Advanced Defensive Play FIVE

[inquiry]

[hv=lin=md|2SHDC,SHDC,S3HA762DQ53CAKJ86,SAT9HT3DAKT42C542|sv|0|mb|p|mb|1C|mb|1D|mb|1S|mb|2H|an|fit non jump, h+d|mb|x|mb|p|mb|2s|mb|p|mb|2n|mb|p|mb|3S|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|D6|pc|D3|pc|Dt|pc|D9|]400|300|Here is a hand I got right thanks to reading the Rodwell files. I might have gotten it right anyway, but the winning idea came to me nearly instantly thanks to reading rodwell's book. See what you think about the hand. In the final analysis the defense is not that hard, but it was the speed at which I found the winning play.

 

First the bidding, 2♥ was a fit-non jump by a passed hand. This shows here probably precisely five hearts to some significant honor/spots and a diamond fit. I probably should bid 3♦, but I passed (2♥ is an interesting contact on its own), and south"ran" to 2♠. North tried to improve the contract and they ended up in 3♠.

 

As you can see, I won the first trick with the ten. What is the best defense, and what does rodwell call this in his book? And I guess, finally, was my defense on this hand lucky playing with the idea from his book or was this really the right play.

[/hv]

[MrAce]

I didnt read those files so i may be wrong but i'd continue ♥. (Or cash 2nd ♦ and then a ♥)

 

I expect declarer to hold 2-2 in red suits and 6♠. And hope pd has 8xx ♠.

 

KQJxxx

Qx

xx

xxx or Qxx

 

So i dont really have to worry that he can run ♣ right away to discard something.

 

-If he takes first ♥ and play a ♠, we duck, take 2nd ♠ and cash another ♦ and play a ♥, pd plays 3rd ♥ for uppercut we ruff with T.

 

-If he ducks first ♥ its easy then we play another ♦ and another ♦ let him ruff, take ♠ ace killing one of KQJ and play 4th ♦.

 

Playing ♣ at trick 2 can be interesting but i am afraid it will let them make if declarer has KQJxxx Jx xx Qxx. Not that likely from bidding but looking at North's bidding obviously they were beginners so we cant really rely much on their auction.

[dake50]

What agreements do we have about the honor order?

D10A not the same as D10K - right?

DK instead of D10 is different from DA - right?

Then a later H-switch is enlightening to partner - right?

[inquiry]

What agreements do we have about the honor order?

D10A not the same as D10K - right?

DK instead of D10 is different from DA - right?

Then a later H-switch is enlightening to partner - right?

 

There is meaning to playing honors in a non-standard way. But if you look at the descripton of your partners 2♥ bid, it promised a diamond fit. (note: fit non-jumps by passed hand are usually only played at the three level or higher, so this was a bastardized treatment that this partner likes to play, because he opens 2M weak on a lot of five card suits. I probably should have mentioned, this partner will bid this way at the two level with three card support to an honor for this "fit non-jump"). At trick one if you won the ♦A then played the ♦K you would be showing value in a higher suit. Trick two if you won the ♦T then played the [d]K you would be showing value in a lower suit. Winning the king at trick one, then playing the ace, or winning the diamond ten at trick one then playing the Ace is standard, and carries no special meaning other than you decided against playing one of the ways listed earlier with special meaning.

[CSGibson]

what agreement do you have about leads? could partner have 4 diamonds on the bidding & play?

[inquiry]

what agreement do you have about leads? could partner have 4 diamonds on the bidding & play?

 

We play Slawinski leads. Long story short, since he promised diamonds with his 2♥ bid, he would have led a high diamond if he did not have an honor. From Hxyz (four card suit), he would have led y (3rd best). But also from Hxy he would have lead y (lowest). So I KNOW he has only Jx6 and declarer has one more diamond. I didn't want to get into Slawinski leads, but in highsight I could have said we played 3/5 th leads which is the same thing here.So while from bidding he could easily have four diamonds, his lead is consistent with only three.

