Defend with me

[daveharty]

[hv=pc=n&n=sak962hadaj876c74&e=st8hkq52dqt9cjt98&d=n&v=n&b=5&a=1sp1n(forcing)p2dp2np3nppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Matchpoints. Your agreements are 4th best leads vs. NT, UDCA, no Smith (sorry). Declarer is a Random Club Opponent, not an expert by any means. Partner leads the ♥4, and the play goes as follows:

 

T1: ♥4, A, 2, 8.

T2: ♠2, 8, Q, 3.

T3: ♦2, K, A, T.

T4: ♠K, T, 4, 5.

T5: ♠A, ?

[MrAce]

Pd must have Kx ♦ since responder did not support ♦ with at most Jxx(x) in ♥ suit. So pd has something like

♠Jxxx

♥xxxx or Jxxx

♦Kx

♣xxx

 

We cant discard ♣, so either ♦9 or a ♥ K/Q. If i discard a ♦ and he plays a ♦ now he is cold if pd does not have ♥ J, if he plays a 4th ♠ i will have to discard a ♥ honor anyway and let him make even when pd has ♥J without tenace.

 

So i wld just go ahead and start unblocking ♥ now. I may regret this if declarer has 5 ♣ AKQxx and was planning to cash ♣ after 3rd ♠ and has ♥J or T9xx too. I dunno your methods but from Txxx or xxxx pd could have led a higher spot perhaps. He is probably leading from JT74(3) J974(3)

 

Edit: if you decide to discard a ♦ and he plays ♦ we should play small ♥ now i think hoping declarer gets it wrong.

[Phil]

Do we lead the same card from Txxx as we do Jxxx?

 

Agree with Timo re: the ♦ position, although declarer might be 4-3 in the minors except 3-4.

 

Partner started with an original spade holding of ♠J752 and he has played his spade pips up the line. This implies a preference for clubs over hearts. I think if declarer held Qx Jxxx xxx AKQx that my hand is getting ground up on the spades, and declarer might have bid 3N over 2♦ anyway.

 

If I can trust this carding, I will put declarer on Qx Jxxx xxx AKxx. My play is to discard a club on the top spade and a 2nd club if declarer clears spades (and I think he will). My clubs will be the 8 and 9 in order and if partner has a 2nd diamond, I will get the shift, although as long as we don;t do anything crazy we should nip this one.

 

(I'm multi-tasking, so there may be some flaws here :))

 

(edit: of course I'm wrong - there's no quick entry to the spades. Need to think about this more)

[MrAce]

 

If I can trust this carding, I will put declarer on Qx Jxxx xxx AKxx. My play is to discard a club on the top spade and a 2nd club if declarer clears spades (and I think he will). My clubs will be the 8 and 9 in order and if partner has a 2nd diamond, I will get the shift, although as long as we don;t do anything crazy we should nip this one.

 

(I'm multi-tasking, so there may be some flaws here :))

 

You shd not worry about hands where declarer doesnt have ♣ Q, he doesnt have tricks to make 3 nt. Even if u create a ♥ trick for him, 3♠+ 1♦+ 2♥+2♣. You assumed declarer will clear ♠ suit. (Why would he do that since he has no entry left to use 5th ♠ though?

 

The hand u gave above, declarer cant make anyway, he killed all his entries to dummy even if clears ♠ suit.

[rhm]

No guarantees, but I would discard the ♦T, playing declarer for ♠Q4,♥J98,♦5432,♣AKQx or possibly ♠Q4,♥J98,♦xxx,♣AKQxx

 

The fact that declarer burnt his ♦ entry to dummy's long ♠s seems to indicate that he can not afford to loose the lead. Admittedly the ♦ play was not very clever in any case and if declarer is not very competent the ♥8 is unlikely to be a false card.

This would indicate that partner has led from 5 ♥s to the ten.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[wyman]

If the ♥8 is a true card, it suggests partner has 10yxxx or Jxxyx of hearts. If we lead y from these holdings, we can discard the heart king to let partner know what's going on. Looks like they're getting 3+1+1+ at most 3, so to beat this all I need to do is not pitch a club basically, but it's MPs, and I'm greedy, so I'll try the HK and see what happens next. If declarer doesn't cash 8, we're getting 4 hearts, a spade, and 2 diamonds.

