Do you feel lucky? (corrected - see Ken's comment)

[jcreech]

Dlr: West
Vul: Both

          North
            J5
            AJ83
            42
            QJ953

West                    East
  9864                 KQT2
  Q764                92
  K53                   QT8
  42                     KT76

          South
            A73
            KT5
            AJ976
            A8


Auction:
South    West      North     East     
 1 NT        P         2         P
 2          P         3 NT       P
    P          P         

This hand came up in a spur team game and was challenging to play. 

At both tables, West led a 4th best .  Then play diverged. 

At the table that was successful, declarer inserted the J, winning.  Q , covered by East and won in hand.  8 overtaken in dummy, followed by a third , won by East while West played an encouraging .  Dutifully, East returned a , West winning the K.  West now returned to s, won in hand by declarer.  Declarer now tried the A , and seeing everyone following, cleared the suit by losing to East’s Q.  East cashed out, relinquishing the last few tricks to declarer.  The defense ended up with four minor suit tricks.

At the table that was not successful, declarer won the opening lead in hand with the 10, Then tried A , to the J, losing to East’s K.  With no signal, it was easy for East to shift to a top and continuation.  Declarer won the second , shifted to the K , and a to the 8.  Hoping for the 3-3, declarer now cashed the Q , West pitching his last .  At this point, declarer should have realized the cause was lost, cashing out for down one, but instead abandoned the A to set up an orphan , allowing the defense to gather in three s, two s and a 1D.

The key to making this hand is deciding which seven-card minor to develop and how to play it.  But I am uncertain whether there is enough information to make the choice that works logically.  You can reasonably force 8 tricks, possibly losing the lead once (1 , 4 , 1 , and 2 ).  The best options I see involves:

• drag the Q through East and hoping for a cover and the suit breaks 3-3, or that you can judge that it is not breaking and can shift to a plan
• play A and another hoping for 3-3 or that the 10 is onside and you guess to finesse
• lead a to the 9, then a to the J, hoping that East started with HTx

None of these options are particularly enticing, although the first can combines chances.    However, if the K is with West, a will block the even if they break 3-3.  But as Harry Callahan asks in Dirty Harry, “Do you feel lucky?”

On this hand, I was glad to be on defense, and had an easy shift to the K knowing that by inference, partner also had four with me.

[kenberg]

The  auction stated has W opening 1NT, we can all agree you mean S opens 1NT.  (Now fixed)

At the successful table, declarer got a  lot of help. When E is in with the T he knows that S started with exactly two clubs and has no four card major. This gives declarer five diamonds (maybe six, but probably five).  So a hardly seems right. More to the point, switching to the K will establish three tricks, he already has a . The way the clubs were played he has another club trick coming or else partner has a diamond coming.

But that wasn't your question.

Surely he should let the opening heart lead run to his T. Then what? If he chooses to go after clubs it seems right to play A and small, just as was done at the unsuccessful table. We do not always get rewarded.   This line works if W has the doubleton Kx of clubs, or the doubleton Tx of clubs, or if East holds the doubleton Tx, and of course it also works if clubs are 3-3. I haven't counted up the successful ways, but my thought is that this is a better bet than going after diamonds. Half the time (well, something like half) a small to the 9 will lose to the T and then, after the spade switch,  things are hopeless.Further,  even if it goes small to the 9 and the Q (or K) you are not yet home free.

 Birthday dinner for my wife tonight so I am only looking at this quickly, but really I think the way that it was played at the unsuccessful table is the best bet.

[kenberg]

Lying in bed this morning I was thinking a little more about the play at T1. If we let the heart lead ride to the T then we have only one heart entry to the board and that might work against the development of the minors. playing the J at T1 puts us on the board right away and pf course we have the A for later. The downside is that if the lead was from Q9xx then letting letting the opening lead ride to the T gives us 4 heart tricks while playing the J at T1 allows the defense to hold us to 3 heart tricks. Or does ot? as the cards lie, we can have our cake and eat it too. Play the J from the board and drop the T. IF, and that's IF, we are going to play the J from the board then dropping the T is right. As noted, if the lead was from Q9xx then we are held to 3 heart tricks as soon as we play the J. But if the lead was from Qxxx, we E therefore holding 93, then dropping the T restores us to 4 heart tricks: The K will later drop the 9,and then we play the 5 toward the A8.

