Dare, hand 4, thinking back.

[kenberg]

Added: Thanks to Jim who told me the hand came from Frank Stewart's "My Bridge and Yours", ACBL Bulletin, November 2017.

I added in the above in case someone, as is very likely, doesn't read all of what's below.



After going down I remarked that the hand was interesting. I have looked back on it and that was an understatement. There are several features. We were EW but I will lay out the hands in the usual NS way. N is the dealer. Everyone vul.

Future Dummy:

: K32
: 84
: AKJ97
: K76




1 - Pass - 1 - 3
Pass - Pass - 3 - Pass
4 - Pass - Pass - 6
All Pass.


Future Declarer:

: AQT95
: AQ762
: Q53
: Void

The are 5-0 but of course declarer doesn't know that. He (in this case I) might try to cope with that possibility but this has to be done in a way that doesn't endanger the hand when the are 4-1 or 3-2. This leads to some interesting choices.

The opening lead is the A. It goes A62 and if I ruff, as I did, the hand is going down. Or at least it can be set, as long as the opponents go at it correctly. So, if we are going to allow for a possible 5-0 split, we must refuse to ruff. Ok, but what do we pitch? Gib says either a or a but that depends on seeing that the are, not could be but are, 5-0. Suppose we pitch a and now Lho, at T2, leads a .  Yes, the hand can still be made, but only by winning the on the board and leading a small to the T (or 9). Since at this point we have no reason to believe the T will not be taken by the Q, we will not be doing that. It follows that we have to throw a small at T1.  So we do. And if Lho plays another we win the K and throw another small .  But Lho knows, after T1  If you win this on the board and lead a small to your A, you are going down. So says Gib, and I agree.  that you have no in hand and so he is unlikely to help you by playing another . So let's say he plays a . Now what? And still you don't know a finesse will work, so you are not going to lead a small to the T. It follows that the have to be started by leading the K from the board, at least if we are going to play to cope with a possible 5-0. And in that case we might as well win the switch in hand.

Summary: might be 5-0 but until we know that they are we are not finessing the T. So we start by pitching a at T1, we win the in, and now, if we are to cope with 5-0 we have to start with a small toward the K . Could this go wrong? Well, maybe. Suppose that instead of showing out Lho follows to the . You go up with the K and lead another , Rho follows. Now we do not yet know where the Q so we go up. Suppose Lho opponent now shows out. Now it is very good that we still have two in hand. We use one to go back to the board, we finesse in , draw trump, use our last to get back to the board. Whew. Except of course if were  4-1, when you go back to the board, or try to, Rho ruffs.

This is a very tricky hand. Not only do you have to plan out an exact sequence at T1, starting with the pitch rather than the ruff and pitching the rather than the , you still are not out of the woods because after the switch to the there is a danger of a ruff. The sequence that works when are 5-0 fails if Rho holds four and one .  At least it fails unless we take a very unsafe finesse.


As mentioned, a very interesting hand.

[jcreech]

I watched this hand, first as dummy, and then again during the postmortem.

On BBO as dummy, I try to plan the play even as partner is declaring.  On this hand, my gut said to duck the A, and then I started to analyze why.  The only answer I could come up with is, what if spades break 5-0.  Right now, I have 12 tricks if the spades and diamonds behave well enough.  Is there a risk to ducking the opening lead?  Yes, if the clubs break 9-1, but with only a 3 overcall, that did not seem likely.  Ken talks about whether it is right to pitch a heart or a diamond;  I think it is clear to pitch a heart, because you may have transportation issues later with a diamond pitch.  GIB has the benefit of peaking.

In the postmortem, the defense shifted to a diamond, which from a declaring point of view is premature and creates potential problems.  I need to decide where I want to be.  Joosth kept wanting to guard against a 4-1 break on the left by not playing the K early.  With the jump to 3 , the chances of four spades in the same hand with the clubs seems pretty small.  5-0 on my right seems much more likely, and to pick up the suit, I will need to finesse twice; you cannot protect for 4-1 on one side and 5-0 on the other.  Therefore, I am inclined to win the shift in my hand and lead a spade toward the K.

When lefty shows out, my line becomes clear; win the K, finesse a spade coming back, a diamond to dummy, finesse one more spade, then pull trump and claim.

If lefty continues a club, I have to win, but I may be more reluctant to lay down the K first.  The key is to realize that you can only pick up 5-0 by using both small trump for finesses, which means, lay down the K first.  I would work it out, it would feel wrong enough that I would check it 2-3 times before actually making the play.

I agree with Ken, that the hand is interesting.

[kenberg]

There is one more thing about four spades on your left. Yes it is unlikely. But also you are never picking them up, unless you peek/ Small spade to the A. Now if everyone follows you can pick up four on the left by running the T right now. But surely that is against the odds, so you will not be doing it. So forget about 4 on your left.

I think it comes down to this: After you toss a at T1 and a is led at T2, it is possible that spades are 5-0 in which case we need to start with the k from the board. However if spades are 4-1 and Rho is now out of , we need to start with a high spade from hand. There is a complication. If spades are 5-0 and we start with the K, we still are not safe. The K holds, we finesse, then we need to get to the board to finesse again. Maybe we can, maybe we cannot.

this problem can be overcome by taking a first round finesse in spades, but not yet knowing of the split that surely is against the odds.

The problem said something about Stewart, 201711. If that's a reference to a hand  presented by Frank Stewart I would like to see what he has to say.

If we make the reasonable but not certain assumption that Lho, who has bid 3 , probably does not have four , then we can have our cake and eat it too.

[kenberg]

Thanks to Jim who told me the hand came from Frank Stewart's "My Bridge and Yours", ACBL Bulletin, November 2017.  Genreally his thoughts run along the lines suggested above. FS tossed a on the first and then declarer continued with another . Stewart says "That's fine. A diamond would have made me nervous".  Yes, as noted above, after a switch we have at least a little to worry about. So he tossed another om the K and led the K from the board. Lho shows out, he lead a small to the T, and "returns a to dummy" to repeat the finesse. He doesn't say explicitly but surely it is this "returns a to dummy" part of the plan that would have made him nervous had Lho switched to a at T2.  With the switch, declarer needs Rho to hold two . Without the switch, he only needs him to hold 1, a virtual certainty.

I think having references to the actual discussion is very good.