Sink this Slam

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&w=sqj6hj64dk53cqt95&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1dp1hp2dp2sp3hp4cp4dp4np5h(2%20no%20QH)p7h]133|200[/hv]

Camrose. International Team Tournament against good opposition. Your lead?

[jallerton]

In oppo's methods, what do 1♦-2♥ and 1♦-1♥-2♦-3♥ mean?

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&w=sqj6hj64dk53cqt95&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1dp1hp2dp2sp3hp4cp4dp4np5h(2%20no%20QH)p7h]133|200|

Camrose. International Team Tournament against good opposition. Your lead?[/hv]

I rank

1. ♥4 For want of a better idea. Might prevent declarer from setting up his ♣s.
2. ♦3 Crude attempt to deter declarer from taking ♦ finesse. Could backfire if declarer is void.
3. ♣T Entry for Brilliancy prize.
4. ♠Q Another Balkan effort.

[Cyberyeti]

IMO there are 2 things to shoot for:

 

Axxxx, AQxxxx, x, A opposite xx, Kx, AQJxxxx, (any 2) where a trump lead is required to prevent declarer ruffing the spades good or a singleton black suit honour in dummy which you have to knock out as the late entry to cash the diamonds once declarer has ruffed them good after finessing with his singleton (or playing for them 3-3 using the doubleton trump entry if dummy's diamonds aren't all that).

 

** Edit** The first suggestion is rubbish because I was defending 6 not 7 (How about calling the thread "Sink this grand")

[lamford]

In oppo's methods, what do 1♦-2♥ and 1♦-1♥-2♦-3♥ mean?

1D-2H was natural and game-forcing, but either just hearts or hearts and diamonds. So declarer may well have four spades. 1D-1H-2D-3H is invitational - probably not best but the methods are fairly simple.

[cherdano]

Come on BBF, you can do better than this. Lamford wouldn't have posted it unless it was a really interesting problem! There is a lot you can infer about declarer's hand.

[Cyberyeti]

Come on BBF, you can do better than this. Lamford wouldn't have posted it unless it was a really interesting problem! There is a lot you can infer about declarer's hand.

 

A lot of the inferences are system dependent which we're not given. To me, partner would always bid 1♠ in front of 2♦ if he had 4 so 2♠ depending on agreement will be 5 or just a stop. It's also not clear what 3♠ over 3♥ would mean.

[FelicityR]

It's difficult to choose but a lead of a ♦ or especially a ♥ looks too passive - and if declarer needs the ♦ finesse for his contract leading a ♦ won't stop him finessing at trick one - so it's going to be one of the black suits. The aggressive bidding by declarer suggests that his hand is distributional, and that may leave my partner with one of the black kings, or possibly the ♣J. Dummy has two definite entries (aces) to establish the diamond suit if necessary, and declarer has cue bid the ♣ suit on route to slam (but has not mentioned the ♠ suit), and is likely to have the ♥Q too. Leading the ♠J could make declarer go wrong, and if partner has ♠K, he will know that you have the ♠Q and that will help him avoid any squeeze, but I can't see that leading a ♣ will lose either. so it's either ♠J a spectacular lead or ♣5, a safe lead. I'm going for ♣5.

[rhm]

IMO there are 2 things to shoot for:

 

Axxxx, AQxxxx, x, A opposite xx, Kx, AQJxxxx, (any 2) where a trump lead is required to prevent declarer ruffing the spades good or a singleton black suit honour in dummy which you have to knock out as the late entry to cash the diamonds once declarer has ruffed them good after finessing with his singleton (or playing for them 3-3 using the doubleton trump entry if dummy's diamonds aren't all that).

This construction makes little sense.

Who would bid 3♥ with this hand and would declarer not continue with 3♠?

 

Also a big club fit is not possible on this auction.

Given my 9 HCP I do not think partner can contribute much in HCP. Assuming sane opponents it is not easy to come up with a construction, which gives the defense a chance.

 

I play for something like

[hv=pc=n&s=sk987hakqt7dcakj8&w=sqj6hj64dk53cqt95&n=sa2h852daqjt87c43&e=st543h93d9642c762&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1dp1hp2dp2sp3hp4cp4dp4np5hp7hppp]399|300[/hv]

I lead a spade honor

The heart jack or a spade honor beats the contract on this layout, but the heart jack might give declarer additional entries to dummy in other layouts to establish the diamonds.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[lamford]

A lot of the inferences are system dependent which we're not given. To me, partner would always bid 1♠ in front of 2♦ if he had 4 so 2♠ depending on agreement will be 5 or just a stop. It's also not clear what 3♠ over 3♥ would mean.

