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.