Critical Decision

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&n=s8hkjt876d753cq64&e=st974h94d64cak875&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p2d(weak%202M%20only)p4d(bid%20your%20M)dpp4hppp]266|200[/hv]

Your partner leads the jack of clubs (standard honour leads) and dummy covers and you win with the king, declarer playing the three. What do you do now? If you choose to cash the ace of clubs, declarer plays the nine and partner the two. If you do the right thing, you win the Spingold. If you do the wrong thing, you will play extra boards. Apologies if you have seen the hand, but please still comment as though you have not.

[Cyberyeti]

I'd have returned the diamond at trick 2. Would have been embarrassing to find partner with ♣J10xx ♦ AQxxx.

[mikeh]

It's worth noting that S could have asked N to transfer to his major, via 4♣. When he instead asks partner to bid his major, he rates not to hold KJx(x)(x) in diamonds.

 

This isn't bullet-proof, since we know that he has no club honour.

 

A diamond back loses only when partner has a stiff club AND the AQ of diamonds and declarer has solid spades long enough to dispose of any minor winners.

 

A high club loses when you don't know what to do next, which is a very real possibility given that you are missing the 9 and the 10.

 

I have tremendous sympathy for the very skilled defender who went wrong at the table.

 

 

I commented at the time, to a friend, that the double of 4D seemed to me to be reflective of someone being too busy...the doubler is a better player than I am, but I still think it was a terrible call

 

[aguahombre]

It's worth noting that S could have asked N to transfer to his major, via 4♣. When he instead asks partner to bid his major, he rates not to hold KJx(x)(x) in diamonds.

 

This isn't bullet-proof, since we know that he has no club honour.

 

A diamond back loses only when partner has a stiff club AND the AQ of diamonds and declarer has solid spades long enough to dispose of any minor winners.

 

 

I commented at the time, to a friend, that the double of 4D seemed to me to be reflective of someone being too busy...the doubler is a better player than I am, but I still think it was a terrible call

 

It was hard to be totally objective as a Kib looking at the whole hand. But, the fact that Moss wanted Grue to be Declarer seemed to be the key clue he did not have tenaces to protect.

 

The double of 4♦ seemed like a good idea to me. If East (expected to be on lead, remember) had a coin flip of minor suit to open up at trick one (say KXXX KXXX or QJXX KXXXX), Bert would certainly prefer the Diamond lead.

[mikeh]

 

 

The double of 4♦ seemed like a good idea to me. If East (expected to be on lead, remember) had a coin flip of minor suit to open up at trick one (say KXXX KXXX or QJXX KXXXX), Bert would certainly prefer the Diamond lead.

In an auction in which putative declarer showed an opening hand, I'd agree. But here S was asking the Multi bidder to be declarer and it is unlikely that his hand is such that a club lead, if that's what partner was going to lead, would hurt. Basically, it would have to be something line N holding Qx(x) in clubs, and dummy Ax(x) and partner leading away from the K. It's not as if a diamond lead rates to generate 2 or more defensive tricks unless partner's holding was such that he'd often lead them himself. Put another way: give partner Qxx in diamonds and KQx in clubs, and I want a club lead, not a diamond.

 

I know...I am simplifying, but I hope the point comes across: there are holdings where suggesting diamonds helps and where it hurts.

 

I'm not saying that a diamond rates to be worse than a club, but I am saying that I'd rather my partner made the lead that looked best from his hand. Now, if I were on opening lead, you might well be right to help me as much as possible, but they didn't make it that far by making bad leads.

[Cyberyeti]

 

A diamond back loses only when partner has a stiff club AND the AQ of diamonds and declarer has solid spades long enough to dispose of any minor winners.

 

 

Don't you mean A but not Q of diamonds and a stiff club most of the time (unless you have no 3rd round diamond ruff which defeats this anyway).

[mikeh]

Don't you mean A but not Q of diamonds and a stiff club most of the time (unless you have no 3rd round diamond ruff which defeats this anyway).

good catch :D I gotta proof read more

[lamford]

I thought at the time that a club was right. Even if partner has three clubs and the AQ of diamonds, we might still beat it if declarer cannot get the two diamond losers away, whereas if a club ruff is needed, a diamond is not likely to be good enough. But my analysis could well be faulty! On the hand only a club worked, as most of you will know.

[Cyberyeti]

I thought at the time that a club was right. Even if partner has three clubs and the AQ of diamonds, we might still beat it if declarer cannot get the two diamond losers away, whereas if a club ruff is needed, a diamond is not likely to be good enough. But my analysis could well be faulty! On the hand only a club worked, as most of you will know.

 

Diamond at trick 2 is fine, just not at trick 3, and I really dislike the double.

[Free]

Isn't there a way to know with more certainty if partner lead from a doubleton? In this specific case you can either play ♣K-♣A as well as ♣A-♣K. One of these (♣A-♣K is best imo) can specifically ask to show ♣T if he lead from JTx. This doesn't cover leads from JT doubleton however.

[cloa513]

Diamond at trick 2 is fine, just not at trick 3, and I really dislike the double.

Yes exactly so much for being an expert.

[lamford]

Isn't there a way to know with more certainty if partner lead from a doubleton? In this specific case you can either play ♣K-♣A as well as ♣A-♣K. One of these (♣A-♣K is best imo) can specifically ask to show ♣T if he lead from JTx. This doesn't cover leads from JT doubleton however.

I would be surprised if even Meckwell had this agreement, and Bertheau-Bessis were a relatively new partnership. In this case, commentators suggested that Bertheau would not play the T from JTx as he cannot see the eight.

[Finch]

Isn't there a way to know with more certainty if partner lead from a doubleton? In this specific case you can either play ♣K-♣A as well as ♣A-♣K. One of these (♣A-♣K is best imo) can specifically ask to show ♣T if he lead from JTx. This doesn't cover leads from JT doubleton however.