So playing the J from the board at T1 might cost a heart trick, but it might not. Is it worth it? I am not sure. If we can bring in 4 tricks in one of the minors then 3 heart tricks suffice, but does having the 2 heart entries help enough to make this a good play?

More thought is needed. One thing that occurred to me: If we win the heart lead on the board and play the club Q, often it is a good idea for the defense, holding KTx(x) and QJx(xx) on the board, to not cover the Q.  On this hand he needs to cover. If he doesn't cover, declarer will realize there is no future in clubs (a small club to the A? Then what?) and so he will turn his attention to diamonds!

[kenberg]

I am finding this hand very interesting. As has been noted, bringing in the diamonds is iffy. I will reproduce the hands, but with the s arranged differently.

  North
            J5
            AJ83
            423
            QJ953

West                    East
  9864                 KQT2
  Q764                92
  KT5                   Q83
  42                     KT76

          South
            A73
            KT5
            AJ976
            A8

Now the diamonds need more work, too much work, to establish, so how about clubs? The opening lead is the 4, can we bring in this contract? I am pretty sure that the answer is no, but suppose we win the lead on the board with the J, tossing the T underneath. Then we lead the Q. If E plays the K, we are home. We take the A and we lead the 8 and let it ride. If E takes his T we can make an overtrick via one trick in , four in , one in , four in .  If E declines to take the 8 with his T, then we only get three tricks instead of four, but thanks to our pitch of the T at T1 we can bring in four tricks.

To beat the contract on this line of play, E must play low on the Q. Now declarer gets two tricks. He will still be on the  board at T3, so he can attack .  Since I have rearranged that suit he is going down.

Here is another rearrangement.


  North
            J5
            AJ83
            423
            QJ953

West                    East
  9864                 KQT2
  Q764                92
  K3                    QT85
  K42                   T76

          South
            A73
            KT5
            AJ976
            A8

Suppose again that the opening lead is the 4, taken by the J, declarer tossing the T. Now the Q is led, it goes  Q68?, W to play.   If it goes Q68K then declarer again has ten tricks: 1+4+1+4=10. But if W ducks, so Q682? Declarer has one more entry to the board so while he could cash the A and go back to the board via K and a small , cash the last , and lead a to establish the suit, he cannot then get back to the board to cash the s.

Here I have restored the s to their original convenient arrangement, so if, after the Q holds, if declarer now switches to then all is well.

in short, with careful defense, winning the lead with the J and leading the Q is unlikely to establish the suit. Of course the line at the successful table was to try clubs and then let the opponents establish diamonds. Might work. Not for the first time, a line that should not have worked did work.

This hand provides a lot of opportunity for both the offense and the defense. As the cards lie, declarer needs to work on diamonds. Just looking at the NS cards, I think clubs are the best bet, but I think they should be played A and a small toward the board. This fails here, but I think it is the best bet.

[jcreech]

I really appreciate the thought that you have put into this hand, Ken.

The line I have been thinking about starts with ducking the to hand.  RHO played the 9, but based on the rule of 11, that should be only higher than the 4.  To take advantage of two entries to dummy while winning four tricks in the suit, I thought to win the K best.  Now lead the 10 and, if not covered, overtake with the J.  Later you can finesse with the 8. (This would also work if RHO initially ducked the 9.)

I wonder how this line for the s would change your analysis.

[kenberg]

A good point. It is not, or presumably not, necessary to win the heart on the board at T1 in order to get to the board twice.

But how best to take advantage of this?

We can go to the board in hearts at T2, playing T to the J (or TQA) as you say and lead the Q. Again, if E has the K and if he plays it, we have our 9 tricks by taking the A and then leading the 8, letting it ride. But really I don't think E should cover unless, maybe, he has the Kx. It seems unlikely he can bring in 3 tricks by going to the board and leading the Q.