[MrAce]

If the ♥8 is a true card, it suggests partner has 10yxxx or Jxxyx of hearts. If we lead y from these holdings, we can discard the heart king to let partner know what's going on. Looks like they're getting 3+1+1+ at most 3, so to beat this all I need to do is not pitch a club basically, but it's MPs, and I'm greedy, so I'll try the HK and see what happens next. If declarer doesn't cash 8, we're getting 4 hearts, a spade, and 2 diamonds.

 

That doesnt add up, if u pitch ♣ declarer will make 3+1+1+4

 

And if u pitch ♥K, as i would too, then u are screwed when he plays a ♦ and has the hand Rainer expecting. Qx J98 xxxx AKQx or Qx J98 xxx AKQxx. He makes now.

 

But i took small ♥ lead more seriously since we dont play smith.

[BunnyGo]

If the ♥8 is a true card, it suggests partner has 10yxxx or Jxxyx of hearts. If we lead y from these holdings, we can discard the heart king to let partner know what's going on. Looks like they're getting 3+1+1+ at most 3, so to beat this all I need to do is not pitch a club basically, but it's MPs, and I'm greedy, so I'll try the HK and see what happens next. If declarer doesn't cash 8, we're getting 4 hearts, a spade, and 2 diamonds.

 

I think you're missing the threat of an endplay coming too. If you pitch the low heart, then a good declarer will cash 3 clubs and endplay you for a second diamond trick. A bad declarer will cashout their 8 tricks and then magically endplay you for their ninth trick. :P

 

Maybe you implied all this and I'm just tired.

 

I agree that a club cannot be pitched (for the reasons elaborated by Mr. Ace). Partner is *very* unlikely to have a club stopper, and if he does, then the play is moot anyways. I'm going to pitch the diamond, since:

 

1) If declarer has 2 diamonds, then dummy is dead and we can get lots of heart, diamond and club tricks.

 

2) If declarer has 3 diamonds, then hearts are almost surely running.

 

3) While my first instinct was the flashy K of hearts unblock, it costs too often, and seems to be taking on too much risk instead of just taking sure tricks.

[wyman]

That doesnt add up, if u pitch ♣ declarer will make 3+1+1+4

 

And if u pitch ♥K, as i would too, then u are screwed when he plays a ♦ and has the hand Rainer expecting. Qx J98 xxxx AKQx or Qx J98 xxx AKQxx. He makes now.

 

But i took small ♥ lead more seriously since we dont play smith.

 

He can't have the hand rhm suggested if we lead 2nd from 5 to the 10 and 4th from a suit headed by the J, which is pretty standard I think, especially if we're not smithing.

 

I thought I agreed with you that pitching a club is out of the question, but maybe I wasn't clear. I said all i need to do to beat this is not pitch a club.

 

And Ben, what do you mean about pitching the low heart? I need that to get to P's hand. I never said anything about pitching a low heart. I don't see what endplay you're talking about. I pitch the HK, and now if he plays 3 rds of clubs, he has 8 tricks, and we'll get the remaining 5.

 

And at IMPs I'd be tempted to pitch the diamond as well to make sure we're beating this. But at MPs, I am going for blood. I'm playing the ♥K, not to be flashy, but to maximize our score. The only situations in which this costs is when partner has led the wrong card (again, assuming the agreements above, partner holds the ♥J) or when declarer holds 10983 and played the 8 at T1 -- and even then, we have 2 hearts, a cashing spade, and a diamond thru for 5 tricks, which looks like a reasonable score on this board anyway.

 

And P has a safe club exit, so we get these tricks even if P only has a stiff ♦K.

^^ edit: actually this is false, since in this case, we can be endplayed. Ok, so pitching the HK is bad if pard has a stiff DK and opps eschewed a 9 card diamond fit AND declarer has 10983 exactly of hearts. Whatever, it's MPs, I'm still doing it.

[BunnyGo]

He can't have the hand rhm suggested if we lead 2nd from 5 to the 10 and 4th from a suit headed by the J, which is pretty standard I think, especially if we're not smithing.

 

Ok, I understand your point. It's sinking in now.

