Zia's 6S

[Phil]

[hv=pc=n&s=skj962hqd74cj9543&n=sat83hakj654d3ca6&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1d1sp3h4dpp4np5cp6sppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Here's a hand from the 1Q of the Spingold Final. West leads the ♦K, 3, 2, 4. He thinks about it for awhile and continues a diamond which you ruff.

 

Plan the play.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=skj962hqd74cj9543&n=sat83hakj654d3ca6&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1d1sp3h4dpp4np5cp6sppp]266|200| Phil wrote "Here's a hand from the 1Q of the Spingold Final. West leads the ♦K, 3, 2, 4. He thinks about it for awhile and continues a diamond which you ruff. Plan the play."

 

 

My guess (a line that caters for ♠ 4-0 and ♥ 5-1 :) but loses to singleton ♠Q :() : Ruff ♦, ♥Q, run ♠9, finesse ♠T, ♠A, ruff ♥, ♠K chucking ♣, ♣A. Claim. :) [/hv]

Amusingly, If LHO were 4-6-1-2 with ♣KQ and RHO played two rounds of ♦ then...

• The second ♦ would squeeze LHO fratricidally, at trick two.
• Assuming that LHO discards a trump, the ♠K later squeezes LHO in the round suits.

[vianu2]

West just led the k ♦ followed by another and obviously can't be squeezed by himself at this tric. E bid the ♦ so it would be strange to miss KQ♣.

Of course if E opens some 3♦ for example (don't know his hand) Zia will never be forced to decide how to make this slam.

Play for 1(0)-1-8-3(4) ruf the ♦, ♥ to Q, finesse ♠ (jack to dummy) take all 3 spades, ruf a ♥ and take the last trump then ace ♣.

Is that so bad?

[Hanoi5]

I wonder whether West hesitated during the bidding or something.

[nige1]

I wonder whether West hesitated during the bidding or something.

I didn't watch this session, so I don't know what works in practice. But we're told that LHO tanked at trick two, ignored his partner's club signal and led a diamond instead, so there is a vague inference that he is trying to protect ♠Qxxx by putting declarer to an immediate trump guess. Of course, he may simply be protecting his partner's singleton ♠Q. :(

[vianu2]

I didn't watch this session, so I don;t know what works in practice. But we're told that LHO tanked at trick two, ignored his partner's club signal and led a diamond instead, so there is a vague inference that he is trying to protect ♠Qxxx by putting declarer to an immediate trump guess. Of course, he may simply be protecting his partner's singleton ♠Q :(

It cant be!!!

Returning ♣ u allow declarer to play ♠ from dummy and u don't protect the Q♠ !! No matter u have xxx ♠ or qxxx u must return ♦.

[vianu2]

 

Plan the play.

who had the q♠ btw?? Please

[gszes]

I dont know how this hand is layed out BUT

I dont like it one bit. With 4 spades it is

EASY to continue dia from the w seat not caring

one whit if it gives up a ruff and sluff. Why

would it take W so long to find such a play??

 

Thats one another strike against 40 trumps

why would E need W to make a club switch if

they have the presumed club KQ and AQJ dia????

That makes no sense they would simply overtake

and make the club switch themselves.

 

It appears E has something akin to

Qx x AQJxxxxx Kx and w

xx Txxxx Kx Qxxx

 

W trying to represent long spades by making an

apparently risky dia play. W is pretty sure

12 tricks are making unless p has trump Q

(counting 5 hearts 5 spades club A and dia ruff)

and dia play best chance to lead declarer astray.

 

a third strike against 40 trumps is with say

void x AQJxxxxx Kxxx would E not even consider

a 5c bid (after the 4n bid)? vulnerability not

shown so i am only speculating.

[nige1]

I dont know how this hand is laid out BUT I dont like it one bit. With 4 spades it is EASY to continue dia from the w seat not caring one whit if it gives up a ruff and sluff. Why would it take W so long to find such a play??

If LHO holds 4♠ and 5♥, perhaps, he should take a little longer :) Then LHO's best defence may be to cash ♦K and switch to a ♣, hoping that RHO has ♣K and declarer is a trick short :(

[vianu2]

I dont know how this hand is layed out BUT

I dont like it one bit. With 4 spades it is

EASY to continue dia from the w seat not caring

one whit if it gives up a ruff and sluff. Why

would it take W so long to find such a play??

 

Interesting analyze. So we should plan our declarer taking care of opps hesitations too?

Now when i know W took long time to back another ♦..i want to review my declarer :P Got the lesson.

[gnasher]

It appears E has something akin to

Qx x AQJxxxxx Kx and w

xx Txxxx Kx Qxxx

Doesn't that West hand look like a negative double?

[rhm]

Doesn't that West hand look like a negative double?

The hand is not exactly what Zia held.

Zia had QTx in ♦ and only 4 cards in ♣.

So overtaking in ♦ was not an option for East.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Phil]

The hand is not exactly what Zia held.

Zia had QTx in ♦ and only 4 cards in ♣.

So overtaking in ♦ was not an option for East.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

This is correct. I had inputed the hands from memory and South definitely held ♦QTx. Sorry for the error.

[Phil]

I thought this was a fun hand to watch. Zimmermann made a nice play of tapping dummy at T2 which removed an option for declarer to check for ♠Q stiff.

 

In a vacuum, "xxx/Q">"Qxxx/void", but with diamonds a likely 7-2 (sorry about the original diagram), the chances 4-0 split exceed the specific 3-1. I played around with this on rpbridge.net's suit calculator and as long as East has more vacant spaces than West, its best to take a 1st round finesse.

 

This hand reminds me a lot of Case 20 from: Las Vegas Casebook

 

This deal was played in the 1st day of the LM's which was the 1st NABC event I played in after a long layoff. Our auction was 1♥ - (4♦) - 4♠ - AP. Bocchi played in 4♠ against me and made 6 after my partner shifted to a club at T2. After the hand, he commented on what would have happened if partner chose to tap dummy at T2 and that he would have had a guess.