 

Your second sentence points out the problem with this, you are simply swapping J10 and Jx. Without any particular agreements, J then 10 is a doubleton (because he can't afford the 10 from J10x) and J then x is ambiguous. With your agreements, J then 10 is ambiguous.

 

Of course, Jx is far more likely than J10 so maybe it's worth it.

[jddons]

Any chance that we might have the other hands (for those of us without an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Spingold!). No one has commented on declarers play of the Q at trick one. Since it can't be to generate a trick, it must be because he thinks East is more likely to make an error at trick 2 than West. How can we make use of this?

[aguahombre]

Any chance that we might have the other hands (for those of us without an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Spingold!). No one has commented on declarers play of the Q at trick one. Since it can't be to generate a trick, it must be because he thinks East is more likely to make an error at trick 2 than West. How can we make use of this?

Bridgewinners has also blogged this hand ad nauseum. Mike Passell suggested that Declarer would not cover with Dummy's Queen if he held 4 or two clubs, but others don't agree --covering with all three holdings seems to be game theory appropriate.

[lamford]

Any chance that we might have the other hands (for those of us without an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Spingold!). No one has commented on declarers play of the Q at trick one. Since it can't be to generate a trick, it must be because he thinks East is more likely to make an error at trick 2 than West. How can we make use of this?

If declarer plays low, then West will continue presumably with his remaining card or the higher of the remaining two, and East's "guess" appears to be the same whether or not declarer covers on the first round. There is no game-theory gain in playing from dummy, and South should never play the ten if he has it. We are left deciding on how likely West is to have led a club from JTx or Jx. I would guess there is nothing in it, but when West has the former and we wrongly play a club we are more likely to beat it that when West has the latter and we wrongly play a diamond.

[aguahombre]

If declarer plays low, then West will continue presumably with his remaining card or the higher of the remaining two, and East's "guess" appears to be the same whether or not declarer covers on the first round. There is no game-theory gain in playing from dummy, and South should never play the ten if he has it. We are left deciding on how likely West is to have led a club from JTx or Jx. I would guess there is nothing in it, but when West has the former and we wrongly play a club we are more likely to beat it that when West has the latter and we wrongly play a diamond.

Not exactly true. Declarer must cover with this holding, and game theory applies to covering with the other holdings as well, so the opponents have a guess. There is no guess here, if Declarer would only cover holding 3 pieces. The opponents would have no guess here if the Jack held and the two were continued. Even I Might figure out that partner's 2 is the highest of his remaining clubs and he has a doubleton.

[Cyberyeti]

Any chance that we might have the other hands (for those of us without an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Spingold!). No one has commented on declarers play of the Q at trick one. Since it can't be to generate a trick, it must be because he thinks East is more likely to make an error at trick 2 than West. How can we make use of this?

The important holdings are ♣Jx and ♦A10xx with partner at the table the K♣ was cashed then a diamond led so the contract went through.

[lamford]

Not exactly true. Declarer must cover with this holding, and game theory applies to covering with the other holdings as well, so the opponents have a guess. The opponents would have no guess here if the Jack held and the two were continued. Even I Might figure out that partner's 2 is the highest of his remaining clubs and he has a doubleton.

I expressed myself poorly; some would say there is nothing new there. There is no game theory element to declarer's play of the queen from dummy as it is obligatory. A bit like when declarer is playing AJ2 opposite K943 and finesses the jack successfully and cashes the ace. Dropping the queen from an original QTx is obligatory and not game theory as we normally use the term, and the loss in not doing so is not a game theory loss either. With QJ32 opposite A987 when one leads the queen, the person with KT under the ace must cover perforce, but with K6, K5 and K4 he must play low 67% of the time and cover 33% of the time (I think!). Varying from this allows the discerning declarer to gain.

[lamford]

Any chance that we might have the other hands (for those of us without an encyclopaedic knowledge of the Spingold!). No one has commented on declarers play of the Q at trick one. Since it can't be to generate a trick, it must be because he thinks East is more likely to make an error at trick 2 than West. How can we make use of this?

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/spingold-final-tie-after-regulation/

gives the full hand on page 3. You may have to hit 'refresh' to view it; not sure why that is on my browser. But stop off to read David Burn's analysis of the hand on page 1 before using the arrows to get to page 3.

[jddons]

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/spingold-final-tie-after-regulation/

gives the full hand on page 3. You may have to hit 'refresh' to view it; not sure why that is on my browser. But stop off to read David Burn's analysis of the hand on page 1 before using the arrows to get to page 3.

[jddons]

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/spingold-final-tie-after-regulation/

gives the full hand on page 3. You may have to hit 'refresh' to view it; not sure why that is on my browser. But stop off to read David Burn's analysis of the hand on page 1 before using the arrows to get to page 3.

[jddons]

Thanks for the Link, Google failed me. The hand reminded me of one I kibitzed 40 years ago at a Camrose international and was similar to one aguahombre shows on his web site. Kirby held AKxxx clubs and stiff diamond A. Against 4S, partner led the CJ, the young Scottish declarer, holding a small doubleton C in hand, covered with dummy's Q and Kirby won. To me, even as a beginner at bridge, the defence was obvious. win cash DA and put partner in with CT for a diamond ruff. I was astonished when Kirby took at least 5 minutes to make the play. A few moments later, declarer was putting his cards back in the board with an apology to partner. It was only later that I realised why. West had no other entry than CT, and the contract could be made trivially by not covering the CQ. Presumably Kirby was thinking if there were alternative defences or possibly whether the cover was part of a cunning plan. My point being that covering with the Q in this situation is not automatically correct.