DARE meets The Case For the Defense

[kenberg]

In the DARE hands last Monday, the moderator remarked that although the hands were intended as problems in declarer play, defense could also arise as an issue.  Hand 4 made this point strongly. It was played 4 times. Twice the defense started down a path to set it but the hand made, twice the defense played so the hand could be made but it went down.

https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|S,W,N,E|md|2ST4HAQJDK8532CAJ4,S9853HKT7DQJT7C65,S762H943DA4CKQ972,SAKQJH8652D96CT83|sv|b|rh||ah|Board%204|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|mb|1D|mb|P|mb|2C|mb|P|mb|2N|mb|P|mb|3N|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|

The prescribed opening lead is the spade 8.

First assume that EW cash all four spades, as happened at two tables. From the auction, we then know that W has the heart K so forget the finesse. Assuming clubs run, we see 8 tricks. How do we make the hand? Say that after the spades are cashed, E leads a heart. Declarer needs W to have the heart T as well as the K, and four diamonds. And so it is. So the hand can be made on a red suit squeeze after the first four spades are cashed.  On the spades, S follows twice and then throws two diamonds while dummy follows thrice and then tosses a heart. The threats are the heart 9 and the diamond 8, and transportation is intact.

At two other tables, after E won the first spade, he switched to a heart. The count is not rectified, the squeeze won't work, so the heart Q loses to the K, but now W needs to return a spade. He didn't. A diamond was returned. that's that for the defense. 

So the defensive question is: How does E convey the message "Hey buddy, I am playing a heart here to get you off the squeeze, please continue spades after you take the heart K"? Squeezes can be tough to recognize, squeeze defense even tougher.

Maybe I have a weird sense of humor but it seems amusing that when the defense cashes the first four spades the hand could be made but wasn't, and when E switches to a heart at T2 the hand could be set but wasn't.

Any thoughts?

I have no idea if we want to look at defensive issues for DARE, but then why not?

Added: It's a bridge adage that when defending against 3NT you should not cash four tricks until you know where the fifth is, or might be, coming from. That explains the heart switch at T2.

[wackojack]

The bidding was:
1     2
2NT     3NT

Partner led the 8 .  and dummy went down:
  62
  943
  A4
  KQ972
Funny old hand to respond 2  !!!  Must have been and Acol sequence where if opener is balanced he must be 15-19 otherwise would have opened 1N (12-14)
Be that as it may.  Ken was declarer and with that auction he could easily have had 4 card spade suit.  So with  AKQJ there was a possible danger that if I led another partner would have no more if she got in.  Added to that if she started with 3 and I led out all my spades she could be squeezed on my 4th spade.  Known as a suicise squeeze.  So I swithed to a heart partner won and alas did not return a spade. 

The solution given by the moderator was to win with the J and then play the A before switching.  This means of course that had partner led from a doubleton the contract would make. 

So thats my reason for switching immediately   
 

[kenberg]

Yes. For W to have only 2 spades then E can count declarer for 4, and the auction might have gone 1D-2C-2S, but then again it might not have gone that way. So it's tricky, or at least somewhat tricky. I can see someone with a 4=3=4=2 shape deciding that after 1D-2C they will just try 2NT. It's right when it works, wrong when it doesn't.

All in all, the J followed by the A and then the switch probably is best. Probably.

I sometimes try these on the robots, but I haven't yet with this one.

[wackojack]

If the issue is whether or not declarer could have 4 spades I think it is highly likley or at least not unlikley that he does.  Whatever the system that the problem composer was envisaging the 2NT rebid is entirely consistent with a 4=3=4=2 shape.  1 -2 -2 is a reverse showing 4 spades and 5+ diamonds and so is ruled out .   

Incidentally in Acol I know that 1 - 2 -2NT shows 15-19 and is a game force. 
Question:  What does this show in SAYC?  Something at the back of my memory tells me that with 12-14 opener must re-bid 2 forcing with this distribution and not 2NT which shows 18-19.  Is this correct?  Then again most players who claim they play SAYC would bid 2N to show 12-14.  Is this correct?

The actual hand opener had was 104,    AQJ,  K8532,  AJ4  15HCP and a perfect hand for opening 1NT in SAYC or 2/1.
However, it is consistent with Acol weak no trump. 

Here is another interesting speculation.  In Acol with a balanced 15-19 and 4=3-4=2 shape there is no set style as to which suit to open. 
One school says:  We play 4 card majors and so I open 1 and over any 2 over 1 response I rebid 2NT to show a balanced 15-18. 
Another school says:  Bid up-the-line with this hand and so open 1 .  Partner is obliged to respond 1 with a 4 card spade suit.  If partner responds 1 , I rebid 1
.  If partner responds 1NT I pass  knowing that with 10+ points partner would respond with a 2 over 1 bid.

I note that when Blu plays with Shawn in iac he plays weak no trump.  I wonder if it is Acol?

[kenberg]

Ah yes, I think it was stipulated that the bidding was acol. I have no experience with acol.

However, I began playing bridge in 1961 by reading Goren. Goren also played 1D-2C-2NT as 15-18 or thereabouts. And a 1S opening could be on four cards but not, I think, on four to the T. With two "biddable" four card suits and no stiff, Goren recommended opening the suit that was under the doubleton, so with 4=2=4=3 you opened 1D and with 4=3=4=2 you opened 1S.

