musings on the 12-9-19 Dare

[kenberg]

Often the Dare hands present unexpected twists that provide an opportunity.  Hand 6 yesterday is an example. It's a squeeze hand and the idea, I think, was for it to go as follows:

The auction was 1NT-3NT. The opening lead is the A, dummy comes down, declarer sees:

      76
      A86
      7654   
      KQ32



      9843
      K72
      AKQ   
      A87

Declarer can see 0+2+3+3=8 top tricks once he gets the lead. The 9th trick could come from a 3-3 split in either minor, or perhaps from a squeeze. We first suppose that Lho cashes the   AKQ and switches to, perhaps, a small . Declarer wins in hand and, with the squeeze possibility in mind, leads his last spade. There is a lot of lingo in squeezes, this is called rectifying the count. The reason is this: Lho holds both minors and needs to hold on to four cards in both of those suits.  After four rounds of spades and two rounds of hearts, he can't do it. 4+2=6, 13-6=7, so he only has room in his hand for 7 minor suit cards. He is forced to come down either to 3 diamonds or 3 clubs, and then the hand comes in.

At my table things got tricky. I am not big on acronyms, but I Clyde Love in his book on squeezes speaks of BLUE.

B= Busy in two suits, in this case clubs and diamonds
L=Losers. This means getting down to where you have all but 1 of the remaining tricks. Playing that last spade did that for us.
U=upper. At least one of the threats (the long diamond and the long club are the threats) have to be in the hand that plays after the victim.
E=Entry. After the squeeze produces a winner, you have to be able to get to that winner to cash it. And the entry needs to be well placed, in the suit of one of the threats.

Now for defense. The defense cannot usually do much about B and U, but they might be able to attack L and E. For example, maybe the spade cashing is not a good idea since it sets declarer on the road to rectifying the count.  At my table they went after both L and E, attacking my entry as I set out to rectify the count.
Let's take a look at the hand from the viewpoint of my Lho:



              76
              A86
              7654   
              KQ32

AKQ
void
J9832
J9654

He can see the threats in dummy and see the discarding problem ahead. He decides that the spades can wait, he needs to attack E so he leads a small . His partner produces the T, declarer (me) takes the A and leads a . Lho wins and leads the J, declarer wins on the board, comes to hand with a and leads another . Lho wins and leads the 9. Declarer must now kiss the squeeze goodbye. Yes, there is still an entry to the board with hearts but it's not adequate. Declarer had to make some discards as well while rectifying the count, the timing is of when the entry is in a side suit. Congrats to Lho!

But But! How about Rho? We have played three rounds of , declarer's 9 is a threat  against Rho and so is a long . As mentioned, this hand has features!


But But But the count is still not rectified. and we don't want to be giving up our threat to rectify it. SO: We duck the third club.

And now it matters which card I played when I led the third from my hand. I erred, pitching a from the board. I survived, the hand was complex enough that I survived, but I needed to realize that the minor suit squeeze against Lho was dead, I should bury it, and concentrate on the major suit squeeze against my Rho. moreover, I am going to have to duck that continuation to rectify the count, and then with another I am going to have to find a pitch from my hand, which must be a . So the long in my hand is not a threat I can keep, I need the long on the board as a threat. So the correct play by declarer on the third spades is to pitch a from the board, duck a club to rectify the count, cash the high clubs and diamonds, squeezing Rho with the 9 in hand  and the 8 on th e board as the threats.

Whew and double whew. I wish I could say I got all of the details right but I didn't. A very interesting hand.

This is a very complex hand, but there is a fairly simple point worth looking back at, namely the shift at T2. Lho realized he was going to have problems with discarding, he went after the board's entries. This can come up pretty often.

[kenberg]

Lead agreements came up on board 5. I am on lead against 3NT . Rho had opened 1NT, I overcalled 2 (natural) and Lho bid 3NT. Nothing was said one way or the other about Lebensohl so let's assume dummy will probably come down with some values in clubs.

I hold:

  AQ2
  JT3
  3
  KQT975

Of course in DARE the lead is stipulated, and for this hand it was the K. There was subsequent discussion as to whether, or for who,, the lead would be the Q from KQT9(x)(x), asking for the drop of the J.

Here is the ACBL default cc:
http://web2.acbl.org/documentLibrary/play/ConventionCard.pdf

The Q is led from this holding at NT, not at suits (not at suits is sensible for a variety of reasons).


Pat Harrington has an ACBL sponsored note column:

https://bridgefeed.acbl.org/standard-leads/

I also checked Bridge Winners, they have a BW standard card:

https://bridgewinners.com/convention-card/print/bridge-winners-standard/4568

As near as I can recall, the Q from KQT9 against NT has been standard at least going back to the 1980s. Of course the Q is also standard from KQJx. This causes no problem. If holding the J, third hand drops it. If not holding the J, he treats the lead as being from QJTx. So the only time the J will come down from third hand after the lead of the Q is when opening leader wants it to.

On this hand dummy came down with Axx, partner and declarer played small, I had to decide if declarer might have started with Jxx. Unfortunately I switched. It's unfortunate because it killed the intended lesson unblocking lesson. That wasn't my intent, I simply did what seemed right.

The ACBL is of course from my side of the Atlantic. I could not find anything (I didn't look long, did not really know where to look) from "over there". The K is led from KQTx of course both here and there, the issue is what is led from KQT9(x) where opening leader wants partner to drop the J if he has it.