[CSGibson]

so our goal is 5 tricks - declarer is probably either 6-2-2-3 or 7-2-2-2. Declarer also likely has the heart Q since partner didn't lead hearts. I think I'm cashing a 2nd diamond, then switching to the T of hearts, playing declarer for 6-2-2-3, and for partner to have some spade honor (which means I have to play low on the spade lead from dummy). This also caters towards partner having 8xx of spades, since he can continue a 3rd heart and have me trump-promote him (or, alternatively, if declarer ducks the first heart, partner can switch back to diamonds and let me play a 4th round through after winning the A to get a trump promotion for myself).

[rhm]

deleted

 

Rainer Herrmann

[MrAce]

Deleted

[rhm]

What are u talking Rainer, ♠ is the trump.

 

I think u either confused the contract or meant something else when u said 'spades' in your post.

 

You are right I thought the contract was 3♣. I will reconsider.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

But if you look at the descripton of your partners 2♥ bid, it promised a diamond fit. (note: fit non-jumps by passed hand are usually only played at the three level or higher, so this was a bastardized treatment that this partner likes to play, because he opens 2M weak on a lot of five card suits. I probably should have mentioned, this partner will bid this way at the two level with three card support to an honor for this "fit non-jump").

 

Does this mean that partner might have only four hearts?

[inquiry]

Does this mean that partner might have only four hearts?

 

No partner will surely have at least five hearts, and probably exactly five hearts. He also needs some kind of honors in hearts.

[MrAce]

No partner will surely have at least five hearts, and probably exactly five hearts. He also needs some kind of honors in hearts.

 

 

Thats what i thought and posted how i would defend.

[inquiry]

[hv=lin=md|2SKQJ876HJ4D98CT93,S542HKQ985DJ76CQ7,S3HA762DQ53CAKJ86,SAT9HT3DAKT42C542|sv|0|mb|p|mb|1C|mb|1D|mb|1S|mb|2H|an|fit non jump, h+d|mb|d|mb|p|mb|2s|mb|p|mb|2n|mb|p|mb|3S|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|]400|300|Perhaps my defense worked for the wrong reason. I have read "The Rodwell Files" and I am very happy with its presentation style. For me, the thing I like about the Rodwell Files is that I am very much into pattern recongnition (as anyone who struggled through my squeeze post/blog/rough book draft knows. Rodwell has a lot of new terms that help with pattern recognition, such as bait-and-switch, 007 license to kill, Cash Catering, trick trashing, and many others. But one I have been trying to study is "Days of Thunder".

 

His classification of "days of thunder" is an easy pattern situtation to recongize at the table. Days of thunder, involve leading declarer's solid suit and in the process create impossible entry conditions for declarer. So one thing I have been on the look out for since my first reading of his book is solid suits for declarer, and if I find one, if there could be some entry conditions that could be problematic for him if the defense switches to that suit. Clubs are "solid" because if declarer doesn't have the queen, the finesse will win. Also, with partner having the heart king (at least), there is no club, diamond, or heart entry to south. Because of this pattern recognition issue, I wondered if this could be a days of thunder hand? Partner has 3♦ and 5♥. If declarer had seven spades, partner would have only two spades, but with 7♠, I thought south might bid more, so at this point, I figured partner to be 3=5=3=2. We can score 2D, 1H, 1S if partner has ♠Qxx then 3♠ is probably down. But, we might be able to score partner's spade in the form of a club ruff, because declarer entry problem.

