A slam I didn't make

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat87642hq42dk9ca&w=shkj65dAQT8765ct3&n=sj95ha873dckj9764&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1nd2d3c3d4s5d5sp6sppp]300|300| Nullve says "West didn't have nine diamonds."

++++++++++++++++

Those were just extreme examples of classes of makeable distributions.

On the left is a milder example ...

After ♦ ruff, ♣A, ♦ ruff, ♣K, you might as well advance ♣J.

If East ducks, then, on a good day, you might take a successful view and run it.

But if East covers, then you continue with the previously suggested line. i.e.

ruff, ♥A, ♣9, ♠ finesse. :)[/hv]

[Cyberyeti]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat87642hq42dk9ca&w=shkj65dAQT8765ct3&n=sj95ha873dckj9764&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1nd2d3c3d4s5d5sp6sppp]399|300| Nullve says "West didn't have nine diamonds."

++++++++++++++++

Those were just extreme examples of classes of makeable distributions.

On the left is a milder example ...

After ♦ ruff, ♣A, ♦ ruff, ♣K, you might as well advance ♣J.

If East ducks, then, on a good day, you might take a successful view and run it.

But if East covers, then you continue with the previously suggested line. i.e.

♥A, ♣9, ♠ finesse. :)[/hv]

 

Swap a small spade and a small heart and you look rather silly.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat87642hq42dk9ca&w=sQhkj6dAQT8765ct3&n=sj95ha873dckj9764&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1nd2d3c3d4s5d5sp6sppp]399|300| Cyberyeti "Swap a small spade and a small heart and you look rather silly."

++++++++++++++++

 

Or ♣ 3-3 and ♠ 2-1 :(

Story of my life :(

But you can survive if East has a singleton ♠ honour :)

See layout on left.

Remember: you start ♦ ruff, ♣A, ♦ ruff, ♣K.

Now, you take the view to successfully ruff-finesse ♣J

West can (over)-ruff and exit in ♦s. but you ruff in hand

Now you enter dummy with ♥A,

to cash the good ♣ and finesse ♠s.[/hv]

[nullve]

Ok, here's my inexpert guess. They're playing Precision. 1♦ shows 11+ not necessarily much to do with diamonds.

The hand looks (something) like this:

[hv=pc=n&s=sat87642hq42dk9ca&w=skqht9daqt86ct853&n=sj95ha873dckj9764&e=s3hkj65dj75432cq2&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1nd2d3c3d4s5d5sp6sppp]399|300[/hv]

West bangs down the ♦Ace, but the contract makes on any lead. At least this layout does .

1♦ showed 4+ diamonds and I doubt East would bid 1N with four hearts.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat87642hq42dk9ca&w=shkj65dAQT8765ct3&n=sj95ha873dckj9764&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1nd2d3c3d4s5d5sp6sppp]399|300| Nullve says "West didn't have nine diamonds."

++++++++++++++++

Those were just extreme examples of classes of makeable distributions.

On the left is a milder example ...

After ♦ ruff, ♣A, ♦ ruff, ♣K, you might as well advance ♣J.

If East ducks, then, on a good day, you might take a successful view and run it.

But if East covers, then you continue with the previously suggested line. i.e.

♥A, ♣9, ♠ finesse. :)[/hv]

This is the kind of layout I was hoping for when I played the hand. And the successful (but not necessarily better - you be the judge) line, which would have worked against the very similar layout in Felicity's last example, would not have worked against his one.

 

The key probably for this hand is to make an assumption whether the opponent's ♠s are 2-1 or 3-0 from the outset. Or is it possible to combine both chances?

Yes! There is a line that works both against this (IMO plausible) layout and the actual one.

To be clear, East did actually not have three spades.

[pilowsky]

ok mitt sista kast av tärningarna

Obviously, only an idiot would fail to bid their major. My last attempt. East must have 6-10 any distribution and no 4CM for 1NT. West must have Diamonds and opening points. They must have a nice fit in diamonds to push you into a slam.

Here's my last try.

tack för matchen!

[hv=pc=n&s=sat87642hq42dk9ca&w=skqht95daqt86ct85&n=sj95ha873dckj9764&e=s3hkj6dj75432cq32&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1nd2d3c3d4s5d5sp6sppp]399|300[/hv]

I really hate this hand.

[Cyberyeti]

ok mitt sista kast av tärningarna

Obviously, only an idiot would fail to bid their major. My last attempt. East must have 6-10 any distribution and no 4CM for 1NT. West must have Diamonds and opening points. They must have a nice fit in diamonds to push you into a slam.

Here's my last try.

tack för matchen!

