misdefence

[mikl_plkcc]

I had a board today which, as a result of misdefence, got a bottom, causing the opponent to made a normally unmakeable contract.

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s9643ha8dk642c987&e=sqhkjt9652d953c53&d=w&v=n&b=12&a=1s2dpp4cppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Opening lead by partner was ♥7, and the first trick was 7-2-A-Q.

 

I couldn't understand what the opening lead meant, and I returned another ♥. I didn't return a ♦ because, given our ♦ fit and the extreme bidding by declarer, I was afraid declarer might be void in ♦, as my partner might very likely to have 6 of them by making a 2-level overcall at these colours. Therefore, I played for the declarer to have 5=3=0=5, and for my partner to have 1 ♥ and 6 ♦. It turned out that the declarer was 5=1=1=6, my partner had 5 ♦ only, and my partner led the 7 from ♥743 (I normally played MUD but for this particular partner we didn't have agreement). Declarer ruffed and took 11 tricks eventually. Double dummy analysis said the correct return was either a ♣ or a ♦.

 

How do I understand the situation of ♥ that I shouldn't return it?

[smerriman]

Just agree to lead low from three small (if it's not one you raised to show 3 already).

 

That's easily the most popular approach (MUD typically considered the worst) in terms of helping you read partner's count on the suit.

[sfi]

That's easily the most popular approach (MUD typically considered the worst) in terms of helping you read partner's count on the suit.

To elaborate, MUD gives you the information you need, but frequently one trick too late. Leading high or low from 3-small gives less information (either being hazy on count or honours), but partner is more likely to get the information in time.

[sfi]

How do I understand the situation of ♥ that I shouldn't return it?

The short answer is to start by having an agreement - at least you'll then have a chance to read the position. If your agreement is top of three small, there's no clear answer to how to get it right.

 

It's also worth pointing out the South hand is a clear raise to 3D. That could have helped because now partner has more reason to lead from AQ of diamonds. So if they do lead a heart, it's less likely they are trying to find a safe lead and more likely the lead is a singleton.

[thepossum]

Its a bit hard after reading the commentary, and I am in the wrong forum, but I probably would have led a diamond back - that's without knowing any agreements and I usually play a robot that doesn't make meaningful leads very often. I was brought up with attacking leads and usually lead back what is led. But not always

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

#1 as other have said / asked, why no raise to 3D?

7HCP, hard values, 4 trumps, ruffing feature

 

#2 Declarers bidding sounds like 65, not like 55, so your 5530 shape

is not really likely

Given the 65 shape, the Q looks like an honest card.

So returning will either give declarer a free discard, or hearts are 7222,

you attack the communication. But in this case it wont hurt to play King

of diamonds to see, if partner likes it or not.

Partner should have the Ace, I mean QJxxx is possible, but again unlikely,

but in this case he may have lead the Queen.

 

#3 It looks like you have agreed to top of nothing? The 7 was from 743.

You should switch to length based, either MUD / 2. and 4th. or 3rd and 5th,

for what it is worth I play 3rd and 5th against suit and 2. and 4th against NT.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Winstonm]

When looking at spot cards think about the missing cards. Would declarer be up to smoothly playing the Q from Q43? What would partner’s hand look like with a singleton? Is that consistent with the bidding?

 

Without a lot of thought, I would read the 7 as doubleton as Q from Qx seems a simple play to make. At least you won the ace - I might have ducked it.