The system is pretty much stone-age Acol with a weak NT and four-card majors, but good enough for my partner to win the Spring Fours and Commonwealth Championship before we started our partnership, so he is a good player. You can assume opener will have rebiddable diamonds, secondary heart support and two key cards. The responder will have good hearts and does not have to have four spades. 3♠ over 3♥ would I think show five.

[lamford]

The first suggestion is rubbish because I was defending 6 not 7 (How about calling the thread "Sink this grand")

Or "Should have gone to Specsavers?"

[Cyberyeti]

Rainer, it would never in a million years occur to me to bid the two hands you give like that, particularly Blackwood with the void, what are you going to do if partner has one ?

[P_Marlowe]

Queen of Spades.

 

If 2S showes 65, I would be very happy to been alerted, about this fact, this is not common sense.

I would assume, that 2S is showing values, and this means, it could be just a 3 carder,

or even a AK suit.

Maybe a trump is better, ..., it is certainly safer, trumps are breaking, and partner wont have the

Queen of trumps.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[rhm]

Rainer, it would never in a million years occur to me to bid the two hands you give like that, particularly Blackwood with the void, what are you going to do if partner has one ?

Guess which ace partner then holds after the diamond control bid?

I give you a hint: It will not be in spades, hearts or clubs.

At least I would not control bid the king of diamonds after having rebid the suit with only one key-card and no further honor in hearts.

Besides, if declarer holds a singleton diamond, how do you want to beat this grand?

You must knock out dummies black ace in this case and partner must hold a black king.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=skt98hakqt7d2caj2&w=sqj6hj64dk53cqt95&n=sah952daqjt64c643&e=s75432h83d987ck87]399|300[/hv]

 

Again only a spade beats the contract

However, I would not jump to the grand with the South hand.

 

 

Rainer Herrmann

[nullve]

I guess declarer has

 

* at least 1 diamond, since he bothered to RKC;

* at most 1 diamond, since he didn't ask about specific kings.

 

So I'll lead a club (it probably doesn't matter which), hoping for something like

 

N: xx-T9x-AJTxxx-AJ

S: AKxx-AKQxxx-x-xx

 

or

 

N: xx-T9x-AQxxxx-AK

S: Axxx-AKQxxxx-x-x.

Edited April 12, 2018 by nullve

[Cyberyeti]

 

Again only a spade beats the contract

However, I would not jump to the grand with the South hand.

 

 

Give S ♠Kxxx, ♣AKx is more like it in that construction to bid the grand, and that was the second type of case I gave originally, removing the entry to the long diamonds.

 

Although interestingly in that case I think you can get home on a squeeze by not playing diamonds early.

 

Ruff a spade, rumble 4 trumps, cash ♠K and you end up with:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s5h7d2cak2&w=shdk53cqt9&n=shdaqjc643&e=s7hd98c875]399|300[/hv]

 

The last trump squeezes W out of a club or the diamonds run, 2 rounds of diamonds then squeeze E in the blacks

[lamford]

I guess declarer has

 

* at least 1 diamond, since he bothered to RKC;

* at most 1 diamond, since he didn't ask about specific kings.

Indeed he does have exactly one diamond. And more than the five hearts rhm has tried so far. Maybe that gives you a clue to the winning defence. Think of communication ...

 

The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place. - George Bernard Shaw

[rhm]

Give S ♠Kxxx, ♣AKx is more like it in that construction to bid the grand, and that was the second type of case I gave originally, removing the entry to the long diamonds.

 

Although interestingly in that case I think you can get home on a squeeze by not playing diamonds early.

 

Ruff a spade, rumble 4 trumps, cash ♠K and you end up with:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s5h7d2cak2&w=shdk53cqt9&n=shdaqjc643&e=s7hd98c875]399|300[/hv]

 

The last trump squeezes W out of a club or the diamonds run, 2 rounds of diamonds then squeeze E in the blacks

No squeeze necessary.

Declarer simply ruffs 2 spades without cashing the king and discards his club loser on diamonds.

Spade ace, club ace, diamond finesse, club king, spade ruff, diamond ace (club discard), heart ace, spade ruff, club ruff, drawing trumps.

Not so easy to construct layouts where the defense can come out on top.

But the squeeze could become necessary if declarer has 4 clubs and 3 spades

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

No squeeze necessary.

Declarer simply ruffs 2 spades without cashing the king and discards his club loser on diamonds.

Spade ace, club ace, diamond finesse, club king, spade ruff, diamond ace (club discard), heart ace, spade ruff, club ruff, drawing trumps.

Not so easy to construct layouts where the defense can come out on top.

Rainer Herrmann

 

True actually, I'm trying to construct a similar squeeze layout where it's necessary to lead a diamond to prevent yourself being squeezed. Dummy would have to be AQJ to a number of diamonds and a top heart honour doubleton.

