True sleight of hand?

[wackojack]

 Declarer was one of the leading iac players.
1 - 2  ;
2 - 3  ;
4NT - 6NT;
pass

                              82
                              A2
                              Q2
                              AKQ9763

  A643
  Q10
  109754
  J8

Trick 1          10  runs round to declarer's King          10 2 8 K
Trick 2          Declarer plays 10 to Ace in dummy        10 8 A 2
Trick 3          and back with    to Q and Ace                2 7 Q A

What card do you next play?

[Masse24]

Declarer was one of the leading iac players.
1 - 2  ;
2 - 3  ;
4NT - 6NT;
pass

4NT was quantitative, not RKC, I assume?
If so, I would guess declarer to have 17ish HCP (meaning partner has little to nothing).

[kenberg]

This is tough, but let's give it a try.

Is declarer really missing the K? This seems unlikely on the auction, whatever that 4NT meant.  He did this on a heart suit headed by the J? So let's assume declarer holds the K.  But then, assuming that declarer also holds the K and the A,  1+2+2+7=12.

So what's going on? It appears to me that there are three possibilities.

1. Declarer bid 4NT holding five plus hearts to the J.

2. Declarer was missing both the A and K of spades, needs to rectify the count for a squeeze, and hopes that whoever gets in with the won't lead another.

3. Partner holds the A and dd not want to play it on air at T1.

None of these seem all that likely, but I think that I will go with 3. Assuming standard carding, pard did play the 8 at T1.  But it means that declarer bid 4NT without an Ace in his hand.

Declarer, if he started with the KQ, the K, and the AK, now has 12 tricks . We have seen the Q and the K and it is really hard to reconcile that 4NT with declarer missing any one of the K, the K  or the A.

It might be useful to know if the opponents are a regular partnership. For example, maybe declarer believed that when his partner rebid 3   then he could have at most one heart. And then maybe he was making a RKC 4NT to see if 6 was playable, and his partner took it as a quantitative invite. This can happen in casual partnerships. it's nobody's fault, it just a matter of non-discussion..But if 4NT really was an invitation to 6NT, surely declarer has the K and the K. But of course KQ, K, K without the A hardly seems like enough for an invitational 4NT

So, basically, I haven't a clue but I continue with a .

[Masse24]

Expanding on my original reply:

I started with 7 HCP. I'm looking at 15 in dummy. Declarer (a "leading IAC player") bid 4NT. Declarer started with 1 or 2 or 3 . Presumably, a leading player agrees trump before rolling out RKC (which I contend this should not be). So I'm going with a quantitative 4NT. Therefore, partner has squat. Maybe a jack or queen.

So with all that, I'm protecting my Q and not playing a . Partner presumably can't have the Ace. And the are solid. That leaves a . But I don't see the point in trying to hit partner, so I exit passively with a .

[jcreech]

I kibitzed this hand, so I will not disclose the answer.

Both partnerships were about as close to established partnerships as you will find in IAC.  The defense regularly plays in DARE together as well as frequent partners in Spur team matches.

I will say that Ken's analysis, as often is the case, is spot on.  So the question now becomes, which of those three scenarios seems most likely?

[Masse24]

I peeked (MyHands). The auction is wrong.

I based my analysis on the auction as shown, so I'll let it stand.

With a different auction, I change my thinking.

[wackojack]

Trust me to get the auction wrong.  It was in fact:
1      2 
2      3 
3NT      4NT
6NT       pass

2  was alerted as 7-10 3 card  support OR game force clubs.  The 3  bid subsequently confirmed that it was the latter.   So one would expect 4NT to be a quantitative invite to 6NT.

I can confirm that one of Ken's scenarios is the case but I wont let on which as perhaps Ken has not yet peeked at the actual hands and this new info might be important to him.  Also others might want to weigh in so I will not yet let on what happened. 

[kenberg]

Ah yes. I haven't looked yet so I will think some more. I am glad to hear the auction was wrong since nothing seemed to make sense. I can imagine the club hand raising 3NT to 4NT so now we just have to think through what the acceptance is based on.

That 8 at T1: Standard carding?

[kenberg]

There is a possibility that declarer made an error and we could play for it. Suppose declarer has AKx  , the KQ but not the K. If we lead back a , and f partner started with JTx, then declarer takes the K but after he cashes the Q he has no way back to his hand for to get the A. He could have prevented this by winning the first on the board and leading a to the Q, after which he has 1+1+3+7=12 tricks. For this to be right I have to assume both that declarer lacks the K and that he made a mistake.

It seems very frisky to bid 6NT on a heart suit headed by the J so I am assuming declarer has the K. If so, then if declarer held AKx then he had 0+2+3+7 tricks as soon as the lead hit the board. He would have taken them. If we place declarer with !AK tight, and with the K, that's only three tricks in his hand. Might he have started with QJx and be planning a - squeeze? If so, it would actually work. That seems possible. A bit far-fetched, but possible.

More later, maybe.

[jcreech]

I threw this into Bridge Winners and an early response came from Michael Rosenberg (I inserted some notes, largely because I made mistakes in my post, using the following format <text - JC>):

"First, the dummy has 12 cards. Presumably the 'compensating' error of having dummy play, at trick one, a card not in dummy solves that problem.  <my fault - I left out the 2 - JC>

"Is declarer really missing the ♥ K? This seems unlikely on the auction, whatever that 4NT meant."

Dummy bid 4N.

"Declarer bid 4NT holding five plus hearts to the J." <leftover problem from Jack's mis-entering the auction and my using Ken's statement verbatim before the error was pointed out - JC>

Declarer did not bid 4N

Our defensive carding is not given (which is not good). I'm assuming 'right side up'.

Apart from all that, the OP was ok.