[hv=pc=n&s=sat87642hq42dk9ca&w=skqht95daqt86ct85&n=sj95ha873dckj9764&e=s3hkj6dj75432cq32&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1nd2d3c3d4s5d5sp6sppp]399|300[/hv]

I really hate this hand.

 

You really think E bids 1N with 6 card support for partner's known 4 card opener ? E has 4 or 5 diamonds almost certainly, most likely 4

[pilowsky]

As I said, I really 'hate' this hand. But if you really want to go nuts here's a .lin file with 64 hands that have exactly 9HCP North, 13HCP South, and the same ♠♥♦♣ distribution for N and S. So if you really want to pickle your noodle you can load them onto a table and see what happens .

[nullve]

West had fewer than three clubs.

 

This is a very tiny hint given that West would not likely bid 5♦ with as little as 1363* (let alone 2353!) shape

 

* I have indirectly told you that West had at least one spade and at least three hearts.

[mikeh]

On my original line, I suggested that we would be hoping for the club Queen to be doubleton or clubs 3-3, and that I’d play spades to split with east having 2. Obviously, if west has 10x, one has an additional chance by running the club J after diamond ruff, spade to the ace, club A, diamond ruff, club King. Provided one infers that east would not have bid 1N with, say, Kx Jxxx QJxx xxx, then running the jack is percentage, since west surely has at least 7 diamonds, and hearts can be assumed (usually) to be 3=3.

 

It’s a bit self-serving but I like to think that seeing the club 10 under the king would have been a wake up call. If the club 10 (or Q) doesn’t appear, one has to hope that east chose to suppress a very weak 4 card major

[nullve]

East's failure to support diamond immdiately (in a 5542 system with could-be-balanced 1♦) made me think West most likely had eight diamonds. And West's failure to lead a club suggested he had at least two, so I thought he was most likely 0382, as in Felicity's last example. So I played the way nige1's suggests and ruffed the ♦A, played a club to the A (West following with the five) and ruffed the (my own) ♦K. But then it was already too late. mikeh's line would also have failed.

 

But I'm starting to think that 1372 was West's most likely shape and that both mikeh's and nige1's lines therefore are (much) better than the winning one, which could never work against ♣Tx in West's hand nor even a friendly 3-3 club break.

 

The actual layout:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat87642hq42dk9ca&w=skhkjt9dajt8542c5&n=sj95ha873dckj9764&e=sq3h65dq763cqt832&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1nd2d3c3d4s5d5sp6sppp&p=da]399|300[/hv]

Edited July 12, 2020 by nullve

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat87642hq42dk9ca&w=skhkjt9dajt8542c5&n=sj95ha873dckj9764&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1nd2d3c3d4s5d5sp6sppp&p=da]300|300|

Nullve "I played the way nige1's suggests and ruffed the ♦A, played a club to the A (West following with the five) and ruffed the (my own) ♦K. But then it was already too late. mikeh's line would also have failed. The actual layout:"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

So the winning line is ♦ ruff, ♣A, ♦K, exit in ♠s

West is end-played to lead

- a ♥ into the tenace or

- a ♦ for a ruff-sluff..

I don't think an expert would play like that :(

Especially as, If defenders' spade honours are swapped, then East can overtake, to lead either major -- and defeat the contract : (

But the original play problem was fascinating. Thank you Nullve :) [/hv]

[Cyberyeti]

East's failure to support diamond immdiately (in a 5542 system with could-be-balanced 1♦) made me think West most likely had eight diamonds. And West's failure to lead a club suggested he had at least two, so I thought he was most likely 1382, as in Felicity's last example. So I played the way nige1's suggests and ruffed the ♦A, played a club to the A (West following with the five) and ruffed the (my own) ♦K. But then it was already too late. mikeh's line would also have failed.

 

1382 has a slight problem, did you mean 0382 ?

 

So in reality you have to ruff the diamond, club to the ace and play a small spade to endplay W, not something you're likely to find at the table

[nullve]

1382 has a slight problem, did you mean 0382 ?

Yes. Corrected now.

 

So in reality you have to ruff the diamond, club to the ace and play a small spade to endplay W

Yes.

 

not something you're likely to find at the table

At least not if I think West is most likely 1372.

[mikeh]

Yes. Corrected now.

 

 

Yes.

 

 

At least not if I think West is most likely 1372.

This entire thread has been a disappointment. Yes, you can make this, double dummy, but the winning line is frankly silly

 

As is the bidding.

 

I don’t find problems that require bad bridge to be very interesting.

[FelicityR]

But the original play problem was fascinating. Thank you Nullve :)

 

Yes, I agree. It certainly got me thinking - for hours :) It's one of those hands where you 'take a view' and if you get it right then the contract can be made. But I am also in agreement with mikeh and Nigel that the winning line is obscure, and the bidding is a bit off the radar, too. However, it certainly generated an interesting debate.