 

Turns out my defense needs, among other things, partner to have the ♣Qx or singleton club (highly unlikely) or else declarer has a club entry. Partner also needs the ♥KQ or he can't knock out the late entry to the established clubs (after he gets his club ruff). On the other hand, partner probably needs the ♥KQ for his bid, and if declarer has either of those, he might have stayed in 2♥x or 2nt. Not sure if on the long run, this defense was right, but this was my first real live "day of thunder" hand using that nomenclature and playing for it. I have found one more, that I will post in later because, well, everyone would see it right away now. I am making a personal collection of hands that fit Rodwell file nomenclature as a way to help me with identifying the hand patterns. i will post the interesting ones here if there is interest. It would help in reviewing these if you buy and read his excellent book. [/hv]

[MrAce]

[hv=lin=md|2SKQJ876HJ4D98CT93,S542HKQ985DJ76CQ7,S3HA762DQ53CAKJ86,SAT9HT3DAKT42C542|sv|0|mb|p|mb|1C|mb|1D|mb|1S|mb|2H|an|fit non jump, h+d|mb|d|mb|p|mb|2s|mb|p|mb|2n|mb|p|mb|3S|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|]400|300|Perhaps my defense worked for the wrong reason. I have read "The Rodwell Files" and I am very happy with its presentation style. For me, the thing I like about the Rodwell Files is that I am very much into pattern recongnition (as anyone who struggled through my squeeze post/blog/rough book draft knows. Rodwell has a lot of new terms that help with pattern recognition, such as bait-and-switch, 007 license to kill, Cash Catering, trick trashing, and many others. But one I have been trying to study is "Days of Thunder".

 

His classification of "days of thunder" is an easy pattern situtation to recongize at the table. Days of thunder, involve leading declarer's solid suit and in the process create impossible entry conditions for declarer. So one thing I have been on the look out for since my first reading of his book is solid suits for declarer, and if I find one, if there could be some entry conditions that could be problematic for him if the defense switches to that suit. Clubs are "solid" because if declarer doesn't have the queen, the finesse will win. Also, with partner having the heart king (at least), there is no club, diamond, or heart entry to south. Because of this pattern recognition issue, I wondered if this could be a days of thunder hand? Partner has 3♦ and 5♥. If declarer had seven spades, partner would have only two spades, but with 7♠, I thought south might bid more, so at this point, I figured partner to be 3=5=3=2. We can score 2D, 1H, 1S if partner has ♠Qxx then 3♠ is probably down. But, we might be able to score partner's spade in the form of a club ruff, because declarer entry problem.

 

Turns out my defense needs, among other things, partner to have the ♣Qx or singleton club (highly unlikely) or else declarer has a club entry. Partner also needs the ♥KQ or he can't knock out the late entry to the established clubs (after he gets his club ruff). On the other hand, partner probably needs the ♥KQ for his bid, and if declarer has either of those, he might have stayed in 2♥x or 2nt. Not sure if on the long run, this defense was right, but this was my first real live "day of thunder" hand using that nomenclature and playing for it. I have found one more, that I will post in later because, well, everyone would see it right away now. I am making a personal collection of hands that fit Rodwell file nomenclature as a way to help me with identifying the hand patterns. i will post the interesting ones here if there is interest. It would help in reviewing these if you buy and read his excellent book. [/hv]

 

Ben maybe i am missing something but forgive me if i really do. Lets skip Rodwell files for a second, because i am pretty confused with all the stuff u wrote and we still don't know what defense did you choose.

 

I am guessing you did not defend as in the hand diagram because u said 'my defense worked because...' However the defense in diagram did not work. Your defense have worked if pd has ♠ 8 because he also has ♣ Q. But if we play ♥ at trick 2, we defeat regardless of who has the ♣ Q, am i correct ?

[phil_20686]

I think bens defence is to return a club at trick two. If partner ducks this declarer can play a spade from either hand, east wins and plays a second club. Now the queen forces him to be in dummy, and so suppose he plays a diamond, east can win and give west a club ruff, and he then plays a top heart, and declarer gets no discards, taking 5 spades two clubs and one heart.

 

A heart return fails as declarer can duck, and what ever you continue he wins and plays a spade, later he can play ace of hearts and a heart back to hand to ruff and draw trumps, and then can cash the clubs.

[inquiry]

Ben maybe i am missing something but forgive me if i really do. Lets skip Rodwell files for a second, because i am pretty confused with all the stuff u wrote and we still don't know what defense did you choose.

