Defense problem on book

[frank0]

This is the first problem in one of Martin Hoffman's book, the one I have is the Chinese translation version so I don't know the original name of the book(I'll appreciate if someone can tell me).

 

Anyway here is the problem

[hv=pc=n&n=saqt876h2dq76c832&e=s532h9765djt98cj4&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hd1sp3hp3sp4hppp]266|200[/hv]

Partner lead ♣AK and a small♣, you ruff the third round, South plays 9,T and Q. What's next?

 

The answer is a small ♠, breaking the entry of ♠♦ squeeze against partner.

[hv=pc=n&s=s4hakqjt8da32cqt9&w=skj9h43dk54cak765&n=saqt876h2dq76c832&e=s532h9765djt98cj4]399|300[/hv]

 

My question is, although this play is fantastic on this distribution, does a small ♠ just gives away the contract when declare has 7♥ and void in ♠?

[rogerclee]

It's just determining which shape is more likely. 1-6 is definitely more likely than 0-7, and it is not hard to find this kind of play if you have seen it before, especially in a construction like this where it's very easy to think about what can happen on a neutral return.

[inquiry]

Roger is right of course. This hand is somewhat similar to one in chapter 15 of Rodwell Files, where eric advocates returning a spade into dummy;s long spade suit headed by AQ to break up a squeeze (in that case, however, it was on yourself.

 

Another factor is south didn't jump to 4♥, but rebid a non-forcing 3♥. If he had seven solid hearts and the siamond ace, he is more likely to have bid 4♥ or even 3nt than only 3♥. So frequency of the distributions is one reason, but analysis of the auction is another, to play the spade return. The thing about this kind of play is that when it works, you are a hero.... when it doesn't, well at least you were thinking and have a chance to win the post mortem although you lost the hand.

 

 

[gnasher]

I don't think it's clear to play back a spade. South could well have - AKJxxxx Axx Q109, and with his actual hand he might have bid 3NT rather than 4♥.

[han]

Agree with the gnash.

[rhm]

I don't think it's clear to play back a spade. South could well have - AKJxxxx Axx Q109, and with his actual hand he might have bid 3NT rather than 4♥.

But even given the bidding, those hands are much less likely, than the actual distribution.

A player will get about ten times a 6331 distribution for every time he will hold a 7330 distribution and when you hold 4 hearts yourself the 7♥330 type gets even remoter.

This is the type of judgment between his options a good player has to make all the time.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

The important point is to recognise that the spade return could be right, which is beyond many players, and actually make the decision rather than mechanically return a diamond without thinking.

[JLOGIC]

Depending on when the book was written, perhaps the author assumes partner wouldn't X with 4225 even though that is now standard.

 

I think the best "solution" for this hand is that partner should be quite careful with his suit preference. With 3 spades, partner should play back his highest club. If we have 4 spades we won't play a spade since he made a takeout double. With 4 spades, partner should play back the middle or even low club (with the DA he would cash it before playing his club). Again, if we have a doubleton spade we will overrule him and play a spade since we know he doesn't have 5 spades from the bidding.

 

I used to be all about "signalling doesn't matter" but I really think careful signalling is the difference in getting many hands right most of the time vs all of the time. I do not think this signalling logic is too obscure for partner to realize if he is a great player also, both of you know what the situation is on this hand.

[inquiry]

I used to be all about "signalling doesn't matter" but I really think careful signalling is the difference in getting many hands right most of the time vs all of the time. I do not think this signalling logic is too obscure for partner to realize if he is a great player also, both of you know what the situation is on this hand.

 

 

nice quote... I very much believe this (except for me, I don't get it right most of the time, and even with signals, I don't get it right all the time... BUT i do get it right more of the time with careful signals). An important aspect that I have discovered about such signals, as I begin to think about what signals partner will need, it forces me to think about the hand more and problems partner could have. This has resulted in my playing better as a side effect even if the signal didn't matter. It is sort of like when I first started trying visualizing the hcp in the unseen hands at trick one on all hands. Most to the time it didn't help me a bit, but when it does, but when I do started doing that, I played better.