* * * * *

Declarer's hand is QJ10, Kxxxxx, AK, 8x

I must return a spade, or partner gets squeezed in the majors. Partner should probably have seen this coming and risen with the ♠K from K975. This would have been more attractive with K1075 - which is why I gave declarer ♠QJ10 ibstead of QJ9.

Declarer obviously has no ♥J.

Declarer COULD have played for a legitimate make - partner having ♠AK and 3(+)-card ♥. He can't be 'punished' - but should not be 'rewarded'.

* * * * *

The above is the 'obvious' answer. But since it's posted as an option (AND the most 'detailed' option), I'm inclined to believe that declarer had a different hand. If partner has ♦A and no ♦J, he would have played 1dA at trick one and hoped I had ♠A (possibly should do that even with ♦J). So, that means declarer bid 6N with only KQJ, Kxxxxx. Kx, xx - seems most unlikely.

How about partner having ♥K? Declarer might have KQ9, J9xxxx, AK, xx. In this case, declarer can't make - as long as I can, with my carding, persuade partner to hold spades and ditch hearts.

Of course, if declarer started with K-Q-TEN of spades, he will make. And then I already blew the defense by not ducking the spade smoothly. Perhaps that is the:

"Something ele (sic) is going on (please comment to clarify)."

However, since the OP went out of it's way " He did this on a heart suit headed by the J? So let's assume declarer holds the ♥ K."

So I'm stuck with the 'obvious' answer - return a spade. I hope I'm missing something. "

[kenberg]

When I saw first the problem the dummy had seven clubs and two of everything else so it had 13 cards. The auction was wrong when I first saw it but I got the correction.


So my first response  was on the auction as given, later I spent less time with the revised auction. Dummy invited, declarer accepted. So declarer now needs less.

Would partner duck at T1 with the AJ8?  Should he? If declarer holds the A, the K and the Kxx then, if partner goes up with A, declarer has 1+2+2+7=12 tricks. If he plays the 8, declarer has 1+2+1+7=11 tricks and needs to find another. It's unusual but not unheard of to duck with an A when defending against a slam.

What's best at T4? I remain in the uncertain category.

So at the table the return was a non-spade and the squeeze was successfully run? Congratulations to the declarer! Stay calm, don't concede, miracles happen. Very good. I think of this as a "Time to sacrifice another virgin to the bridge gods" play.

[jcreech]

Kit Woolsey also weighed in:

"Partner definitely holds one of the heart honors. If declarer has KJxxx of hearts, either he is cold (holding ace of diamonds and king of spades) or he is failing to take the legitimate line of the heart finesse.

I'm not so convinced that partner would play the ace of diamonds holding AJ8. Partner will be looking at the jack of hearts. He could picture declarer's hand being approximately ♠AQx ♥Kxxxx ♦Kxx ♣xx, and going up ace of diamonds is declarer's 12th trick. Even if declarer is off the ace of spades, ducking the diamond will probably be okay if partner is looking at Jxxx of hearts, since unless declarer gets the hearts right there will be only 11 tricks.

Ducking the ace of spades is right if declarer's hand is ♠KQ10 ♥Jxxxxx ♦AK ♣xx. It is also fine if declarer is missing the ace of diamonds, since declarer will have only 11 winners and you will soon find out what to do. It is wrong only if partner has the king of spades. This means partner encouraged in diamonds from J8xx, which doesn't make sense looking at this dummy.

The conclusion is that West should have ducked the spade. However, after winning the spade he should be consistent with that defense and return a spade."

[kenberg]

A further thought: On the auction, with the alerted 2 , we should have asked a bit more before the opening lead. Since after 1 !h - 2 responder might have three hearts and a 7 count, I assume that 2 was passable. That limits his hand, but we need to know more. Anther way to get out in 2 to bid 2 and then pass a 2 call by partner.  It's at least possible that this second route shows a stronger hand, a message such as: If you have three hearts and a 9 count with a bit of shape I am willing to go on. We should at least learn a little about what their system is.

Responder issued an invitation to slam, opener accepted. Presumably opener is at the upper end of whatever range he has shown so far. To determine what that range is that he is at the upper end of, we need to know more about their system than we have heard so far. 

Anyway, back to what to do when the spade is led to the Q. What can declarer have? In particular, can he really be missing the A. That means he accepted this invitation holding no aces. Or did he accept holding one A, the A, but spades headed by the QJ? Neither seems very likely and as we see the slam can be beaten, but I am coming around to thinking that accepting the invitation with spades headed by the QJ is more likely than accepting it when holding no aces.

So maybe yes, take the spade and lead another.

But it would be nice to know just what to make of that 2 . If it is a weaker way to get out in 2 than by bidding 2 and then passing 2 , then opener, holding QJx, K and AK might well figure he has already shown that he doesn't have much and so accept the slam invitation. Holding KQx, Kxxxx(x) and Kx he would probably decline, and maybe would even if the spades were KQJ.


I still don't think that it is clear what to do, but I do think some questions about their system should have been asked before the opening lead. Playing that 2 might be on three hearts and modest values affects how we interpret the rest of the auction, so we need to know just how.

[Masse24]

A further thought: On the auction, with the alerted 2 , we should have asked a bit more before the opening lead. Since after 1 - 2 responder might have three hearts and a 7 count, I assume that 2 was passable.

* * * * *

But it would be nice to know just what to make of that 2 .

This makes sense.

[jcreech]

My interpretation is that if responder has a 3-card raise, with 7-10, then opener is not interested in game.  It becomes the responsibility of responder to take another move, but another move indicates a game-forcing hand.  Unless there is another layer available for game tries, with a modest raise, the only choice is to pass unless the opponents compete (and maybe not even then).