 

And Ben, what do you mean about pitching the low heart? I need that to get to P's hand. I never said anything about pitching a low heart. I don't see what endplay you're talking about. I pitch the HK, and now if he plays 3 rds of clubs, he has 8 tricks, and we'll get the remaining 5.

 

I'd misunderstood, there was an endplay looming if you pitched the low heart, not the K.

 

 

 

And at IMPs I'd be tempted to pitch the diamond as well to make sure we're beating this. But at MPs, I am going for blood. I'm playing the ♥K, not to be flashy, but to maximize our score. The only situations in which this costs is when partner has led the wrong card (again, assuming the agreements above, partner holds the ♥J) or when declarer holds 10983 and played the 8 at T1 -- and even then, we have 2 hearts, a cashing spade, and a diamond thru for 5 tricks, which looks like a reasonable score on this board anyway.

 

Against a random club opponent, I count on them to cash out 8 tricks (if they have them), so I try to defend to not give them the 9th. I agree that at matchpoints it's important to get every undertrick, but I just want my average + for setting this. If 5 tricks looks reasonable, that's all I want. I like to give my partner leeway to have made a "wrong" opening lead (since I do it so often, and opening leads suck), and by trick 5 I should hopefully be able to find another basis for defending.

 

If pitching the diamond ten actually costs the 5th trick (or sets up the 9th), then that would be a good reason to go for this extra blood.

 

Basically, all this analysis has been interesting, but I think:

 

1) a club pitch is clearly out for the reasons briefly explained by Timo

 

2) a spade pitch is wrong, as that would be cheating

 

3) a low heart pitch is wrong, as 4 rounds of clubs make you very sad

 

4) a high heart is wrong for the reason given by Rainer, even if partner "shouldn't" have that hand, the way declarer is playing screams for avoiding this defense

 

5) the diamond ten is the pitch least likely to cost a trick, and as this is matchpoints and we expect that they have 8 off the top, that's all I'm trying to do. Although Timo's point that another spade will make me sad is slightly worrying.

[MrAce]

I thought I agreed with you that pitching a club is out of the question, but maybe I wasn't clear. I said all i need to do to beat this is not pitch a club.

 

I am so sorry mate, my bad, for some reason i read it as " all i need to do is to pitch a ♣ to beat this " I think i need new glasses.

[wyman]

I like to give my partner leeway to have made a "wrong" opening lead (since I do it so often, and opening leads suck), and by trick 5 I should hopefully be able to find another basis for defending.

 

It's fine to give partner leeway to make a suboptimal lead. But you shouldn't defend based on partner making an antisystemic opening lead in a club game against mediocre opponents.

 

This would be like seeing the ♥2 opening lead and saying "well, I get 5 tricks half the time and 6 tricks the other half by line A assuming partner made a normal 4th best opening lead, but if partner's 2 was 5th best (antisystemic), we only take 3 tricks, so I'll take line B, where we're guaranteed exactly 5 tricks, even if partner led 5th best."

 

I just can't see defending based on partner psyching an opening lead.

 

Again, my whole post hinges on having the agreement with partner to lead second highest from 4 or 5 empty (including a suit headed by the 10). If you don't have a firm agreement about leads, your defense is tougher, of course, but this is to be expected.

[BunnyGo]

It's fine to give partner leeway to make a suboptimal lead. But you shouldn't defend based on partner making an antisystemic opening lead in a club game against mediocre opponents.

 

This would be like seeing the ♥2 opening lead and saying "well, I get 5 tricks half the time and 6 tricks the other half by line A assuming partner made a normal 4th best opening lead, but if partner's 2 was 5th best (antisystemic), we only take 3 tricks, so I'll take line B, where we're guaranteed exactly 5 tricks, even if partner led 5th best."

 

I just can't see defending based on partner psyching an opening lead.

 

Again, my whole post hinges on having the agreement with partner to lead second highest from 4 or 5 empty (including a suit headed by the 10). If you don't have a firm agreement about leads, your defense is tougher, of course, but this is to be expected.

