How NOT to Defend against NT Contracts

[OliverC]

I really love the OCP system I play for its aggression. The fact that our 1NT range is 10-12 or 13-15 when most of the world are playing 15-17, sometimes means we end up in different contracts than everyone else. That isn't always a good thing, of course, but thanks to some appalling defence it worked well enough for us here.


I'll give you all 4 hands. Love All, Dealer East:

                   North
                    1098
                    Q954
                    102
                    AQJ3
West                                 East
  AJ4                                  6532
  872                                AK10
  AJ87                                K95
  1086                                942
                   South
                    KQ7
                    J63
                    Q643
                    K75

My 1NT (10-12) Opening as South was the only bid. West led the 7 and East won their King. Instead of returning the 9 to their Partner's Jack, East, despite the presence of Q9xx in Dummy, decided to cash the AK first, which, apart from anything else, gives me 2 Heart tricks to add to my 4 Clubs so I only have to establish a Spade trick and I have 7. Moreover cashing the AK means that East can only ever return a Diamond through my hand once.

From an NT perspective, that is utter insanity. Your aim, whether you are Declarer in a NT contract or whether you're defending against a NT contract, should be to develop tricks in your long suits, especially if it's necessary to give up a trick or two first, and to jealously conserve top tricks in suits which the other side are or might be trying to develop.

East did return the 9 after cashing the top Hearts and West now compounded East's error, by winning the J and cashing the Ace, before returning their last Diamond to my Queen. By this point I had my 7 tricks and could safely try to steal an 8th. I "took" the Club finesse and tried the 10 from Dummy, hoping I might find the defence asleep. In truth there was a zero chance East would have the A , since they had already shown up with the AK and K , but had initially passed in front of me. I might have done better to try a deceptive Q!S from hand. 7 tricks were secure, however, which was worth +3 IMPs for my lowly 1NT because every single other table had passed this hand out.

Once East cashes the AK my 7 tricks are always secure whatever West does in Diamonds, but even so cashing the A cannot be right, since West can tell I started with Q6xx(x) whether East had K9 or K9x to , so I can never establish a Diamond winner for myself without their help

[kenberg]

One of those 20-20 s

Playing with my three clones it would probably be passed out, just as it was at other tables. I guess EW can always take 7 tricks in NT, on offense or on defense, regardless of which of the four seats is declarer.  As your hand illustrates, "can take" and "did take" are not the same thing.

E could, if he wanted to follow an active defense, take the K but not the A. Then he switches back to the 9 , W wins and has no problem figuring where the A is. He leads to it, anther comes through, W takes his diamonds and cashes the A.  EW take the first 7 tricks. But on this hand at least there is no rush. It might well be better to continue with the 9 at T2. EW are going to get four either way, NS will get 4 no matter what, E controls , and it might come down to the . Taking it slow might be right even if S holds the A and W wolds the K. No rush. If S holds AQx in , it might seem reasonable to go to the board in and take the finesse. And then EW get their 7 tricks. Or maybe S decides to go after and plays a small to the 9.

But cashing the AK of ? We must restrain our impulses, just as our mothers told us.


Added:
The main point of course is that cashing the AK of is a really bad idea, but there is another point probably familiar to most but not all.  Let's say the first two tricks were the   7 to the K and the 9 back, declarer following with the 3 and the 6. W can reasonably place the Q in the S hand but where  are the 4 and the 5?  If E started with K9xx in diamonds the conventional lea back is the original fourth best, so the return of the 9 shows, or at least very strongly suggests, an original 3 card holding. Therefore declarer has (at least) one spot still in hand so playing the A would be an error. And again there is no rush. If this is going to be set, E needs to have some stuff so W can just wait.  Underleading the A does not appear to be right so the choice is between a and a .  Either will set the contract here.  As the cards lie, a is best. Declarer has four club tricks and has a fine chance of going wrong no matter how he tries to develop more. He might win on the board and run the T for example.

[onoway]

Recently  even the GIBs have been doing this sort of thing, including trumping my good trick in 3rd seat in order to finesse me for declarer. They virtually never ever return  the opening lead, ( and seldom  lead the bid suit)  so perhaps all the people playing with the GIBs are being  "taught"  this sort of thing, believing that the GIBs are set up for optimum play.

Certainly the other night playing in BBO, human  opps  who I would have assumed would know better were taking  their tricks off the top in NT and very cooperatively setting up suits for me. so perhaps it's a trend.

[OliverC]

On the rare occasions when I play a hand against GIBs, I've tended to notice that they do completely insane things if "the system" tells them you're slated to make the contract whatever they do (or that they're going to go off whatever they do)   They start chucking Aces and Kings rather than discarding small cards elsewhere and all sorts of stupidities

[kenberg]

I have not much played with Gibs. I am considering this upcoming three day event, or is it four day, of playing with the Bibs but I probably will restrain myself I prefer people.

[OliverC]

Only time I play against GIBs is when Opps flee in the middle of a hand. I never play against them by choice