 

I am guessing you did not defend as in the hand diagram because u said 'my defense worked because...' However the defense in diagram did not work. You defense have worked if pd has ♠ 8 because he also has ♣ Q. But if we play ♥ at trick 2, we defeat regardless of who has the ♣ Q, am i correct ?

 

I don't think so. If you play a heart at trick two, declarer has two winning lines. The best one is duck the heart ace and win the 2nd round of hearts and play on spades. When you win the ace, your out of hearts. Top diamond lets him ruff a diamond in his hand, and a club switch now gives him a club entry to his hand on this trick on the 2nd round of clubs (or he can exit dummy with ♦q, eventually ruffing a diamond to pull trumps. You will get 2♦, 1♥ and 1♠. What is your fifth trick? Put another way, declarer wins 5♠, 1♥, and 3♣ regardless of who has the ♣Q.

 

 

On the club shift at trick two, partner must resist the urge to cover the club Ten or nine to make sure the 2nd round of clubs have to be won in dummy.

 

On this hand, like I said in the OP, and in my "answer", I am not sure this is the best chance on the hand, I am ready to be convinced otherwise.

[MrAce]

I don't think so. If you play a heart at trick two, declarer has two winning lines. The best one is duck the heart ace and win the 2nd round of hearts and play on spades. When you win the ace, your out of hearts. Top diamond lets him ruff a diamond in his hand, and a club switch now gives him a club entry to his hand on this trick on the 2nd round of clubs (or he can exit dummy with ♦q, eventually ruffing a diamond to pull trumps. You will get 2♦, 1♥ and 1♠. What is your fifth trick? Put another way, declarer wins 5♠, 1♥, and 3♣ regardless of who has the ♣Q.

 

 

On the club shift at trick two, partner must resist the urge to cover the club Ten or nine to make sure the 2nd round of clubs have to be won in dummy.

 

On this hand, like I said in the OP, and in my "answer", I am not sure this is the best chance on the hand, I am ready to be convinced otherwise.

 

 

 

 

 

No, if he ducks 1st ♥ i explained how we can defeat, we turn back to ♦ and always down as long as pd has ♠ 8. We take 2♦+1♥ that he ducked + 2♠ by ♦ promotion. What is his 2nd winning line ? I dont think he has any as long as pd has ♠ 8.

 

...................

-If he takes first ♥ and play a ♠, we duck, take 2nd ♠ and cash another ♦ and play a ♥, pd plays 3rd ♥ for uppercut we ruff with T.

 

-If he ducks first ♥ its easy then we play another ♦ and another ♦ let him ruff, take ♠ ace killing one of KQJ and play 4th ♦.

 

 

Can u defeat with pd not having ♠8 ? and i still dont know what your line was in defense

 

♣ shift will allow declarer to make when he has ♣Q or sometimes when he doesnt even have the Q

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj765hj4d98cq73&w=s842hkq985dj76ct9&n=s3ha762dq53cakj86&e=sat9ht3dakt42c542]399|300[/hv]

[phil_20686]

 

 

♣ shift will allow declarer to make when he has ♣Q or sometimes when he doesnt even have the Q

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj765hj4d98cq73&w=s842hkq985dj76ct9&n=s3ha762dq53cakj86&e=sat9ht3dakt42c542]399|300[/hv]

 

If partner has the spade 8, but declarer has the club Q, switching to a heart at trick two or continuing diamonds will work.

 

If partner does not have one of the 8,JQK then a club is the only hope. I am with you Mr ace, in that I think switching to a heart is the best defence, but a club continuation at trick two is worthy of consideration, because it wins on some layouts where your defence loses, like this one:

[hv=pc=n&s=skqj876hj9d97ct87&w=s542hkq765dj86cq9&n=s3ha832dq32cakj32&e=sat9ht4dakt54c654]399|300[/hv]

[MrAce]

Ok now i see what you and Ben trying to say. Pd needs to have KQ ♥ and ♣ Q but not ♠8.

