Wegot thrashed (iv)

[wackojack]

Red v white
you have:
  AKJ732
  106
  Q4
  K105

Opps silent, you are playing 2 over 1 GF
1  -  1NT
2  - 3
?

 

[jcreech]

Pass.  Even though I expect partner to have a decent hand, I do not have extras outside of spades (where I anticipate a stiff or void)  If I move off the mark, it will probably be to try 3NT, but I am too late to protect my Q - partner's forcing NT eliminated that. 

The reason why I expect a decent hand is that partner could easily pass 2 , so I think it will be a good 9 to an ordinary 11.  If  partner has nice hearts, e.g. AKJxxx or KQJxxx, then I do not expect a sure outside entry.  If partner has broken or weakish hearts, e.g., KJ9xxx or QJ9xxx, then I expect some sort of sure entry. 

I really do not expect to make either 4 or 3NT without defensive help or the cards laying well.

[Masse24]

Pass. Jim nailed it.

[Added] I'm thinking it's more like a void and 9 or 10.

[kenberg]

Yes, I pass. But there is room for a bit more discussion. BWS says: "a jump-shift to three of an underranking suit is invitational". Not that everyone (or even much of anyone) fully plays BWS but this does show a possible agreement a pair could have. In which case this auction must be super passable. But it was presumably intended as invitational. I am glad to have two card heart support but that is hardly sufficient reason to accept.

3NT is completely out of the question. We have a heart fit and the opps might run a zillion tricks at NT. So will it make 4 ? If partner's are AKQxxx then we have six tricks, barring bad luck. But AKQxxx seems to me to be about all he needs to bid this way. He might have a bit more, but not a lot.  The AK brings us to 8 tricks, where are the other two coming from? I can make some hopeful guesses about where they might come from, maybe partner has a spade to lead to the J and that works, or maybe a club to the K works, or maybe something else but 10 tricks seems like a long shot. After we make the reasonable, but far from certain,  assumption that partner can take 6 heart tricks we are still going to need some finesses or some good fitting cards or, quite possibly, both.

Partner invited, I decline.
 

[kenberg]

There is an interesting play problem that might have arisen but didn't on this hand.

: AKJ732
: T6
: Q4
: KT5


: 8
: KQJ874
: 98
: AJ94

Let us suppose that the auction goes 1 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 4 . It went this way at the other table.

But now suppose that the opening lead is the J and it goes
JQA8
59K4
: A436
: 2K9T

So: You lost the first three tricks, there are 9 top tricks in plain sight, you need to find the tenth trick . What's the plan?

Both defense and declarer play are easier when you see the full hands. At the table, declarer got to pitch a before the AK were played, after which there is no problem. I am not criticizing the defense. But on another day it might have started out as above, and now declarer has to bring it home under his own power.


Assuming that your next play is to draw the last trump. Lho pitches the 3. Standard carding, the was pitched because he had to play something and the 3 seemed best.

The cards are now:

: AKJ73
:
:
: KT5


: 8
: J87
:
: AJ94

[jcreech]

To some extent, it depends on the quality of the opponents.

If the opponents are good, particularly that player, I would think that they know the diamond situation, and they are trying not to release any information about the black suits, that still need to be navigated.

If the opponents are less good, then I might start taking the inference that there is spade length and perhaps the Q in that hand, and some squeeze potential.

If this were an Arik class, I would take the inference that there is squeeze potential.

I think my plan would be to play a spade to the A, cash the K and if the Q does not appear, ruff a third.  If the Q still hasn't appeared, then play my last two trump and watch the discards before I play any clubs.

On the actual hand, I will know the layout of the spades, but I am not certain I will guess the Q if the opponents are bound and determined not to give up any information other than what I can force.

[kenberg]

Right. If declarer plays AK and another spade, he will find that his Rho started with 2 spades, his Lho with Qxxx.  On the third round of hearts, he found that Lho was dealt 2 hearts.  So Lho was dealt 6 cards in the majors, Rho only 5, so that might inline you toward playing Rho for the Q. Wrong, as it turns out.

Playing the last heart might well work out. Lho cannot throw a spade so he has to choose between diamonds and clubs. If he assumes that the returnn at T2 was from the orignial fourth best, it is safe to toss his T since while declarer  might have anther , partner's will be higher.

But it's a close call.

[wackojack]

Very interesting commentary on the possible play and how good defence can severely reduce the chances of declarer making.  Nevertheless, when you look at the 2 hands before the opening lead you definitely would want to be 4  .  For 4  to fail it needs 3 things: 
1. Opps to led a  . and cash AK.  If yes and opps switch to a 
2. Q  does not come down in 3.  If not:
3 Declarer's educated  guess fails. 

The pair that got to the very good 4  contract were playing SA and the pair that did not were playing 2/1.  I hold the view that 2/1 is inferior to SA in this respect.  However Ken points out something I didn't know and that was 1 - 3 is an invite and assume that responder's hand would fit the bill here.  I know that the EW pair do not play 2/1 and believe that 1  -3  in their system would show exactly 3 spades and invite to 4!s. 

So maybe with 1!s-3 !h showing hearts and not interested in spades invite in your toolkit 2/1 is not inferior after all. However, what you lose must be the other possible uses of 1 -3  .
1. Weak jump shift?  Not much of a loss there imo.
2. 3 card Fit jump.
3.  Or even mini splinter

Going on a bit more.  After 1 -1NT, Gazzilli 2 rebid does overcome some of 2/1's  defects but not here.  Also Gazzilli, I believe, is better suited to SA than to 2/1. 

[Masse24]

Playing 2/1, with responder's hand I force game and bid 2 . And I do not consider myself a wild or overly aggressive bidder.

Quite often, on hands like this that may be borderline, the question I ask is, "Would I open this hand in first seat?" If the answer is yes, I force game. I suppose I could construct a hand that I would open in first seat but choose not to make a GF response, but I can't think of one easily.

[jcreech]

I was thinking the pair that played against us were playing 2/1, and made a borderline decision to bid strongly on this hand.  I think both the forcing NT and 2/1 responses are reasonable approaches, but on this one, we were unlucky and had opponents that bid to a game that is makeable.

Personally, the quality of the heart suit would entice me to make the 2/1 response.

[kenberg]

First about 1 - 3 . BWS plays that as invitatational and some others do as well. I definitely would not try it w/o discussion.

I also would bid 2 playing 2/1. There are various ways to justify it, such as 6-4 bid more or by noting that hearts are good enough so that we can consider them trump unless partner clearly chooses otherwise, and then, after settling on trump, we look at the losing trick count. But my preference is to just look at the hand and say that it looks like a 2 bid.

As Jack notes, even if 4 is double dummy wrong, they need to cash their diamonds quickly or else the hand becomes easy. "Can be set" and "will be set" are different things entirely.Here, even if they start with the optimal defense, and if the spade Q doesn't fall, there is still the chance of guessing the club Q.

This also supports the idea of a pass on the invitational auction since here, with a hand that many of us would bid a gf 2 , the 4 is not completely safe. On an invit auction opener will be expecting less than this. and will therefore decline the invitation.

The clubs are 3-3 so if you are going to have a better than even shot at the guess, arithmetic won't do it. You have to draw some inferences from the choices that the defenders made. Maybe yes, maybe no.