 

I agree that one shouldn't assume that partner has made an antisystem bid or play. What I'm suggesting is that it seems to me from the rest of the play that pitching the K of hearts "could" (possibly...maybe) blow a trick, whereas the diamond "almost surely" couldn't. It's true, if partner only led from 4 hearts, then I need to pitch a high heart and hope. Otherwise, I don't see why I should do anything that may give up the 9th trick. The difference between 8 and 9 tricks here is significantly more matchpoints (surely) than the difference between 7 and 8 tricks.

[wyman]

And P has a safe club exit, so we get these tricks even if P only has a stiff ♦K.

^^ edit: actually this is false, since in this case, we can be endplayed. Ok, so pitching the HK is bad if pard has a stiff DK and opps eschewed a 9 card diamond fit AND declarer has 10983 exactly of hearts. Whatever, it's MPs, I'm still doing it.

 

My edit was silly, since in this case declarer is 2443, so there's no endplay coming in clubs.

 

So now I've thought harder about it, and I can't come up with a hand where throwing the HK costs a trick, again assuming partner has the HJ. Can you?

[BunnyGo]

My edit was silly, since in this case declarer is 2443, so there's no endplay coming in clubs.

 

So now I've thought harder about it, and I can't come up with a hand where throwing the HK costs a trick, again assuming partner has the HJ. Can you?

 

No, I cannot either. If partner has at least J764 of hearts, and J7xx of spades, I cannot think of a situation in diamonds and clubs where it costs a trick.

 

Maybe the K of hearts is a better pitch.

[rhm]

He can't have the hand rhm suggested if we lead 2nd from 5 to the 10 and 4th from a suit headed by the J, which is pretty standard I think, especially if we're not smithing.

That this is pretty standard is an overstatement. Some play that way and some don't. We all assume too quickly what has become "natural" to us is "pretty standard".

Would you also lead second highest from 6 cards to the ten?

I would lead second highest from a 5 card major suit headed by the ten only if I saw potential in a switch, which is often the case when you lead from a weak suit, but not here. Leading high is dangerous, when partner can not know for sure it is you, who is long in the suit.

Holding nothing in ♣ I would not lead second highest. I do not want to encourage a switch, partner fearing that it is declarer, who is long in ♥s.

I doubt many experts would either.

To quote Kantar Teaches Modern Bridge Defense (Leading against notrump, page 19):

Although the 10 is considered an honor, partner usually expects a little more when you lead low. If you have another suit you want partner to return, lead second highest from 10xxx.

...

With 5 or 6 small cards and possible outside entries lead small.

 

And at IMPs I'd be tempted to pitch the diamond as well to make sure we're beating this. But at MPs, I am going for blood.

Which blood? If declarer is missing the ♥J he will have ♣AKQ for his bidding and 8 tricks on top.

2 down is unlikely and only possible if declarer has the ♥J.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[wyman]

Which blood? If declarer is missing the ♥J he will have ♣AKQ for his bidding and 8 tricks on top.

2 down is unlikely and only possible if declarer has the ♥J.

 

Rainer, this is a mediocre club player. I don't think it's crazy to think that they might not cash out in a cash-out situation, and if this is the case, we may well take 7 tricks (4 hearts, a spade, and 2 diamonds). And my point was only that it "can't" cost to try. Although in fairness, it sure looks like declarer's about to cash out 8.

 

Your first point (re: leading low from 10xxxx with no outside card) is compelling, though, and I'd be interested in whether there's a consensus. I would lead y from 10yxxx so that partner can hopefully work out the honor situation, but you're right that -- at some point -- we have to let him in on the joke. I would give a positive Smith, but I've been discovering (i.e., Phil has pointed out) situations where Smith doesn't apply. Is it also off after I lead high? Moreover, if I lead low, should I give a negative Smith? If I lead low and give a +, then pard will almost surely discard the ♥K here. I feel like leading high and giving a positive is a better description of 10xxxx, but I'm not sure. This is really interesting.

 

[This probably doesn't deserve its own thread, and I hope Dave doesn't mind my hijacking his a bit more... If it does deserve its own thread, say so, or just make one and link it.]

So, experts, which ♥spot do you lead from:

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sj753ht7643dk4c32&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1sp1n(forcing)p2dp2np3nppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Whatever your choice, does it change if you are/aren't playing Smith? And will you give a positive or negative Smith on the first spade?