There were other considerations that I forget. As common practice moved toward five card major systems I recall one amusing justification. Someone went through the hand records at a major tournament and found that the players whose agreements allowed them to open a four card major seldom actually did so. There were too many side stipulations. You could open 1S on four but not if... and the .. went on for a while.

The DARE hands illustrate points of bridge and while the construction is tight enough so that best play will usually lead to a good result, we can recall Sky Masterson in Guys and Dolls: They call you Lady Luck, but there is room for doubt.

Two take-aways:
1. If the AKQJ are cashed then the declarer, on the auction, must forget about the heart finesse.
2. Holding the AKQJ of spades, the defender (you in this case) can realize that if the declarer has nine top tricks he will still have them after the AKQJ are cashed, while if the declarer has only eight top tricks then cashing the AKQJ rectifies the count for a squeeze against pard. Thus a switch is needed.

So cash the A before the switch? Maybe, maybe not. It certainly could be disastrous. And, after the heart switch at T2, continuing spades seems reasonable. So yeah, I think a heart switch at T2 sounds good. But but but.

The DARE hands create an opportunity for discussion about defense, even if it does not always work out as hoped. I have been looking at a few cases, I think I will give another below. First some more coffee.

[kenberg]

Continuing on with DARE and Defense, this is hand 5 from January 10.

Red against white, you deal and you hold:

S: A9
H: AT9
D: QJ98
C: K843

The stipulated auction is

1D-Pass-1H-1S
X-1NT-Pass-2S
Pass-Pass-Pass

The X is a support double.

The stipulated lead is the DQ.

Dummy hits:


                                    S: Q5
                                    H: KJ74
                                    D: 754
                                    C: 9752



S: A9
H: AT9
D: QJ98
C: K843

Partner plays the D2 (std cding) and declarer takes the A.

What are we to make of this? Plausible answers:

1. Declarer has 6+ spades for his 2S call
2.Declarer has exactly two hearts. Why? Pard heard my support double and was free to bid 2H over 1NT. I think pard has exactly four hearts, so declarer has exactly two.
3. Declarer has at least AKT in diamonds since the 3 from pard denied holding either the K or the T.
4. Thus declarer has at most two clubs.
5. Almost certainly, declare makes the hand if she guesses hearts correctly by taking five spades, one heart and two diamonds.


As the play went, declarer played the H5 at T2 and I played low. This is safe since declarer has two hearts. She inserted the J from the board losing to the Q and that's that. Pard returned a D and we now will get one S, two H, one D and two C for down 1.

Is there a way for declarer to learn of the lie in the other suits so that the heart guess is marked/ I'm not sure.

Suppose declarer plays a small spade at T2. I hop up with the A and play the H T.  If declarer hops up with the K( a lot of hopping going on) then she makes it. But she would have to believe I have led the T while holding the A. It is perfectly safe for me to do so, but still. Anyway, she makes the contract if she goes up with the K, she goes down if she covers with the J since pard takes the Q and leads back a D. and she also goes down if she plays a low card from dummy on my lead of the T. This is not because pard will take the Q, pard also does not know that I have the ace, but if declare plays low my T holds the trick and I now lead a second spade. It now will be safe for me to cash my H A later since declarer has no entry to the board to cash the K.

I suppose we could argue, I imagine that this was the argument,  that, since I did not start with the lead of the C A, I am missing either the A or the K of clubs and therefore have the A of hearts for my opening bid. Yes, perhaps so, but on this auction I am not at all sure I would start with the CA even if it were backed up by the K.

Anyway, I think there is a defensive point that is clear-cut. Defense realizes that if declarer scores a heart trick then the hand is made, so the defense hopes to prevent that from happening. Low at T2 is right if declarer leads a H at T2, and hopping up with the spade A at T2 and switching to the H T is right if declarer plays a small S at T2. If declarer works out the right play in hearts, well, we can't do anything about that. We can make it as hard as possible.

So it seems to me.

[blubayou]

ShawnT and Blu  play a highly bastardized Kaplan Sheinwold --  or maybe it's just 2/1 GF with 12-14 and 15-17 switched and appropriate adjustments for responder's rebids (a distinction without a difference if I ever saw one, eh?).  Whichever, it's loaded with the  Tuttle family's private tweaks + plus BLU's  2   opening to handle minimal  1-4-4-4   or 4-4-4-1   "death hands'.

[kenberg]

I never got around to playing KS, as I recall 2/1 was not a GF for them. They had a lot of exit sequences I think, but it's been a while since I thought about it.

With the hand above, where the stipulated auction was

1D-Pass-1H-1S
X-1NT-Pass-2S
Pass-Pass-Pass

I suppose the weak NT auction would go 1NT-Pass-Pass-2S
Passed out.

Again we suppose the lead is the D Q. Again the dealer can probably work out the distribution. Partner passed the 1NT rather than transfer, so partner has at most four hearts (we don't know he has exactly four hearts, which we did in the stimulated auction) so dealer can figure Rho for at least two hearts and duck when a heart is led. So the play might go the same.

Thinking about the hand, I suppose that if I had QJ98 in diamonds and the AKxx of clubs I would indeed start with the AK, especially after my Lho bid NT. With the QJT8, I think I start with the diamond, the clubs can wait. But with QJ98 there is too much risk of the T in dummy.

And them yes, declarer can play me for the H A.

Still, on defense I play as I said. It's safe, and declarer either does or does not hop up with the A. Can't do anything about it if he does.