Recession

[kenberg]

Note: This hand is not as tricky as I thought, but still it's amusing. The "recession" in the title refers to the recessed menace in , but it's of less importance than I thought. Details below.

The title is obscure, but this is about both bidding and play.

Imp scoring, everyone non-vul, the auction begins on your left with 2 :   (2 ) - X - (Pass) - ? .  You hold


: 962
: AQ
: KJ87
: AKQ2

Question 1: What do you want to know and how do you find out? For example, it might be nice if 5NT was "Pick a minor suit slam" but I am not sure that it means that, and anyway it would be better for this hand to declare to prevent the lead at T1.

Now I will put up partner's hand. I'll  skip a few spaces so you can think w/o looking, if you like.










Partner:

: AKJ7
: 742
: AQT3
: 93



You:
: 962
: AQ
: KJ87
: AKQ2

There could be something to be said for passing out 2 X. If declarer can never get to his dummy to lead a , we might well hold him to four tricks. But if we can play 6 from my side there should be a good play.   But is 6 really better than 6NT? This is where it gets interesting.

Let's make the reasonable assumptions that the 2 hand holds the K, at least six , and at most four . Yes, he probably has exactly six and at most three but I don't think we need that. We also assume the bidder has the Q because (a) he probably does, even a weak 2 has to be based on something and (b) if he doesn't there is not much we can do about it.


I, being chicken, just bid 3NT over the X and of course I played it there. The opening lead was a small . So I was in 3NT but let's pretend I was in 6NT and got the same lead. Say that I win on the board with the Q and come to my hand with the K, both opponents following with spots. Now I lead a small to the J and it holds. Suppose I am determined to make 12 tricks and I don't care whether I make 13.


I believe I can now claim 12 tricks against any distribution, assuming as above that Lho has 6+ and 4- . I don't even care who has the K, although surely it is with Lho.

I present  this as a hand of interest. It's possible I am wrong about my claim, it would not be the first time, but I believe I am right. 

[wackojack]

Partner's spade suit did appear at the bottom of the gap and I hope that didn't influence me.  I wrote down " I would bid  6NT as a non scientific practical bid. I appreciate that this bid almost certainly precludes us from getting to a grand slam but I will live with that."  A little bit more thought now and I can appreciate that my Q  may be wasted as a squeeze against LHO looks unlikely.
 Nevertheless I would not consider bidding just 3NT.  So a toss up between  4N quantitative and 6N.  Looking for a minor suit slam I do not have in my bidding tool kit. 

I am going out now and will look at the play later.

[Masse24]

With this monster, I would always begin with a cuebid in response to partner's takeout double. I'm fairly certain we have slam, so passing partner's double is off the table. Depending on partner's rebid, I'm probably cuebidding again. All this in search of a fit (question 1).

The immediate jump to 6NT did not occur to me--but in hindsight, I like it.

Your assumption about the Q is probably correct, unless of course it's Marty Bergen preempting. Larry Cohen writes about the "quality" of Bergen's weak 2 bids, sometimes doing it with no honors and only spot cards!

[wackojack]

Yes if West started with 4 spades to Q, then you can endplay him when he has  Qany,  Q any, by playing Ace and another  .  If he started with 3 then you make a 4th spade. 

[kenberg]

This hand is not as tricky as I thought, but still it's amusing. The "recession" in the title refers to the recessed menace in , but it's of less importance than I thought

Here is what I was thinking. As Jack notes, if Lho holds 4 he is subject to a throw-in, so I was thinking that after the finesse works we cash the AK and find out. Yes, if Lho has four then we strip out his minor cards and throw him in with the .

Of course more often Rho will have four , say the Txxx. Now what? Someone has four and we want to squeeze them.  Lead a to the Q. losing to the K, this rectifies the count. Win the return, cash the A, and come down to the four card ending with the lead on the board

Dummy:

: x
xx
, void
: xx

Hand:

: void
: void
: void
: AKQx

Since Rho is now void in , Lho must hold on to one of them and thus he has only three . Since Lho is now void in , Rho must hold on to one and so he has only three . Run .


Note: If Lho played a back instead of a when in with the K then the ending is


Dummy:

: x
xx
, void
: x

Hand:

: void
: void
: void
: AKx

Same effect, Lho has a , Rho has a , so run.

I like this  but it is spoiled a bit by the fact that if Lho has two and 2 then we know it is Rho who has the long so it is just your run of the mill - squeeze.

The main thing was that given the finesse is working, then, at T1, we can see that the hand might come in by being 3-3, might come in with a throw-in, might come in with a - squeeze if Rho has 4+ and 4+ , and might come in with a - squeeze of Lho has  4+ to go with his 6 . The idea is to keep all of these in play. As I described it, by the time we got to the squeeze, we knew which one it was. It would work even if we didn't.

[infidel]

this would be SO easy if I had a 4th spade (or if I somehow knew partner didn't...)  The problem with the immediate cue is that, if I bid 3N next, P will assume I'm denying a H stop (not to mention showing a spade suit). I think I could deal with one false assumption, but both is a bit too far. My "least lie" may be to bid 2N, THEN cue the hearts over P's 3c...then run from spades until partner gives up? A really bad hand for partnership trust; maybe the straight 6N/hope for a squeeze is the most reasonable approach after all.