 

Yes then ♣ play at T2 is needed. Yes nice defense. :)

[Flameous]

This is really interesting hand. With Rodwell being up so much, I'm going to quote other famous author, Krzysztof Martens, who has written: "In theory, planning in defense should aim at minimizing the values or specific cards necessary for partner to hold in order to set the contract."

Here it is more like optimization:

 

You can beat if partner holds 8xx KJxxx Jxx xx by switching to a heart.

On the other hand if partner holds xxx KQxxx Jxx Qx you must play clubs.

 

I doubt very many get to the point of seeing both these successful defenses and actually making comparisons, but now we should make the best choice of defense based on partner's 2♥ bid.

 

We hold the ♥T so partner can't hold KJTxx, so it's more likely he holds KQ?xx. (I'd assume 3/5 or 2/3 for fit bids generally)

Then it comes much to partnership style but I think partner often holds another card in addition to those hearts. He is forcing to 3 lvl opposite short hearts anyways. If it's ♠H, we are beating anyways, so we should tend to place partner with ♣Q. After all this thought process which might have holes and is foggy at best, we might agree that playing clubs is best after all since it only requires partner to hold cards we already tend to place him with.

 

No way could I pull that off at the table :P

[gnasher]

We might be able to work it out from LHO's actions (although the sight of dummy suggests that we may not be able to rely on the conclusions).

 

KQJ7xx xx xx Qxx might be happy enough in 2NT, but KQJ8xx xx xx xxx would be more inclined to bid 3♠.

 

On the other hand, KQJ8xx xx xx xxx looks like a WJS. Could he have bid 2♠ over 1♦ to show that sort of hand?

[phil_20686]

This is really interesting hand. With Rodwell being up so much, I'm going to quote other famous author, Krzysztof Martens, who has written: "In theory, planning in defense should aim at minimizing the values or specific cards necessary for partner to hold in order to set the contract."

Here it is more like optimization:

 

You can beat if partner holds 8xx KJxxx Jxx xx by switching to a heart.

On the other hand if partner holds xxx KQxxx Jxx Qx you must play clubs.

 

I doubt very many get to the point of seeing both these successful defenses and actually making comparisons, but now we should make the best choice of defense based on partner's 2♥ bid.

 

We hold the ♥T so partner can't hold KJTxx, so it's more likely he holds KQ?xx. (I'd assume 3/5 or 2/3 for fit bids generally)

Then it comes much to partnership style but I think partner often holds another card in addition to those hearts. He is forcing to 3 lvl opposite short hearts anyways. If it's ♠H, we are beating anyways, so we should tend to place partner with ♣Q. After all this thought process which might have holes and is foggy at best, we might agree that playing clubs is best after all since it only requires partner to hold cards we already tend to place him with.

 

No way could I pull that off at the table :P

 

I think, more to the point, if partner has only the KJ of hearts, and the diamond J, he needs a black suit card.

 

I find the auction confusing, what was norths double? Might south not have shown Qxx support over 2N? or did he think that partner had spade tolerance? With Qxx club and a spade suit with poor texture he could have bid 3c, so perhaps we should infer from the three spade bid that south will have good texture, and is therefore likely to have the 87 since we have the T9. He is also perhaps less likely to have Hxx in clubs. This might encourage the club switch. However, it just feels wrong. Perhaps my intuition is wrong here.

 

 

 

[inquiry]

On this hand, I was playing with a new tool (let's call it a hammer instead of days of thunder), so everything looked like a nail to me. The defense worked, but it felt like while it worked it might not have been the "best defense" in theory. This is why I ended the original post with "or was this really the right play." Still I found this a very interesting hand.

[kgr]

....we might agree that playing clubs is best after all since it only requires partner to hold cards we already tend to place him with.

 

No way could I pull that off at the table :P

It also requires partner to duck the ♣Q