Sabotaged by Partner

[OliverC]

Do you ever have one of those days where you do the right thing for the right reasons when defending the hand, only to have God and Partner combine to completely nullify your potential Bols Brilliancy Award play? On this hand I was partnering Nuri (tosunerk), a promisingly upcoming OCP practitioner.

EW Game, Dealer South

Bidding:
South        West         North        East
No             1             No             1
No             1NT            No             3NT
All Pass

You are South and your Partner leads the Ace of Diamonds against 3NT

                     East (Dummy)
                      Q104
                      AQJ6
                      QJ
                      9754
South (You)
AK75
9854
1083
J10

On Partner's Ace of Diamonds, you encourage and show an odd number with the 3 (the 8 and 10 would both have discouraged a continuation). Partner continues with the King. What do you play?

.
.
.

I did actually think about this for 30 seconds or so. If you don't unblock the 10 on the second Diamond, you are costing your side at least 2 additional undertricks when Partner turns up with AK97x(x). On the other hand, if Partner doesn't have the 9 and fewer than 6 Diamonds, then unblocking the 10 gives Declarer the contract. I felt it likely that Partner had at least 5 if not 6 Diamonds, and since it was inconceivable that they would turn up with an outside entry, I eventually did unblock the Diamond 10.

Just then, Nuri got disconnected and some anonymous American lady got put in his seat just before Declarer played to the trick. Partner now led the 7 and I thought I'd indeed given the contract away until my 8 unaccountably held the trick. Before Declarer could ask for an undo, I quickly cashed my AK and conceded the rest.

It turned out that Partner had started with AK97 of Diamonds and completely undid my attempted unblock by underleading her 9 at trick 3.

Why me, Lord?

[kenberg]

Apparently declarer opened 1 holding four diamonds. Now I usually open 1 when 4-4 in the minors, but even I would open 1 when my diamonds are four to the 6.

But probably also I would open 1 if my diamonds were four to the 9 in which case this T will not be a success. And presumably everyone (well, almost) opens 1 if the diamonds are three to the 9.

Which brings us to lead agreements. I doubt I would lead either top diamond from AK97, especially without and outside entry.  I am always getting my AK so the purpose in leading a is presumably to get a third or maybe fourth trick. If partner has the Q then leading a small will work fine, if partner does not have the Q then leading the A might well be costly. Of course here a small goes to the J. I think I would look around for a different suit to lead.

My agreements, when playing with someone with whom I have agreements. would have me leading the K from this holding of indeed I am leading either the K or the A.  The A asks for an unblock or, lacking anything to unblock, a count card. The Q seeks attitude. But others reverse this, and I gather that's the case here. The difference applies if third hand has the Qxx. On the lead of the K I encourage with a high card, on the lead of the A I pitch the Q. With AK97 opening leader does not want me pitching the Q.

It's a case where agreements differ. With some the lead of the A asks for a pitch of the Q, for example BWS says " Honor leads: ace requests unblock or count signal; queen requests jack; highest equal from non-ace sequences and interior sequences ", while with others the lead of the K asks for a pitch of the Q. And, of course, playing online there is often no agreement.

Anyway, the T could have and, as the cards lay,  should have produced another trick. Down 1 is ok, down 2 is better.

[OliverC]

I must confess, I would not have led Ace or King of Diamonds against this contract, but the way the cards lie a small Diamond gives Declarer their 9th trick (he has 8 top tricks in Hearts and Clubs). If Partner makes a passive lead in a round suit, I might well not unblock the 10, placing Partner with AKx. Anything but a small Diamond and this ought to be at least -1.

[kenberg]

I'll say a bit more about agreements about leads of the A and K against NT  since I think some readers might be unaware of this.             
Imagine the auction as it was: 1 - 1 -1NT -3NT.

Imagine you are on lead and imagine you have a strong diamond holding. Often (although not the case here) neither opponent will have four diamonds. Declarer opened 1 , dummy responded 1 . Not conclusive but at least a hint.

Ok, now I will present two possible diamond holdings.

A: AKJx
B: AKJTx

Where is the Q?

On holding A, you would like to lead a top diamond and have partner signal possession of the Q. If he has it, you will lead an x to the Q and then  partner will return a spot to your two winners. If he does not have it you will switch to another suit and hope partner can get in and lead a small to your tenace.



On holding B. the situation is different. If he has the Q, and now it mighty very well be Qx, it will be fine if he just throws it. You run the suit. If he does not have it, and of course if you don't see it on the board, then declarer has it. But did declarer start with Qx or with Qxx?
So: With this second holding you are fine with partner dumping the Q if he has it, and you really want him to play a count card if he does not.


Well, you have both the A and the K. In BWS, and I regard this as traditional, with holding A you lead the King and with holding B you lead the Ace.  Thus, on the lead of the King, partner gives attitude. Encouragement if he has the Q, discouragement if he does not.  One could discuss the J. On the lead of the A, partner dumps the Q if he has it and gives count if he does not. Again one could discuss the J.

In reality, it is not always so simple, which is why bridge is such an interesting game.  But at any rate, many people play the lead of an A to ask for unblock or count, and the lead of the K to ask for attitude. But some reverse these meanings, the K for unblock/count, the A for attitude. It can cause confusion.

After writing this I checked in Opening Leads by Mike Lawrence. On page 12 he gives the hand AKJT5 and and says to lead the A, asking partner to drop the Q if he has it or otherwise give count. So BWS and ML agree on this, but experience shows that you will sometimes  have a partner who thinks differently and he will be able to find support for his views. My view is that it rarely matters which of these two approaches you take, as long as you are both taking the same approach.

[Added: Clearly on the posted hand the lead of the A was not intended to suggest dropping the Q, so as I say not everyone plays that it does. As mentioned, I regard it as the traditional way.  It is widely cited in the literature, I think going as far back as Goren. But my sources are mainly from my side of the Atlantic.]

I repeat that we are only speaking of leads against NT contracts here. Also, against a gambling 3NT these conventions are off (at least most would say so).


A vaguely related sidebar: Joe and I were playing and chatting about Bergen raises. We agreed that they were on over a double. A kib was participating (we encouraged this)   and said that he did not think of Bergen as on over X. I replied that this was fine, that the problem came only when he did not play them on over a double and his partner did play them on over a double. This brought a chuckle, but in fact it is a common problem even in somewhat regular partnerships and a very common problem  online.  I am not all that fond of Bergen (fond of the convention I mean, Marty is a perfectly good person no doubt)  but it has it's pluses else nobody would play it. Playing it w/o discussing when it is on/off is asking for trouble.