Unless I am missing something, I think the percentage play is still A and then small toward the Q. But I have been wrong before.

It is of course an error to worry too much about the opponents finding some brilliant defense. They might, but usually not. But I don't think that playing small on the lead of the Q, holding say Kxx(x), should be all that tough. The long clubs are on the board for all to see,  and so holding up on the K seems pretty clear.


I suppose here in one point. Suppose we win the , with the K as you suggest, and then play A and a small to the Q, everyone following with small cards on both plays .  It is possible that W started wit KTxx in which case playing a third puts him in, are not established,  and W switches to .  And maybe the suit could have been brought in with one loss. Yep, this is all possible, but I don't think it's likely enough to worry about.

Are you seeing something else?

The successful table got help, there is no way around that.  Lacking help,  A and then a small still seems right to me. 

[kenberg]

Still one more thought. Depending on lead agreements, that lead of the 3 might have been from 742. That would give E the Q96 and I can imagine, after the 3 is played from dummy, E inserting the 9 hoping that W led from T42 (again depending on lead agreements).

All of which means that it all gets tricky. Which is why we like bridge, right?  If we can bring in four tricks then, at least at imps, we might want to settle for three tricks.

[Masse24]

Interesting hand. Lots of ways to not make it. 

I will not get into the in-depth analysis that Ken did, which pretty much covered it.

I will say that I agree with Ken's intended play. Begin with Ace, then low to QJ. I can't imagine doing it otherwise. Also, I'm leading a high from that holding, not a low .

[jcreech]

I agree with Todd, that if I were on lead, I would lead 2nd best in most of my regular partnerships, and the 9 in undiscussed partnerships.

However, at both tables, a 4th best was led.  At my table, when I got in, I shifted to the K; at the other table, the person in my seat told me that because their partner had signaled for a , that was their shift. 

Nonetheless, given the actual layout, I am happy I was on defense, but thought it interesting as a play problem.

[kenberg]

Oops!!  I just noticed that N has a 2=4=3=5 shape.  He and W both have the 3. And I even rearranged diamonds as I considered other ways the cards might lie.  Anyway, I suppose it should be

 North
            J5
            AJ83
            42
            QJ953

West                    East
  9864                  KQT2
  Q764                 92
  K53                   QT8
  42                     KT76

          South
            A73
            KT5
            AJ976
            A8

Btw, I am the typo king in such matters. I try to proof, but I need help. So I am definitely not lodging a complaint.

There are many interesting points in the play.

I think I also would lead a spade as W at T1. We know dummy will hit with at least one major and I have to balance a desire to perhaps establish a fourth spade against the hope that I don't hand declarer his ninth trick. A spade seems attractive.


Given the heart lead,and the play as it went, it's an interesting question as to just what W should play on the third round of clubs. He knows declarer has at most three spades and thus that his partner has at least four, so perhaps a spade pitch seems safe. The problem is that if E then shifts to a spade, as he should, and if declarer holds up for two rounds, then there is no entry back to the E hand. So it gets tricky. Back to the pitch at T4.  By the time he has to pitch on the club, he knows declarer started with five diamonds. He certainly does not want a diamond switch. Otoh, he doesn't know that partner's spades are as good as they are. So?

I think that there are a great many hands where the meaning of a discard is "The rules required that I play a card, so I am playing this one. You should by no means take it as a command, or even a strong suggestion, to play anything in particular."

From the auction, and from the first four tricks, both E and W know that S started with two clubs and at most six cards in the majors, and thus five or more diamonds. Unless he has six diamonds he was dealt exactly 3=3=5=2.  They should work with this instead of whether W discarded the 3 or the 5 of diamonds, or some spade.

All of this is easier to say after mulling it over with a few cups of coffee, of course.

[jcreech]

The North 3 came from the previous board (lol) and should be put back before either board is moved.  Thanks for catching another typo.  Original post has been corrected again.