxx,♥xx,♦9xxx,♣x, a ♠ is clearly indicated.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

Assuming declarer has A8xx in ♦ (a big if) and seven ♥. If declarer's remaining black card is a low ♠, you need to play a ♠. If it is a ♣ you need to play a small ♣.

There is no way to know, but a small ♠ is more likely to be right.

 

That's not the point. A small spade caters for some hands where declarer has ♦Axxx, without giving away the contract on other likely layouts. A small club caters for a few more hands where declarer has ♦Axxx, but also gives away the contract on some quite likely layouts.

[MrAce]

Maybe a low spade is right? If declarer has x AQ10xxxx Axxx x, partner's trump switch will take away one of his ruffs.

 

That costs the contract if he has Axx AQxxxxxx - xx. He'll win the spade in dummy and play a heart to the queen. Then I'll have the unpleasant choice of cashing the club, which allows him a discard whilst he still has an entry to dummy, or not cashing it and being strip-squeezed. However, that gives partner eight diamonds, so it's not very likely.

 

It would also cost if declarer had the Ax AQxxxxxxx x x or Ax AQ10xxxx Ax xx, but these are also unlikely, for different reasons.

 

Small ♠ also loses when declarer has void AQxxxxx Axxx xx (as Rainer said small ♣ would defeat)

 

But yes small ♠ is the correct defense imo. Because even if declarer has ♠ A, this insures that pd has ♦A as long as pd did not pass twice with an 8 card suit, or a 7402 hand we will be fine. When pd has ♦A we are in much better shape than when not. I loved this hand because in first glance it seems what scares the defender is declarer holding the ♠A but in reality it is the ♦A with declarer which is dangerous. Because when combined with dummy's K and ruffing value, it gives declarer about 4 tricks.

 

This is what declarer had in original deal.

 

[hv=pc=n&w=s3haq75432da632c9]133|100[/hv]

[gnasher]

Nice hand. You should send it to the Bridge World - it looks suitable for Kantar for the Defence.

[Trumpace]

Given that declarer will likely have longer diamonds than spades, a low spade does seem convincing. And it looks like partner can figure out a trump return after winning the SA.

 

Agree with others. Nice hand. Thank you for posting, MrAce.

[MrAce]

Thank you Andy and Trumpace. And of course everyone else who bothered to reply.

 

I was expecting more posters, and was dissapointed by the number of replies and thought perhaps it wasn't as interesting defense hand as i thought. But then i remembered something JLOGIC posted in another thread, Justin said something like "Everyone replies to bidding topics since it is hard to prove someone wrong in bidding, but card play or defense topics are replied by only few..." He maybe accurate with his statement to a degree, even in the adv/exp section. I think we all love ATB topics the most.

 

When a hand is asked to us in a bridge book, or by a friend or in a forum, it is not same as playing the hand at the table. Not only because we have more time to solve it, b ut also we all are aware that there is something to it or it wouldn't have been asked at the first place. So it is hard to blame the multiple times world champ North player, who played ♦Q at the table (L.Lauria).

 

Some kibs commented " It is impossible to defeat this without mirrors ..." Larry saw the defense and so did i and of course the reasons Andy stated, but we were seeing all 4 hands. So i asked myself " Would u play small ♠ at the table and find the right defense ?" My ego said "Of course" But the fact is i am % 100 confident that i would not find it at the table. :)