[jallerton]

[hv=pc=n&w=sqj6hj64dk53cqt95&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1dp1hp2dp2sp3hp4cp4dp4np5h(2%20no%20QH)p7h]133|200[/hv]

Camrose. International Team Tournament against good opposition. Your lead?

 

The reason for my earlier question is that I was trying to establish whether declarer had another way to show a strong single-suiter in hearts. Apparently he could have responded 2♥ with that, so either he didn't think the suit quality was good enough or he has a second suit (presumably spades given that he chose to bid 2♠ rather then 3♣). Dummy's preference to 3♥ could be based on 3-card support, or perhaps a doubleton honour is acceptable - I should ask that oppo question too. [if a doubleton honour, it has to be Ax or Kx given the 5♥ response to RKCB]

 

Our hand is surprising in the context of the auction. Declarer used RKCB then went straight to 7♥ over the 5♥ response. Declarer didn't ask for help in any of the side suits, which normally means he thinks he has a running side suit, but which one? Diamonds is the most likely suit, yet we hold the king. Spades is the next most likely suit, and declarer surely holds the ♠K, but he is lacking the QJ. He can't even have a source of tricks in clubs as we have that suit stopped too.

 

As declarer is not interested in side kings, he must have a singleton diamonds [voids are not good for RKCB]. He probably holds the ♣K. How does he plan to make 13 tricks? A maximum of 5 top tricks in the side suits and no known ruff in dummy, suggests that he is counting quite a lot of trumps in hand. But 3712 would respond 2♥, so maybe 4612. but that could only count 11 top tricks at most. 4711 would be similar unless he holds the singleton ♣K as his 12th trick.

 

Declarer might make his contract by establishing the diamonds (with the aid of a 3-3 break) in which case our only effective lead might be to knock out dummy's late entry at trick 1. Does 4♣ imply the ace? I would think not, but again we could ask. If dummy's 2nd key card is in trumps (♦A appears to be the 1st one), then there is no late entry to knock out, but we should avoid an opening trump lead, which could present declarer with a 2nd trump entry. A low diamond lead looks safer in this context.

 

What about 4711 with declarer. Seems more plausible is now declarer is gambling on various possible useful side suit holdings in dummy. Now declarer may only have 11 top tricks, but it looks as though we are in danger of being squeezed in the pointed suits (with ♦AQ(J) expected in dummy). If it is possible to break up the communications, the only communication we can break is the link in diamonds.

 

So I am leading a low diamond.

[cherdano]

 

Well done Jeffrey.

 

 

[lamford]

The full layout was:

[hv=pc=n&s=sakt4hkqt8532djca&w=sqj6hj64dk53cqt95&n=s852ha9daqt9864c7&e=s973h7d72ckj86432&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=p1dp1hp2dp2sp3hp4cp4dp4np5hp7hppp]399|300[/hv]

 

As can be seen, only a diamond lead breaks up the pointed suit squeeze, so well done, Jeffrey.

 

At my table, events were more exciting. West led the jack of spades, forgetting that he was not playing Rusinow leads with this particular partner, and attempting to break up one of the squeezes rhm was trying to break up. I had the table presence of a gnat, and eschewed the squeeze and took the spade finesse in the ending! I thought it unlikely that an Irishman would false-card on opening lead against a grand ...

[ahydra]

Great hand, thanks Lamford for sharing.

 

ahydra

[nullve]

Didn't occur to me that North could bid this way with 3271. So

 

♠xxx ♥Ax ♦AQTxxxx ♣x

 

was possible, but not

 

♠xx ♥T9x ♦AQxxxx ♣AK?

 

Ok.

[rhm]

Didn't occur to me that North could bid this way with 3271. So

 

♠xxx ♥Ax ♦AQTxxxx ♣x

 

was possible, but not

 

♠xx ♥T9x ♦AQxxxx ♣AK?

 

Ok.

Neither me.

Bidding 3♥ with 7 diamonds and 2 hearts when partner shows a strong hand with 5 hearts and maybe 4 spades is a bid I would not expect from an expert, stone age Acol notwithstanding.

This is particularly so when playing strong jump shifts.

Put this hand to a bidding panel when the bidding is at 2♠ and check how many votes you will get for 3♥ with the North hand.

I expect an almost unanimous vote for 3♦.

North promises 3 hearts and there is no way of shutting out diamonds when he has them.

 

The bidding is absurd for this construction

 

An acceptable sequence

 

1♦--1♥ (personally I would jump shift)

2♦--2♠

3♦--3♥

4♥--4NT

5♥-- 5NT

6♥--?

 

Rainer Herrmann