A usual mistake

[Fluffy]

I see a lot of intermediates making a mistake on this type of hands, so I created this problem hoping you will learn to avoid it.

 

http://www.bridgegod.com/playprob.php?probid=472&setid=20

[whereagles]

Yup, the "decline to overruff" theme.

[broze]

 

Yup, the "decline to overruff" theme.

 

 

I did the problem before your post, but how did it not occur to you that by making this post you are totally ruining the problem for others? It's inconsiderate. Use spoiler tags if you really feel the need to comment.

[gszes]

 

 

Once your side has 2 tricks and partner plays another heart at trick 3 and declarer ruffs with the K

all you have to do is pause for a second and realize that by pitching a minor (rather than overruffing)

will create a position that assures your side will take at least 2 trump tricks (this form of play is

a variant of plays called "upper cut". You picture the QJT in opener's hand and you can see that your

A9xx (the K is already gone on trick 3) becomes a finesse position where if declarer plays the Q (you duck)

--partner follows--and the J (you duck again) your A9 will always be over declarer's Tx and will always score

2 tricks no matter what declarer does. There might be another LOP available to declarer that will allow them

to avoid 2 trump losers but they will almost never try those LOP vs trying to draw trumps.

 

 

[ArtK78]

 

 

Once your side has 2 tricks and partner plays another heart at trick 3 and declarer ruffs with the K

all you have to do is pause for a second and realize that by pitching a minor (rather than overruffing)

will create a position that assures your side will take at least 2 trump tricks (this form of play is

a variant of plays called "upper cut". You picture the QJT in opener's hand and you can see that your

A9xx (the K is already gone on trick 3) becomes a finesse position where if declarer plays the Q (you duck)

--partner follows--and the J (you duck again) your A9 will always be over declarer's Tx and will always score

2 tricks no matter what declarer does. There might be another LOP available to declarer that will allow them

to avoid 2 trump losers but they will almost never try those LOP vs trying to draw trumps.

 

 

The later ducks are not needed.

[whereagles]

did it not occur to you that by making this post you are totally ruining the problem for others? It's inconsiderate.

 

 

 

I find your lack of souplesse disturbing.

[StevenG]

I did see the spoiler before I played the hand, and, yes, it did spoil it. I would appreciate the spoiler being removed.

[gszes]

The later ducks are not needed.

 

correct on this layout but it does help illustrate the concept:)))))

[whereagles]

I did see the spoiler before I played the hand, and, yes, it did spoil it. I would appreciate the spoiler being removed.

 

Well.. I'm gonna tell you one thing. I posted it because it seemed obvious to intermediate/advanced level.

 

But ok I hid it.

[Mbodell]

I think this same sort of thing, but slightly less obvious, is very easy for people to miss. Like if we had one fewer trumps (or one lower spot), but partner has stiff T or something.

[NickRW]

Well.. I'm gonna tell you one thing. I posted it because it seemed obvious to intermediate/advanced level.

 

But ok I hid it.

 

IMO, this should be obvious enough for adv+ (especially in a problem setting as opposed to at the table). But intermediate... Not so sure. People who are intermediate and progressing will probably get it, but intermediate covers really a very large range.

[Fluffy]

IMO, this should be obvious enough for adv+ (especially in a problem setting as opposed to at the table). But intermediate... Not so sure. People who are intermediate and progressing will probably get it, but intermediate covers really a very large range.

 

So far there are 101 who got it right, and 46 who didn't, although there are always many players who do not finnish the board when they do it wrong. (Most hands have a lot less scores for this reason)

[slar]

I defended this right but I apparently bid it wrong. I bid 1NT over 1S and the opponents stopped in 3S, making 3. Why shouldn't I bid 1NT here?

[Antrax]

Playing UDCA, don't you lead low from a doubleton?

[akwoo]

Whether you bid 1N or not depends on your partnership overcalling style.

 

Given that my 1♥ overcall could be on something like ♠xx ♥KQxxx ♦xxx ♣Kxx bidding 1N is just sticking your neck out as well as helping opponents play the hand.

 

If your partner's overcalls are closer to full opening strength, then a 1N bid makes more sense.

[mike777]

Playing UDCA, don't you lead low from a doubleton?

 

no

 

 

leading is not the same, confusing.

 

common very common to play udca and lead high from two.

[wynsten]

I think this same sort of thing, but slightly less obvious, is very easy for people to miss. Like if we had one fewer trumps (or one lower spot), but partner has stiff T or something.

Not sure if this is less obvious, but it is another layout where over-ruffing costs a trick. Spades were trump. North led a heart and East (declarer) ruffed with the six. South, a well-known "student" of the game over-ruffed!

[hv=pc=n&s=s74hdc2&w=s5h2dc3&n=sh543dc&e=s632hdc]399|300[/hv]

[aguahombre]

Not sure if this is less obvious, but it is another layout where over-ruffing costs a trick. Spades were trump. North led a heart and East (declarer) ruffed with the six. South, a well-known "student" of the game over-ruffed!

[hv=pc=n&s=s74hdc2&w=s5h2dc3&n=sh543dc&e=s632hdc]399|300[/hv]

The well-known "student" of the game probably made a common mistake...he was distracted wondering how the heck it ever got to this position with exactly those spots around the table, and dummy still having a trump. :rolleyes: