IAC Forums
University of IAC => IAC Teaching Sessions => Topic started by: jcreech on November 15, 2019, 05:06:36 PM
-
I liked Poco's idea, so I have co-opted it for my lesson hands as well. Here are 11/14/2019's hands and my notes.
-
WTG Jim and TY ! !H
-
Tanks for the hands. I trust it is ok to comment. I played board 4, the one where I have 6=5=1=1 shape. There was a question afterwards (by Curls77 as I recall!) as to whether 1 !C - 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !H is forcing. I replied that I like it to be, but not everyone agrees. I also noted that the bots play it as forcing although when I looked for it today I could not find it. But I am pretty sure that they do. Why would it not be? Well, everyone plays that 1 !C - 1 !S - 1NT - 2 !H is non-forcing. Of course that's different, after 1 !C - 1 !S - 1NT I would know that partner, for his 1NT rebid, has at least a somewhat balanced hand and I could just bid a please place the contract 4 !H. With 5-4 shape and a hand worth inviting game I bid a nmf 2 !D over 1NT.
There are some ho like to use 1 !C - 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !D in a similar way, as an artificial call with at least invit strength and as yet unlnown shape, and then they use !C - 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !H as a weak bid, basically a pass/correct bid. That's not crazy, but I prefer natural, I do think that after 1 !D - 1 !S - 2 !D a 2 !H call has to be natural and forcing, using 3 !C as an artificial nmf call is way too far out for me.
Our auction, as I recall, continued as follows: 1 !C - 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !H - 2NT. Now what? Here I think a 3 !H call by me should be passable. Clearly a lot of partner's cards are in the minor, not only did she rebid 2 !C but she was able to rebid 2NT so she must have some !D as well. Nonetheless, I can be stubborn and I am 6-5 with decent values so I bid presumably forcing 3 !S. I say presumably forcing because partner has not yet said anything about her heart and spade holdings so if I wanted to let he get out at the 3 level in whichever major she prefers, then I should be bidding 3 !H. So I think 3 !S, although undisussed not only by us but probably be just about everyone, should be construed as forcing. Or very close to forcing. If partner is 1-1 in the majors she could maybe take a flyer on passing.
Anyway, the sequence got us to 4 !S, a decent contract. It makes if spades are 3-1 and it makes if they are 4-1 as long as the four card holding is on my right.
My main point here is that while I think that the 2 !H, if undiscussed, should be seen as forcing, there are a fair number of people who play it as non-forcing, using an extended version of nmf to handle the forcing case. My preference is that 2 !H forcing, I think the bots play it that way as well. Others play it non-forcing.
-
My main point here is that while I think that the 2 !H, if undiscussed, should be seen as forcing, there are a fair number of people who play it as non-forcing, using an extended version of nmf to handle the forcing case. My preference is that 2 !H forcing, I think the bots play it that way as well. Others play it non-forcing.
I agree, Ken, this (non-forcing weakish) is one possible way to play it. With discussion, I prefer to play it as shown below. But I totally understand the desire for natural; the fewer gadgets, the fewer disasters.
1 !C - 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !H = weakish and non-forcing. Exactly like the same auction with a 1NT rebid by opener. It is only due to the extra space permitting an artificial 2 !D rebid by responder that allows this treatment.
1 !D - 1 !S - 2 !D - 2 !H does not afford responder the space for an artificial bid, so 2 !H must be forcing.
With a regular partner I would play it this way, but never undiscussed.
[Added] We had the same discussion, about the same auction, previously: 1 !C - 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !H (http://iac.pigpen.org.uk/smf/index.php?topic=305.msg1558)
Also, the Billy Miller mention of this treatment can be found here. It is a few clicks in. 1 !C - 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !H (http://www.bridgebase.com/store/movies/viewer.php?id=97)
-
This would probably work pretty well here. After 1 !C - 1 !S - 2 !C - 2 !D, opener would, I assume, bid 2 NT. He won't be really happy to do this with !H Qx but it's responder's show. Now responder bids 3 !H. Opener, having denied holding three spades, can show two card support, or at least a willingness to play in spades opposite a six card suit, by bidding 3 !S. Responder presumably then bids 4. And goes down on the 4-1 split, but it's the right contract.
-
I was sitting East on B8 in which the bidding attracted some comments. I had:
!S Q10765
!H J
!D AKJ85
!C A8
The bidding went: 1 !H - 1 !S; 4 !H -?
In my mind it seemed that partner's spade holding would be the determinant for slam or not. If partner has a spade control and !H AKQ then slam will be on. It was suggested that I might try a cue of 5 !C. However, would partner cue 5 !S with A !S? But that reply wont tell me the hearts holding. So the only bid available to my mind was keycard 4NT.
Consider partner's 4 !H rebid and the difference between that and an opening bid of 4 !H. !H AKQxxxx and nothing much else would be suitable for an opening bid although a 7222 distribution and top !H might be considered to be suitable for only a 3 !H opening bid. So the rebid of 4 !H must show extras outside and a 7321 distribution is more likely than a 7222. If 7321 partners singleton is equally likely to be either a !D or a !S. Also with with the small chance that partner does have !S xx, there was still a chance that if South held the K !S without the Ace then this suit would not be led.
So I would give myself an 80% chance of making.
B7 Gave me a hand evaluation problem:
!S A9873
!H K10852
!D A
!C K9
Bidding:
1 !S -(p) - 2 !S-(dbl); ?
14HCP and 5 losers. Without the double I would have made a trial bid of 3 !H. However, the double made it very likely that I would find the A !H onside so I went straight to 4 !H. Well the A !H happened to be offside and so the contract can go off. However, South quite naturally led his A !H, so giving me the contract
-
Yes, I was the one leading the !h A on board 7. Partner's double of take-out double of 2 !S was of course completely reasonable and doesn't promise the !H K but it seemed to up the chances. And 4 !s is a completely reasonable contract, especially with the expectation of where the !H A will be, but of course that also turned out to not be the way it was. We place our bets, we do not always collect.
-
I never promised games that make, only hands that something happened that sparked an interest with me. It might be hand valuation, it might be conventional, it might be the differenced between the thinking that is involved between IMPs and matchpoints, or it might be a missed opportunity.
On board 4, I thought 2 !H was forcing in an undiscussed situation. I was a bit surprised at the discussion, so I went the Bridge Winners to post the question. I set it up so players could choose either or both answers. The results with about 100 players responding at the time I checked was 69% forcing, 24% non-forcing, 7% chose both. Some of the abstainers wrote comments indicating that they regarded it as being strictly a partnership discussion/understanding situation. While I agree that it can be non-forcing with discussion or in an area of the world where it is common agreement that it is non-forcing; but outside of those situations, I would expect partner to bid. I understand that 1 !C - 1 !S; 1NT - 2 !H is generally not forcing, but then 2/1 generally includes new minor forcing or xyz as a means to artificially force. Unless you have a specific forcing convention available, I think the principle, in a live auction, that a new suit by an unpassed hand is forcing applies.
During the session, I thought the valuations and play considerations made by Jack and Ken were spot on, it just felt like Ken was on the wrong side of how the hand actually laid out. Been there, done that too.
-
The hands were indeed interesting.
On Board 5 I opened 2 !H with a 4=6=1=2 shape. It was, as you mentioned, in third position and that did influence my willingness to open 2 !H even though I had four spades. The idea is that we are unlikely to have a game anywhere, 2 !H should be making most of the time, and it creates interference. Since we are red against white, I like to have a pretty decent suit, and so I have.
You mentioned that at the other table when you were playing this it started 2 !H - X - 3 !H, and what should E do. I regard the E hand as worth a 3 !S call. At any rate, I think passing and then, f W doubles again, jumping to 4 !S is not what I would do. looking at the E hand I would expect 3 !S to often make. Suppose I pass. Partner might have a variety of hands, but if I am going to jump to 4 !S over a second double then I am leaving E with the choice of passing out 3 !H or playing in 4 !S. Not good. I just bid 3 !S over 3 !H and hope for the best.
At our table, as I recall, it began 2 !h X - Pass - 3 !D and there was some question about how strong this was. I think W was wondering if they were playing Lebensohl. If so, the 3 !D shows some values since with a modest hand E would first bid 2NT, a relay to 3 !C, and then bid 3 !D.
My choice, after 2 !H X -Pass-Pass, would be some number of spades. Again Lebensohl is relevant, if it is being played. The choices are 2 !S, 2NT followed by 3 !S, or a direct 3 !S. On high card points it is only worth 2 !S but it has some nice shape. I imagine 2 !S is right, but it's at the upper end, I think.
And at our table the contract was 3NT after, I think, 2 !H X - Pass -3 !D - Pass - 3NT passed out. There are 8 tricks but not 9. A kib pointed out that I missed an opportunity on defense to make a good falsecard that surely would have worked.
The opening lead was a heart to my T and declarer's K. Declarer played three top clubs from hand and found that they were not splitting. He then led a top spade from hand, partner following with the 5.
So the spade suit was like this at the beginning.
5 played
K led Board has A863, 3 played
I have J942
Presumably that K is from KQT7. If I play low, as I did, declarer next plays the 7 to the A and and then, after my pard shows out, the 6 toward his QT.
But suppose I instead drop the !S 9 on the first trick. Declarer reasons that if sades are 3-2 then nothing matters, but if by any chance that 9 is a stiff then he can still pick up the suit by next playing the Q and then, when I show out (if I do) he leads toward the A8 on the board. He would be disappointed when I am the one with the four cards, but it would be a very sensible line for him to take.
It's a fun game.
-
On 4, lets throw BWS into the mix:
"After a one-level suit response and opener's simple same-suit rebid:
(a) a third-suit bid that is a reverse or a three-level bid is forcing to game;
(b) a third-suit non-reverse at the two-level is forcing for one round, and responder may pass if opener bids two of responder's first suit or three of opener's suit;
(c) a non-reverse jump to three of a third suit is natural (five-five or more) and game-forcing (to invite with the same shape, responder bids two and then three of the third suit);
(d) a bid one level above a game-forcing third-suit bid is a splinter. "
Note: Underlining mine.
So it looks like the correct bid under BWS would be the jump shift showing a game forcing 5-5 or better. The double jump-shift would show a splinter; presumably in support of clubs.
-
I don't think the strong jump shift is needed with the BWS agreement you quote. The 2 !H is BWS forcing for one round. We get to see what partner does. Who knows, maybe s/he is holding !s Axx. She isn't but the 2 !H is forcing and we will see what happens. She bid 2NT, naturally enough. Ok, she does not have three spades, she does not have four hearts, and since we are not in a game force, the 2NT is presumably minimal saying "you forced me to bid again so I did, but don't expect miracles". Now I can still force to game, I think, with 3 !S. I doubt BWS or much of anywhere says exactly what that bid is but logically it must be forcing. Anytime partner has one spade and three hearts she will have to go on to 4 !H so, for my 3 !S call, I must be prepared to play at the four level. Same logic that makes a reverse earlier in the auction forcing. Partner might prefer hearts, and can only get to hearts by bidding 4 !H. And I must have more spades than hearts. With equal length I could have bid a passable 3 !H or a "game-forcing" 4 !H. So I think the forcing but non-forcing 2 !H followed by a logically forcing 3 !S is the most descriptive. Of course if partner is, say, 1-1 in the majors she has a problem, but with that shape she might have rebid 3 !C over 2 !H. Maybe anyway. But if she is 1-1 in the majors I am probably going to regret my aggressive push to game no matter how I do it.
-
Here are the 12/12/2019 hands and notes.
-
I cut my bridge teeth at a time when the only time it was right to bid a grand slam was it you could count 13 tricks. In the intervening years, I have only nuanced that thinking a little.
I found this document recently on grand slams. The math is more to Ken's liking than most players, but if you have the patience to get to the scenarios, it may change your mind about when it is appropriate to bid a grand slam. It did nine.
-
I cut my bridge teeth at a time when the only time it was right to bid a grand slam was it you could count 13 tricks. In the intervening years, I have only nuanced that thinking a little.
I found this document recently on grand slams. The math is more to Ken's liking than most players, but if you have the patience to get to the scenarios, it may change your mind about when it is appropriate to bid a grand slam. It did nine.
In The Philadelphia Story Mike (James Stewart in the movie version) quotes a Spanish proverb "With the rich and the mighty always a little patience". And toward the end Tracey (Katherine Hepburn) opines "The time to make up your mind about other people is never". Probably neither quote is exactly relevant but they both advise caution. I strongly advise caution with applying mathematical arguments to bridge.
One problem is that we rarely know what the probabilities are. Another problem is that hands that in theory won't make sometimes do make. At the club last Friday partner opened 1 !D after three passes. I responded one heart, he bid 1 !S and I looked at my almost opening hand and bid 2NT. Passed out, the spade T was led.:
!S A942
!H KQ3
!D QT72
!C 95
!S T led
!S Q75
!H AJ65
!D 54
!C A862
Ok, clear enough. On the !S lead I have 2+4+0+1=7 obvious tricks. If Lho has the !D J together with either the !D K or the !D A (he does, whew) I can develop a !D trick. But they can take a spade, two diamonds and three clubs first, so I am going down 1. Except they didn't develop their tricks so I was able to establish my 8 tricks first, and then a !S - !C squeeze developed and I took 9 tricks.
So what was supposed to happen? I might have passed out partner's hand. It satisfies one of those numerical rules, the rule of 15, but I don't put much stock in such things. The bridge club is linked to The Common Game and that has commentary on some hands. It approved of the 1 !D opening fourth hand but said that opener should then pass my 1 !H response. Well, maybe. The dd analysis says I can make 8 tricks in hearts. Maybe I even would make 8 tricks.
There are times when the sort of mathematics described in the article can be put to use, but less often than advertised, I think.
A favorite story, that I might well have recited before: Four of us were driving from the D.C. area down to Roanoke for a Regional and we stopped for a casual bite to eat. We were having a general discussion with the guy serving the food and when he learned I was a mathematician and we were off to a bridge tournament he mentioned that being a mathematician must help a lot. Marge Wilson (she and her husband Bill, both now deceased, were good players and great fun) immediately responded that common sense was much more what was needed and mathematics sometimes got in the way. It was a gentle bit of ribbing, but in fact I agree.
-
I cut my bridge teeth at a time when the only time it was right to bid a grand slam was it you could count 13 tricks. In the intervening years, I have only nuanced that thinking a little.
I found this document recently on grand slams. The math is more to Ken's liking than most players, but if you have the patience to get to the scenarios, it may change your mind about when it is appropriate to bid a grand slam. It did nine.
Yes this mathematical analysis is well known. Counting 13 tricks is essential. However some leeway should be given in ignoring very bad breaks. For example if you know by the bidding that partner has a doubleton trump and you have AKQ432. You can count 7 certain tricks outside trumps and need 6 tricks in trumps. You would not reject bidding a grand because 13 tricks are not certain. The maths tells you that 6 trump tricks are available provided the 5 outstanding do not break badly. This will give you a 67.8% chance if partner does not have the J or partner does not have 10x when one of the hands has a singleton Jack. This will give you something better than a 70% chance. Surely you would bid a grand with these odds a fraction better than 68%.
-
Attached are the hands from the 12/26/2019 session. Happy holidays.
Jim
-
I am editing this. I was ontermixing the issues of making 4 !S on a !S lead with making an overtrick on a non-spade lead.
About that 4 !S contract on board 1. It was mentioned at the time that Gib says 4 !S makes even on a trump lead. Declarer can win the first spade either in hand with the 9 or on the board with the T. And learns of the 6-0 break. He assumes from the auction that Lho has two hearts. If Lho began with either 6=2=2=3 shape or, as it was, 6=2=3=2 shape, he can count ten tricks: The initial trump lead, the !C A, the !D Am the !C AK give 5 tricks. The other five are one !D ruff in dummy, a !H ruffed low in hand, and the !S AKQ.
Without the trump lead it is maybe a bit, maybe more than a bit, dd but it can be done. Again the top cards in the side suits are cashed, that's four tricks. Two !D ruffs in dummy and a !H ruff in hand bring us up to 7 tricks. After that last !D ruff we are on the board and we lead a !C. Rho plays hos last !C. We now know that Lho started with exactly two hearts, exactly two cubs and either three or four diamonds. So he was dealt either 5=2=2=4 or 6=2=2=3. No matter. Rho has at most one !S. So we ruff the !C with the !S A, cash the !S K and lead a !D. Lho is in and eads into our !S Q9.
-
Regarding board #6, where the auction went 2 !C - 2 !D - 3NT - 6NT . . .
It's possible, too, that responder may have interpreted the 3NT rebid as showing 25-27. Lacking more "dialed-in" notrump ranges by way of agreement, that would be my interpretation of the range shown by 3NT. In which case the "guess" to leap to 6NT makes far more sense.
Still, as you mentioned, a happy accident for the home team. ;D ;D ;D
-
Todd,
It could be that partner thought the range was 25-27. I had another hand come up with similar point counts, and partner went with far different results.
I do think that as you get to these sorts of rarified ranges, it is generally correct to assume that partner is at the bottom of the range because there are fewer cards available to get to the higher portion of the range. So if you are inclined to be there if partner is at the middle or above, invite. At least with me, I will be looking to bid on; I'm likely to bid on with a minimum and a five-card suit or three 10's.
-
The West hand has 24HCP based on A=4, K=3, Q=2 and J =1. Generally an ace is worth more than 4, A king is worth more than 3. So with only 2 queens and no Jacks it has potential to be worth 25. However, it has one huge drawback, !C AK stiff. You can deduct anything from 1 to 3 points for this when partner is not expected to have much. With the actual hands, even though East does have the A !H, and !C QJxxx, 12 tricks are unlikely. Take away the 2 !D and make it the 2 !C and 6NT becomes an excellent contract.
So this hand is only worth 2 !C -2 !D-2NT. Played as a good 22 to 24. However , if West has instead !C AKx, it would not be unreasonable to play it as worth 25 and rebid 3NT.
After 2 !C -2 !D-3NT, I think 4 !C is best played as Stayman. Certainly not Gerber. 4 !D would deny a 4 card major and then 4NT would be a quantitative invite to 6NT.
-
Looking at board 6
I agree that 2 !C - 2 !D - 2 NT is probably a good way to start. Two arguments:
1. I think AK tight should be downgraded from a 7 count.
2. W might ask himself just how he expects to take 9 tricks if E has a hand that would pass after t 2 !C - 2 !D - 2 NT
Of course argument 1 and argument 2 are related. We downgrade the AK tight because it gives us two tricks and then what? Even if dummy has the Q we have to get to it. In other words, pard needs something or else 2NT may already be too high.
-
Here are the 1/9/2020 hands:
-
Board 9, the first on the list, was interesting. I was S. After two passes I opened 1 !C, Lho bid 3 !D and partner doubled. Pass on my right and I must choose. Perhaps the following is right: I could bid 4 !D, asking partner to pick a major, and then when she bids 4 !H I could bid 4 !S. I would like this to say "If spades is one of your majors then we play 4 !S, otherwise I think 5 !C is a better bet." But I didn't do that, I just bid 4 !S. Nad news, partner has 3. Good news, they split 3=3. Bad news, as I played it I could have been set. Good news, I wasn't.
5 !C is a fine contract, as the cards lie I could actually make 6, or at least I think so, but 5 should be easy losing one spade and one club.
I think the X with my partner's hand is fine. It would be nice to be 4-4 but we can't have everything. The trick is to get to clubs if opener does not have hearts. I suppose some would indeed go the 4 !D - 4 !H - 4 !S - 5 !C route. It just seemed a bit out there.
-
From your partner's pov if you bid 4 !D you will have one of 2 types of hand.
1. 4-3 majors, singleton !D, 5 !C. Better than min opener.
2. Balanced 18-19 4-3 majors, no !D stop. So likely !D doubleton.
The odds would favour type 1 simply on the basis that a hand with fewer points is more likely.
On that basis 5 !C would more likely lead to success. O T O H if you did happen to have hand type 2, 5 !C is clearly inferior.
As you said Ken, the 5 !C route seems "a bit out there"
-
Over 4 !D my partner will not have to spend any time thinking about what I have, not yet. If she has 4 hearts she will bid 4 !H, if she has four spades but not four hearts she will bid four spades. The potential problem will be if it goes 4 !D - 4 !H and then 4 !S by me. She has to figure out what I have i mind, why, if I wanted to play in 4 !S I did not just bid 4 !S over her double. I think a reasonable interpretation is that I am prepared to play in 4 !S if she has four spades and wish to play in 5 !C if she lacks four spades and has decent club support. I say this is a reasonable interpretation, but I don't say it is a clear cut interpretation, so I didn't do it.
The hand is interesting to play both in 4 !S and in 5 !C, assuming a !D lead if just look at the NS hands. As the cards lie, either contract makes, easily enough, if we see all four hands (as Gib does). Actually Gib says that it makes 6 !S on a !D lead, which looks to be true, but it's more than a little bit double dummy. I think 6 !C makes as well, maybe a tad less double dummy.
-
Here is the 1/23/20 class notes. Sorry it took so long; I had limited access to the computer this file was located for about a week.
-
Here are the 2/6/20 class notes.
There was also a specific question on how the slam on 11 was made, so the following url shows the play: https://tinyurl.com/rsfjkmb
-
I could only get to observe a couple of hands yesterday, lots going on, but I thought I would comment on board 13. The auction shown begins with a Flannery 2 !D by E, W bids 2NT asking for more info, and then, contrary to any way that I have ever played Flannery, E bids 3 !C to show a 4=5=2=2 shape.
Here are responses as shown in Wikipedia:
2NT – forcing bid. The opener describes his hand more precisely:
3♣, 3♦ – 3 cards in the bid suit (i.e., 4=5=1=3 and 4=5=3=1 distribution, respectively)
3♥ – 4=5=2=2, 11-13 points
3♠ – 4=5=2=2, 14-15 points with weak minor-suit doubletons
3NT – 4=5=2=2, 14-15 points, but good minor-suit doubletons
4♣, 4♦ – 4 cards in the bid suit (i.e., 4=5=0=4 and 4=5=4=0 distribution, respectively)
4♥ - a 6-card heart suit, for those who play this variant
The above is not the only way, but I regard it as a pretty standard way.
Flannery at least has the possibility of keeping them out of game here. 2 !D - 2NT - 3 !H (showing 4=5=2=2 minimum) and now W looks at an aceless hand with the probably useless !D QJx opposite a known doubleton and might consider passing.
I am not fond of Flannery but this is because I am fond of the weak 2 !D. Flannery generally works fine when it comes up but often it isn't needed. Here, for example, without Flannery it can start 1 !H - 1 !S - 2 !S and they might or might not be able to stop below game but the Flannery players Jim cites also didn't stop below game.
A favorite Flannery story from long ago. I had a partner, RL, who had a strong belief that her way of playing any convention was the right way. One of her other partners told me the following: They played the Flannery convention, they disagreed about some of the details of the convention. They were at a national even in Philadelphia, Flannery was there, so they caught up to him and asked him. Flannery agreed with the woman telling me this story, not with RL. As they left, RL said "Well, that's only one man's opinion".
-
Hi Ken,
I carry similar opinions regarding Flannery. Not my favorite convention, but I will play it with partners who are more comfortable with it, than without. Your list of conventional responses to the convention are the same as mine too.
However, I reported the descriptions provided to the opponents during bidding. To the extent they differ from standard descriptions of the bids, I presumed reflected discussed variations.
I know many conventions have standard and homemade response structures. I am guilty of doing that myself (but not with Flannery).
-
Attached are the 2/20/2020 hands.
-
Here are my 3/5/2020 hands and notes.
-
On that first board you present, 4 !H (or 5 !H at the other table), making 6. I think there really no way to get to the slam without mirrors. For example, trade the !C 6 in the E hand for the !S 6 in the N hand. It seems 11 tricks i now the best that can be done.
It appears to me that if NS play in !D then double dummy defense holds them to 6 tricks. So in some imaginary world where EW get to 6 !H (for which they would get 1430) and NS take the sac in 7 !D X, EW could go for 1700. Emphasis on "could".
Ain't happening. Really 680 appears to be a perfectly reasonable result. :P
Definitely an amusing hand. I can sympathize with the jump to 4 !H. W looks at his hand figures 4 !H is a likely (but not certain) make. Maybe there is a slam but to explore he first has to convince partner that hearts are trump and that they are to play in at least game. Then he has to find a way to ask about the E holding. He needs E to hold an A. Of course E might hold both minor aces, but even then there would still be the spade problem I can imagine a person just saying "Maybe a slam is there, but just how would I find out?" And so he bids 4 !H. Not scientific but also not nuts.
-
Here are the 3/19/2020 hands.
-
Here are the hands from 4/16/2020
-
Attached are the 4/30 hands and commentary.
-
I played the first four boards (with board numbers 9,10,11,12) so I thought I would say a little.
Easy point: On board 11 you have W overcalling 1 !H instead of N responding 1 !H. The was, I think:
1 !C - Pass - 1 !H - X
2 !C - 2 !S - Pass -Pass
3 !C - 3 !S - Pass- Pass
Pass.
The play was interesting. I held the N cards and of course led the !C 7 going to declarer's A.
Declarer ruffed a !C and then led the !D spot from the table.
Partner went up with the Q. our first trick.
Partner led the stiff !H J, declarer played the 4 and I? Well, I though about it a bit. I am not si sure I made the right choice.
It's a common situation. That J is likely to be stiff, and so, if I take the A and play another we get a ruff. But after that ruff, declarer will have the !H K in his hand and the !H Q9 on the board. Am I sure I want to do that? If I play low, the trick will be taken by the Q on the board, declarer will have the K7 in hand, I will have the ATxx.
Well, if you think it through, declarer can make the contract whichever I do. 9 tricks but not 10, either way. Or so I think.
Anyway, I took the A, led a the !H 2. Partner ruffed, led a!C, I ruffed with the 6, guaranteeing I get me !S Q. So we got a ruff, the !S Q, the !H A and the !D Q.
Possibly letting the !H J be taken by the Q gives declarer more chances to go wrong. Maybe.
I guess it's true that after my initial !C lead declarer can take ten tricks.
On the second board, labelled 10:
I'm in 4th seat and it starts non my left with 1 !S then pass and 2 !S. I bid 3 !H. That seems enough to me. I can see an almost certain 7 tricks and the hand shows little promise of more. If partner can supply three more tricks he might well raise to 4 !H.
There is a convention that could be useful for EW here, the maximal double, but like all conventions you need to be sure when it applies. The original form was, I think, exactly for this situation. The auction begins with 1 something, partner raises to 2 of the same something, and 4th hand come in, bidding 3 of the suit that is just below the suit that was bid and raised. In this case, the maximal double is invitational to game, bidding 3, in this case 3 !S, is simply competitive. Here, opener could double my 3 !H, inviting game in !S. What should responder do? Well, I think sign off in 3 !S. It's close, and that is reflected in the fact that the 4 !S game comes down to a !D guess. So bid 4 !S and hope partner guesses, or sign off in 3 !S and take the plus. An argument can be made either way.
Playing maximal doubles this way, then they would not have applied if my call had been 3 !D. The 3 !H call can be used to invite game, so X means X.
-
Here are the 5/14/2020 hands.
-
Here are the hanfds and discussion from the 5/28/20 session.
Note: There is an error in the discussion on Bd. 13. I was going to swap the Q and 10 of hearts so that if a declarer got down to the heart guess, it would work for the drop but not the smother - that was based on my assumption that the only holdings of importance were ones with either 10x offside or Qx in either hand. I never explained why I thought that Qx was a 2:1 proposition vs. 10x. That is because I eliminated all unimportant distributions to make the the hand given that I had already tested for a singleton Q or 10 - I considered a double finesse in hearts to be too hard to execute with transportation issues unless I was banking everything on that position, so it was also discarded. That left the 3-2 splits and only a few relevant. Because the Qx would work both on and off side, but the 10x would only work if offside and the x's were the same for both, that made it essentially twice as likely to be Qx than 10x.
The play that actually works is the lower percentage smother the 10 to finesse the Q.
-
I was S for the first 4 boards so I will comment on this and that.
Let's get the embarrassment out of the way first. On the 4th board, board 12, we are defending 3NT and can take the first 5 spades. I led the K, partner (Pat) played the deuce, and I forgot that Pat plays udca so I shifted. Oops!
So, not for the first time, the moral of the story is to have your agreements straight. I had previously agreed to play udca, I just forgot.
Ok, on to happier results, such as the first board, board 9. Partner opened 1 !S, Rho overcalled 2 !H, I made a negative double with my minors. Pat rebid her spades, Rho bid 3 !H, I passed (a bit pessimistic maybe) Pat bid 3 !S and I passed again. I was worried that we might have game but, if I wanted to try for game I should have done it over 3 !H. Having passed, I need to give partner space to bid 3 !S.
Jim commented that he had not expected the bidding to stay that low. True, but 3 !S is a great contract. Off 1, not doubled, surely they take at least 10 tricks in hearts and, if 4 !H is played double dummy, it seems hard to stop then from taking 12. If I lead a !S against their heart contract that establishes the K, a small spade can be ruffed. Now both hearts and clubs can be picked up w/o loss. I did say double dummy but after I have advertised the minors declarer might well find 12 tricks if by any chance he is actually in 6 !H. In 4 !H he probably plays more conservatively and easily brings in hos contract.
I am not at all sure I want to say just how EW should get to 4 !H. In high cards they have a 12 count facing an 8 count but the hands fit perfectly and all finesses work as needed. If we look at LOTT we see that we have a 9 card !S fit, they have a 9 card !H fit, so LOTT ays that the tricks when played in !S plus the tricks when played in !H should total 18. It seems that a !S contract can always be held to 8 and a !H contract, I think, will always make 12 tricks so there are 2 more total tricks than LOTT predicts.
I like to give some of these lesson hands to the bots to see what they do, maybe I'll do it with this one later.
Added: On board 11, LOTT is exactly right. 18 total trump, 18 total tricks. Just thought I shoould give credit to LOTT here, having noted that it is (I am pretty sure) off on board 9.
-
Nice comments Ken.
On Board 9, I was surprised that the contract wasn't higher because both tables in the match I played did. At my table, East overcalled 4H while at the other table, East made a simple overcall, then self-raised to game, so I anticipated bidding to at least that level. With a solid 7-bagger and a silent partner, I would be more inclined to anticipate that the opponents have game and might be willing to pass 3S in the hope they don't get there.
On Board 12, I was dummy on the same auction, and was expecting the worst when South led the SK and North signaled with the 9. He then continued with the Q, and North contributed the 2, Now the J, and it doesn't matter what North does - the A and 7 are essentially equals (because the 10 was about to drop), and the suit blocked. At least your play was based on an honest mistake; what happened at my table was closer to a complete brain freeze. The only time playing the South cards like they did is if N-S were in a 5-5 fit, which they clearly were not. However, Pat's play of the 2 meant that you could not afford having one of your top honors played under her ace; you needed the 9 and 7 played under your Q and J. I would not expect you to get this one wrong, but there are many in IAC that need to be reminded to think about such problems.
-
Here are the hanfds and discussion from the 5/28/20 session.
Note: There is an error in the discussion on Bd. 13. I was going to swap the Q and 10 of hearts so that if a declarer got down to the heart guess, it would work for the drop but not the smother - that was based on my assumption that the only holdings of importance were ones with either 10x offside or Qx in either hand. I never explained why I thought that Qx was a 2:1 proposition vs. 10x. That is because I eliminated all unimportant distributions to make the the hand given that I had already tested for a singleton Q or 10 - I considered a double finesse in hearts to be too hard to execute with transportation issues unless I was banking everything on that position, so it was also discarded. That left the 3-2 splits and only a few relevant. Because the Qx would work both on and off side, but the 10x would only work if offside and the x's were the same for both, that made it essentially twice as likely to be Qx than 10x.
The play that actually works is the lower percentage smother the 10 to finesse the Q.
I think the play of the !H AK, followed by a try for a !H - !D squeeze, is the best shot although it fails here. It works if the !H Q drops, which should be about 1/3 of the time, and it works if the !H Q doesn't drop but the !H Q is with the long !D in either hand.
Assume a club lead since that attacks entries. Win (of course) and cash the !H AK. The Q doesn't drop. So now play !S A and go back to the bard with a !C. We now run the !S. The threats are the !H J and the !D 5 so, in the lingo, it is an automatic double squeeze meaning a two suit squeeze that operates as long as one opponent, either one, holds the !H Q and 4+ in !D. After the !S are cashed the position is
!H J
!D 93
!C 5
opposite
!D AKQ5
Whoever holds the !H Q has to keep it, so if he also started with 4+ diamonds then he had to toss one of them and now !D run.
Unfortunately the !H Q and the long !D are in opposite hands so this fails.
I think the odds are upwards of 60%. Failure requires the !H Q not to fall under the AK and then requires that the !H Q and the long !D be in separate hands. The !H Q fails to drop about 2/3 of the time, then the long !D fails to be with the !H Q a little more than 1/2 the time so, multiplying 2/3 by 1/2, we conclude that both possibilities fail a bit more than 1/3 of the time.
If the lead is a !S or a !D then there is another squeeze option, one that works here, although surely not the line that would be recommended. It goes as follows:
Cash the !D AKQ throwing a !H from dummy, cash the !S A, go to the board with the !C A, run the !S.
After cashing the 4th !S it looks like this:
!S T
!H J9
!C K5
!H AK8
!D 5
!C T
Now the last !S is led and N must come down to four cards. If he tosses a !H we can toss a !D and take the remaining tricks. If he instead tosses a !C then he now holds three !H and only 1 !C. So we toss a !H and play the !H AK, squeezing S in !C and !D.
This works. I have not calculated out the odds but surely cashing the !H AK and then going for the simple automatic is the better line. Except, of course, that this latter line works. Added: I think the odds of this line working are moderately better than 25%. It requires that the long hearts to be to the right of declarer and the long hearts to be on the left. It's somewhat better than 50% that the long hearts will be in the hand opposite the one with the long diamonds, and then we cout that in half since we want the hearts to the right, the diamonds to the left.
Summary: I think the first squeeze line is the line most likely to succeed, although it fails here. The second squeeze line displays one of the many faces of squeeze play and so I included it for amusement, but I very much doubt it has the best odds of success. it does work, although a !C lead would prevent declarer from playing this way.
And still more beating of this poor horse: Squeezes are often discussed in lessons, this hand illustrates several features. The !D threat has to be the 5 since the three spots in the dummy fall under the AKQ. But for !h we have a choice. The !H AK brings down two spots in dummy, but either the third heart in dummy or the third heart in hand could be used as a !H threat. For tis hand, using the !H J on the board rather than the 8 in the hand as the threat gives the better odds, or so I claim, but using the !H 8 in hand together with the !D 5 and the !C 5 for the double squeeze is the one that actually works as the cards are.
This squeeze stuff can easily get out of hand, I will now shut up.
-
6/11/20 hands and discussion
-
Attached are the 6/25/20 lesson hands
-
Attached are the hands from the 7/9 session.
-
Attached are the 7/23/20 hands.
-
A couple of thoughts on board 11. 1 !H - pass - ?
!S Q98764
!H AK82
!D 7
!C A5
I chose 4 !D, as did Jim when he played this. Jim reports that at the other table, where he played this,the choice over 1 !H was 1 !S. The hand was played in 4 !H at my table and at Jim's also, although in my case pard stated regret about his 4 !F call even before the opening lead, mentioning that he had thought he was a third hand opening, with me as a passed hand.
Here are the combined hands:
!S Q98764
!H AK82
!D 7
!C A5
!S 3
!H QJ964
!D AKQ43
!C K4
This is making 6, barring extreme bad breaks. given a small !S to the A and a !S back you have to decide what to ruff with. But otherwise, you can survive almost anything, for example if !D at 5-2 and !h are 4-0 you still bring it in.
It's true that a lot of people play that while a splinter is of course a good hand it is not a super good hand. For the super good hand you do something else. But I would not think that they would say that a hand containing !H AKxx, !C A, and a stiff !D is too good a hand.
But there might be dissenting views on this.
As to bidding 1 !S over 1 !H, I don't understand the reasoning. It seems to me that if you do that then, no mater how many times you then bid !H in support of partner, partner is not going to play you for four card support. having a nine card fit is often a key element of slam bidding. Now here it could have worked out because it went 1 !H - 1!S -3 !D, an overbid I think when that 1 !S could have been on KQxxx and out. Anyway, 3 !D puts us in a game force and now, if responder can just learn of the second round spade control he can bid the !H slam. But surely the splinter makes the bidding easier.
So a question: Is respnder's hand regarded as too strong for a splinter? And if not, then why would anyone do anything other than splinter?
Added: I checked on Larry Cohen's site
https://www.larryco.com/bridge-articles/splinter-bids
He says
"it shows approximately 11-15 in support (counting shape). With more (or less), responder should choose some other auction"
This would make the hand close to being too strong, maybe saved by "approximately". The !S Q is worthless but of course responder doesn't yet know that at the time of the splinter.
I like the splinter (well, it was my choice of bid) but perhaps the hand is a bit strong for it. Change the !S Q to a !S J and it seems within bounds. So it's approximately within bounds. I think that it is the right bid.
-
Splinter would not be my choice. It’s just a whisper too strong. Standard, in my opinion, is to limit the range of a splinter by responder to a narrow range. That range for me is 9-12 HCP.
If responder bids spades, a problem looms on the horizon. Imagine opener rebidding 2 !D. You’re forced to rebid 3 !C to force game and still have not shown your heart fit.
I am left with 2NT.
-
Splinter would not be my choice. It’s just a whisper too strong. Standard, in my opinion, is to limit the range of a splinter by responder to a narrow range. That range for me is 9-12 HCP.
If responder bids spades, a problem looms on the horizon. Imagine opener rebidding 2 !D. You’re forced to rebid 3 !C to force game and still have not shown your heart fit.
I am left with 2NT.
Right. A whisper too strong. Only 11 of my high card points are working, but of course I don't know that when I am selecting my first bid. And the !H AK and !C A are about as prime an 11 count as you can have. So maybe "a whisper too strong" is the right description.
I have the Lawrence CD on conventions (pretty good I think) and he stipulates that the 2NT is on a balanced hand. But I think this is a view that has maybe gone by the boards. Holding responder's hand I want to show four hearts and, as you are also saying, really if I don't do it at my first bid I cannot do it later.
I think a practical distinction between the splinter and the 2NT might be "show" versus "tell". A splinter shows 4+ trump, a stiff, and some range of hcps. The 2NT also shows 4+ trump and enough for game, but if we use it as a catchall to include hands with a stiff that are too strong for a splinter, thenthe 2NT can be on quite a large variety of hands.
There was some discussion about what happens after 1 !H - 2NT. Me, I would bid 4 !D with opener's 5-5. The call shows a strong five card suit, I have a strong five card suit. It's true that as the hands are, responder would be happy to hear of the stiff !S.
An argument was that the 4 !D call should not only show the strong five card suit but also deny an outside value such as the !C K. I'm not convinced. Whether my clubs are Kx or xx, opener have a good play for 6 !H. the !C K helps, of course it helps but I think 6 !S is a good deal more than an even bet even if we change the K to a deuce. The real issue is, from responder's view, the possible loss of the first two !S ricks. So on this hand, showing the stiff !S over 2NT is the most useful call. But on the other other hand I think often, on other deals, the long strong !D will be the most useful info. Even here, with the 3 !S over 2NT, responder now knows he will not lose the first two spade tricks but he does not know of that great source of tricks in the !D suit.
Once upon a time the splinter was on shortness, the 2NT was on a balanced hand. But if we limit the strength for the splinter then it seems to me that the 2NT call has to take up the slack. I don't think the implications of this have been widely discussed. Not in anything I have read.
In the "other table" auction Jim gives, I don't like the 1 !S response, I don't like the 3 !D rebid, and nobody likes the jump to 4 !H.
Btw Jim, you said this was from some sort of named contest or something. What was it? I did not recognize the name you gave. Something about stars?
-
A few note/comments/clarifications:
1. Ken -
The hand was played in 4 !H at my table and at Jim's also, although in my case pard stated regret about his 4 !F call even before the opening lead, mentioning that he had thought he was a third hand opening, with me as a passed hand.
After the splinter, my partner drove to slam using RKC.
2. Todd -
Splinter would not be my choice. It’s just a whisper too strong. Standard, in my opinion, is to limit the range of a splinter by responder to a narrow range. That range for me is 9-12 HCP.
I agree that a splinter should be a narrow range, but my range is a bit higher than yours - 11 - 14 (10+ to 15- effectively). What the range becomes, though, is really a matter of partnership understanding.
On a slightly different note, I don't always respect the ranges of bidding choices. For example, I have played fit-showing jump shifts with several partners for years. Our agreement has always been at least 9 cards in the two suits with limit raise values. I respect the 9 card agreement, but not always in the manner it was intended. For example, If I have a very beefy 4-card side suit, I will pretend that it is 5, as long as I also have 5 in the intended trump suit. I will also make the bid with a bit of HCPs in reserve; since it forces back to the original suit, if partner turns down the invitation, with something in reserve, I will take the contract on to game.
3. Ken -
Btw Jim, you said this was from some sort of named contest or something. What was it? I did not recognize the name you gave. Something about stars?
BBO has a section called "Challenges" where you can challenge a variety of opponents: a bot, another specific player, or a "Star" player that is randomly assigned from those that have played the same set of hands. With the split server, I have had more difficulty playing in matches with IAC players as well as other sources for my hands, so I have resorted to these Star Challenges to be my supplement for hands. Most of the international stars I have not recognized, but I was thrilled when George Jacobs showed up as one of my opponents, and I have recognized several along the way.
4. General, but related to Ken's "show and tell" discussion. I have increasingly felt that one of the considerations when responding to partner is whether you should be asking partner about their hand or telling partner about yours. In a way, it is an extension of the Captaincy issue. When you ask, you are retaining the Captaincy of the auction, but when you tell, you are passing Captaincy to partner and inviting them to keep it if they have enough information to make the final decision.
This is a hand that has several options of how to approach the auction. None are perfect, but most are interesting. In class, and in the hands document, I spend a fair amount of time talking about many of those options. One I did not bring up, but BluBayou did, is the Soloway Jump Shift - in class I said it was right on values, but wrong on suit quality of the spades. I think of the SJS in support of the opener's suit, to be showing a source of tricks. QJxxxx is only a source of tricks opposite a fit or shortness and the ability to set up the suit. But if it were a bit better, it could have been used to show the good suit, a heart fit, and singleton diamond, and opposite the right hand, partner would be in a position to know whether to drive to slam or not, below game.
-
The hand leads to many thoughts. As far as the Soloway Jump Shift is concerned , I think 1 !H - 2 !S, followed by showing !H support, should be on better spades. I have not been able to find exactly this situation in the literature, but in Two Over One by Mike Lawrence (1987) page 146, he is discussing the case where responder has a suit of his own together with support for partner: "You should not jump shift into a suit as bad as !S QT865, It will be hard to convince partner you have a two loser suit". This is the way I was thinking. On our hand the !S are six to the Q rather than five to the Q, but the idea is the same. After 1 !H - 2 !S and a show of !H support partner will not be worrying that maybe the opponents are about to cash two !S tricks.
One way to think about the auction 1 !H - 2NT - 4 !D as compared with 1 !H - 2NT - 3 !S: The 4 !D call promises a good five card diamond suit to go with the five cards heart suit and therefore there is a singleton or void somewhere. Perhaps opener, when choosing between bidding the stiff versus showing the strong five card suit could ask himself: If it goes 1 !H -2 NT - 4 !D - 4 !H am I willing to continue with a 4 !S call? A pair could agree that the 4 !S, after 1 !H -2 NT - 4 !D - 4 !H , then says: Yes I have a good five card diamonds suit, yes I have four card heart support, yes I have a stiff spade, and moreover my hand is strong enough so I am willing to force us to the five level If he thinks the hand does not warrant this aggressive action then he gives up on showing the strong !D suit and just bids the stiff spade immediately. Does the hand in question qualify for this aggressive approach? Perhaps.
I enjoy discussing these hands.
-
Attached are the hands and notes for the 8/6/20 class.
-
Notes from 8/20/2020 class.
-
Attached are the hands from Friday's lesson
-
Again these hands were interesting and again I played a few of them and will comment.
The third board, board 11:
As Jim said at the table, this appears to be a 2 !S opener. I regard myself as more cautious than many about weak 2 openings. If the !S 9 were the !S 2 I might pass, if vul I certainly would pass, but non vul with the suit headed by the QT9 and an outside A? Looks like a 2 !S call to me. The raise to 4 !S was optimistic but if the defense starts with three rounds of diamonds I will ruff the third round, knock out the !S A, win the !H return, draw trump, take the !C finesse, and then take ten tricks for a lucky make. But it was not to be, the opponents took two !D and shifted to a !H. Now off 1 is inevitable.
I sometimes note that LOTT fails, in a recent hand of Joe's I believe it was off by three tricks. But here it is right on the money.18 total trump, 18 total tricks.
On the fourth board, bd 12, I opted for 1!D instead of 1NT despite my 15 count. Not so crazy since despite pard's 10 count I see no way to make 9 tricks on the (fairly likely) spade lead. Playing in 3 !D I won the opening !H lead and played the !D A and then, when the T fell, a small !D to the 8 losing to the K. Just looking at the A963 in hand and the Q842 on the board I would not want my life to depend on picking up the suit with a loss of only one trick but with luck it happened. Even so, if I am in 3NT that would be three !D tricks to go with my two !S ricks and i need four more. Lotsa luck. Playing in !D, I got the reasonable lead of the !H K. In NT, that's not going to happen. Yes, !C split. But before I can get those tricks I will be
losing three spades, a diamond and a club. And that's after I bring in the !D suit losing only one, and find the !C suit 3-3.
So 3NT is not a great contract and should not make. Anyway, I like my 1 !D opening although I understand it is not everyone's choice. I took the 3 !D response to be weaker than it was else I probably would have ended in 3NT anyway, off a trick.
-
9/17/2020 lesson hands
-
10/1/20 lesson notes
-
10/28/2020 lesson
-
Attached is the 12/24/2020 lesson hands and discussion.
I removed the attachment due to size. If someone wants to see this document, please send me a message either through this forum or BBO.
-
Attached is the 1/7/2021 lesson and discussion.
-
Attached is the 2/4/21 session hands
-
Attached are the 2/18 lesson hands.
-
Counting on Defense
Dlr: South
Vul: E-W
!S A
!H 83
!D AKQJ97
!C 8753
!S J8652
!H KQT
!D T3
!C QJ6
South North
1 NT 4 !C
4 !S 6 NT
All Pass
This is a hand where North gambled that slam could be made, pulled out the the seldom used Gerber convention, and finding that all suit had first-round control, blasted into the NT slam. With clubs being 3-3, slam is ice cold on the lead of any of 11 cards. Unfortunately, West has a natural lead of the problem suit - hearts.
West led the !H K, which was ducked by declarer. At the time, it was not certain if declarer was executing a Bath coup or preparing for a Vienna coup. Both are potentially applicable, so let it suffice that West shifted to a small spade. At this point, the defense just needs to figure out what cards to hold onto because that will be the setting trick.