[pilowsky]

I have always wondered what people mean when they say “bad bridge”. Ove was very clear that he was not presenting an algebra puzzle. If so, then perhaps some level of ‘objective purity’ could be anticipated.

 

Mike takes a very strong position. So do I. This entire thread was a very positive experience for me. I participate in the Forum to learn things. This thread inspired me to learn quite a few things including:

 

How to create and use .LIN files for practice on a bidding and teaching table in the Prime area.

 

How to play bridge a little bit better.

 

A bit more Swedish.

 

But what is “bad bridge”? Mike raises an interesting question. By addressing the idea of the humanity in bridge, it is similar in a way to the question raised by PK Dick in his story “Do androids dream of electric sheep?” I am often mocked on this Forum because, inter alia, I enjoy playing against robots. I consider this to be a worthwhile exercise. Even playing against the computer I am playing against myself and learning things about how I think. Now, as a result of this thread, I have discovered how to create a teaching table with all hands open populated by robots in the Prime area, I can import specific hands and really see what I am doing. This is a revelation. Many bad habits hit me in the face immediately.

 

Bridge is a game that is played against people. People behave in different ways. Their skill levels and understandings differ. Good, bad, stupid, clever, fatuous, moronic, terrible, ridiculous, none of these characterisations helps the next player make their bid when the call comes round to them. Your opposition may not be the ‘best’, but a crazy bid can easily change the course of your conversation with your partner. That’s all part of bridge.

 

 

[nullve]

This entire thread has been a disappointment. Yes, you can make this, double dummy, but the winning line is frankly silly

 

As is the bidding.

 

I don’t find problems that require bad bridge to be very interesting.

Does a layout exist that would justify the opponents' bidding in your opinion?

[pilowsky]

Does a layout exist that would justify the opponents' bidding in your opinion?

 

You must be joking Ove, Mike is a lawyer I'm sure there are. Probably several.

[FelicityR]

Does a layout exist that would justify the opponents' bidding in your opinion?

 

Well, taking the ♠ suit in isolation, I believe many East's would have doubled a 6♠ contract with ♠KQx after partner has opened the bidding although, as said previously, an experienced one may decide against it as explained in post #15 on this thread.

 

But playing for a 1-2 break in ♠s with East holding two cards justifying the one no trump response on the first round of bidding works out at three-and-a-half times (39% (78/2) vs. 11% (22/2) better than East having ♠KQx so you were playing (at very favourable odds) for West to have a singleton.

 

I was a tad surprised with the actual layout expecting West to be weaker with less robust ♦s, but when partner supports them on the second round of bidding, West has enough, especially with 1471 shape, to justify bidding 5♦ even with a weaker hand, I feel.

 

So there would be a few hands, to my mind, that would automatically justify the bidding given the exceptional distribution.

[nullve]

In case some of you haven't noticed:

 

The winning line does not depend on West being 1471:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat87642hq42dk9ca&w=skhkt9dajt85432c5&n=sj95ha873dckj9764&e=sq3hj65dq76cqt832&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1nd2d3c3d4s5d5sp6sppp&p=das5d6d9c4c2cac5dkd2h3d7s2]399|300[/hv]

 

Nor does it depend on West having a stiff ♠K:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sat87642hq42dk9ca&w=shkj6dat876532cq5&n=sj95ha873dckj9764&e=skq3ht95dqj4ct832&d=w&v=b&b=4&a=1dd1nd2d3c3d4s5d5sp6sppp&p=das5d4d9c4c2cac5dkd2h3djs2]399|300[/hv]

[mikeh]

I don’t understand the 1N, since opener could have a stronger hand and be misled by the 1N, unless by agreement (which would, I hope, be disclosed, 1N promised nothing. I don’t understand 2D by opener opposite a 1N when he has the hand you gave.

 

Maybe I’m out of touch, or maybe I’m being parochial in my thinking about the auction, but since 1N almost always has 3 or 4 diamonds, and since it implies a good chance of a heart honour, 2D seems, frankly, very weak unless opener was hoping to play a deep game. However, given that his spade king may be worthless, and the opps are marked with a 9 or 10 card spade ft and at most 1 diamond loser, bidding 2D strikes me as weird.

 

On the auction, leading the diamond A is, I suppose, ok, but I’d be seriously thinking of the spade K on this auction. However, that is easy to say knowing the hands, and I’m not at all sure I’d find it at the table. I am sure I would never have bid 2D. I think bidding 5diamonds immediately is an entirely reasonable shot. After all, surely no-one is defending the inevitable 4S with this hand? Edit: if one were worried about a slam, and I would not be, with this hand and a 1N bid, one might bid 4D intending to pass 4S, having made them guess.