I was East, so it was clear that I needed to hold onto either the !S Q or three clubs.
West's job was harder because he was looking at three suits to protect. However, counting should make the job much easier. South either has all of the missing high cards or could be missing either the !S Q or the !H J; anything else would bring South's hand down to 14 HCP for a first seat 1 NT opening. If declarer has the !S Q, then declarer has 12 tricks - 3 spades, 1 heart, 6 diamonds and two clubs; therefore you need to save hearts and clubs, and pitching after declarer, you will know what to hold. There is another approach that also works. He is also looking at the need to pitch four cards on the run of the diamonds; the only suit with that many pitches is the spade suit. I think West should get this problem right 100% of the time.
Should I, as East, gotten the problem right too? Actually, I think so. My problem is less one of counting and one of hoping that I can hold onto the right card. Where I went wrong is I got greedy and tried to retain a heart. To hold onto that greedy heart, I released a club, and when partner did as well to hold onto the !S J, that was the end of the defense.
Declarer gave the defense a chance to go wrong, and off we each went. Congrats to the declarer!
For the full hand, follow the link: https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|South,West,North,jcreech|md|1SK74HAJ2D8654CAK2,SJ8652HKQTDT3CQJ6,SAH83DAKQJ97C8753,SQT93H97654D2CT94|sv|e|rh||ah|Board%2019|mb|1N|mb|P|mb|4C|mb|P|mb|4S|mb|P|mb|6N|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|HK|pc|H3|pc|H7|pc|H2|pc|S2|pc|SA|pc|S3|pc|S4|pc|H8|pc|H9|pc|HA|pc|HT|pc|SK|pc|S6|pc|C3|pc|S9|pc|D8|pc|D3|pc|DA|pc|D2|pc|DK|pc|H6|pc|D6|pc|DT|pc|DQ|pc|H4|pc|D5|pc|S5|pc|DJ|pc|H5|pc|D4|pc|C6|pc|D9|pc|ST|pc|HJ|pc|S8|pc|D7|pc|C4|pc|S7|pc|HQ|pc|C8|pc|C9|pc|CK|pc|CJ|pc|CA|pc|CQ|pc|C7|pc|CT|pc|C2|pc|SJ|pc|C5|pc|SQ| (https://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?lin=st||pn|South,West,North,jcreech|md|1SK74HAJ2D8654CAK2,SJ8652HKQTDT3CQJ6,SAH83DAKQJ97C8753,SQT93H97654D2CT94|sv|e|rh||ah|Board%2019|mb|1N|mb|P|mb|4C|mb|P|mb|4S|mb|P|mb|6N|mb|P|mb|P|mb|P|pc|HK|pc|H3|pc|H7|pc|H2|pc|S2|pc|SA|pc|S3|pc|S4|pc|H8|pc|H9|pc|HA|pc|HT|pc|SK|pc|S6|pc|C3|pc|S9|pc|D8|pc|D3|pc|DA|pc|D2|pc|DK|pc|H6|pc|D6|pc|DT|pc|DQ|pc|H4|pc|D5|pc|S5|pc|DJ|pc|H5|pc|D4|pc|C6|pc|D9|pc|ST|pc|HJ|pc|S8|pc|D7|pc|C4|pc|S7|pc|HQ|pc|C8|pc|C9|pc|CK|pc|CJ|pc|CA|pc|CQ|pc|C7|pc|CT|pc|C2|pc|SJ|pc|C5|pc|SQ|)
-
Regarding that 6NT hand posted above, let me be provocative: When partner leads the heart K you can deduce that he has the club Q (or better). Why?
If pard has the heart A to go with the heart K (of course he doesn't after the Gerber sequence0 then he will of course cash it at T2. So: Declarer, together with dummy, has the spade A, the heart A, six diamond tricks (assuming he holds at least two Ds in his hand the suit will run). That's 1+1+6=8 tricks. If declarer has the club AKQ, even if it is AKQ tight, you have three clubs and the board has four so pard has at most 3. Declarer will, sooner or later, cash the AKQ and the 8 on the board will be good.
Thus: Unless pard has the club Q or better, the hand is over. So, for the purpose of planning the play, he has it.
There is another inference after declarer ducks the heart. If declarer held AJT he presumably would have taken the A at T1 and led the J to establish the T. So pard's heart holding is KQT or possibly KQJ.
I assume from you play of the H7 at T1 and spade 3 at T2 you are playing udca. Thus pard knows that you do not have the heart J and you do have something in spades. Even in the virtually impossible on the bidding event that he has the spade K as well as the heart KQ and the club Q, he can now comfortably toss the spade K, keeping his heart and club threats.
When declarer played the heart 8 from the board, I think covering with the 9 was an error. Surely pard has the Q so declarer is not about to let the 8 ride. And there is a downside. Presumably pard took the heart 7 at T1 as denying the heart J, but when you cover the 8 he has to worry that maybe, just maybe, the 7 was an encouraging card from J97. Declarer might have started with five hearts. Pard will be subjected to a pseudo-squeeze and you don't want him even thinking of pitching the heart Q on the assumptions/hope you have the J. Of course this gets clarified as you pitch more hearts on the run of the Ds, so it really shouldn't matter.
As long as the spade 3 at T2 showed values in spades, pard can pitch all of his spades on the Ds and then choose between a club or heart after he sees what declarer does. but this is true only if he is confident that declarer holds the heart J Declarer comes down to the heart J and the AK (only) of clubs so it is safe to toss a club.
It's a hand with possibilities. Declarer might take the A at T1 and try a pseudo without the count.
Added: Seems it makes 6D.
-
I was thinking about this a little more. you could vary declarer's hand and make it a DARE. Give S the AKJ of clubs instead of the AK2. Now he wins the first heart, cashes the spade A, comes to hand with the club A, cashes the spade K throwing a club, and runs clubs. So he has played two spades, one heart and six diamnds, coming down to
H: 8
C 87
and
H: J
C: KJ
He has to read the position but if he does he makes it: W holds the H Q and the C Qx so now S puts him in with a heart.
Of course there is nothing to be done about that, if that's the way it is then that's the way it is.
As it went, declarer does not have that holding and he ducked the first heart, won the spade, came to hand with a heart and cashed the spade K, then run diamonds.
So everyone comes down to three cards on the last D. You save the spade Q and two clubs. You denied the heart J at T1 so W knows S has (or had) it and since you pitched all of your hearts he knows S has no other heart. So he has no trouble finding the right pitch. But this does assume you pitched all hearts on the run of the diamonds. You do not want him to worry that maybe S pitched the heart J, holding the 6, an equivalent heart since you played the 7 and 9. This assumes that after 9 tricks W came down to the heart Q and the QJx of clubs and then, on the last diamond, must choose his pitch.
And, if you had not played the 9 then he would worry that maybe the J was thrown from J9. I think that all hearts must be thrown.