[jcreech]

I thought this discussion from both sides of the big pond interesting regarding the lead from KQT9(x):

http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/what-is-the-name-of-this-lead-convention/

The discussion was begun by someone from the Netherlands (Rosalind Hengeveld, affiliated with Bridge Magazine IMP as their website editor), but apparently the lead conention dates back to the early whist days, but whether it is considered standard varies greatly.

[wackojack]

Quote Ken B6
"But But But the count is still not rectified. and we don't want to be giving up our threat to rectify it. SO: We duck the third club.

And now it matters which card I played when I led the third from my hand. I erred, pitching a from the board. I survived, the hand was complex enough that I survived, but I needed to realize that the minor suit squeeze against Lho was dead, I should bury it, and concentrate on the major suit squeeze against my Rho. moreover, I am going to have to duck that continuation to rectify the count, and then with another I am going to have to find a pitch from my hand, which must be a . So the long in my hand is not a threat I can keep, I need the long on the board as a threat. So the correct play by declarer on the third spades is to pitch a from the board, duck a club to rectify the count, cash the high clubs and diamonds, squeezing Rho with the 9 in hand  and the 8 on th e board as the threats."

But But! OK How can you know to pitch a diamond  and not a heart when there is a chance that diamonds will split 3-3?  And then how can you know to play another club, ostensibly to rectify the count when declarer could have  AKQJ and not  AKQ? Can you? The bidding went 1NT-3NT, I believe.   A possible consideration is to try and get a count at least on the diamonds by playing a second diamond before playing the 3rd spade.  Then you would definitely throw a diamond from dummy.  Sadly even this partial discovery play is thwarted because South can counter by playing a 3rd diamond.  Then the squeeze is broken up.

Incidentally my partner on this hand also switched to a club as against you.  Declarer eventually then wen 2 off.

[wackojack]

If you lead Q from KQ10975 then partner does not know if you have the King since you would lead Q from QJ10(xxx).  I have not studied this but might it not be important for partner to know whether or not if this is the case when she does not have the Jack? I am assuming not pure journalist leads. Lead of K from KQ109(xx) is normal in UK.

I have always assumed A for Attitude, King for count or unblock.   

[wackojack]

Back to B6.

Perhaps you can be fairly sure that South has   !SAKQ stiff, because North plays the 5 and next plays the 2 giving attitude and therefore showing 4? 

[jcreech]

If you lead Q from KQ10975 then partner does not know if you have the King since you would lead Q from QJ10(xxx).  I have not studied this but might it not be important for partner to know whether or not if this is the case when she does not have the Jack? I am assuming not pure journalist leads. Lead of K from KQ109(xx) is normal in UK.

I have always assumed A for Attitude, King for count or unblock.   

Jack,  the Q is also asking for an unblock or count too.  It is just asking for a specific unblock shows a specific type of holding.  If you have the J, you jettison; if you don't then you start with assumption that partner started with QJT(xxx) and give count.  If partner has the former, there will probably be a switch (as Ken did) to avoid a Bath Coup; if partner has the latter, there will be a continuation of the suit when it holds. 

In the Bridge Winners discussion thread, I noticed that some have generalized the Q asking for the J to include other one-under unblocks.  But it doesn't really matter which way you play a lead convention, as long as both are on the same wavelength. 

However, when a large number of players use a specific lead convention, and a different large number of players do not, then a play problem is flawed when defenders behave differently due to their understandings.

[kenberg]

The Q lead from KQT9(x):

This would be useless unless partner is in agreement on what happens in response, although when partner holds the the might well wonder what's up when he sees the Q led against a NT contract. I can recall some time back leading the Q, Lho asking my partner what the lead of the Q meant, and he replied that it asks him to drop the J and insisted we had no further agreement. I thought that a bit disingenuous. I refer "asks me to drop the Q if I have it and, if I do not, treat it as a standard lead. I also recall having a discussion with others as to whether, lacking the J, third hand should give count and we decided not always. Third had might or might not have the K. With Kx he presumably unblocks, at least in most situations, but with Kxx it will not always be right to rise with the K. Sometimes it's best to encourage a continuation.  So we decided that, when third hand has no J to drop under the Q, count would only be given when the circumstances made it clear that we do not need to show attitude.

Putting aside the count issue when third hand does not have the J, using the lead of the Q from KQT9(x) to ask for the drop of the J seems to be one of those rare conventions with little  no downside. Say you have KQT92 and Rho has bid NT. When will this convention go wrong? Declarer would need five in the suit . When declarer and you have five in the suit partner will not have a choice of what to play unless he has two. And Colin was saying that with Jx he would throw the J under the K, although maybe he wouldn't if he saw a stiff spot in the dummy.  At any rate, the convention gives the opening leader a clear way of saying "Partner, please drop the J if you have it". A pair could make some exceptions such as "unless you see a stiff in dummy" but I don't know anyone who makes that exception.

Added: I thought a bit more about giving count. Suppose I lead the Q from QJ92, Declarer wins the A, goes to the board in some side suit and takes a finesse in some  suit (not clubs) and I win. Should I continue clubs? If partner started with only spot cards I don't care whether he started with two or three, I should not lead anther club into declarer's KT. But if partner has, say, the T then I don't care if he started with Txx to Txxx, I wan to to continue the suit.

So I think it's best to play "Drop the J if you have it, if you do not see the J  in your hand or on the board then treat the Q as a standard lead, potentially from QJ9x unless the context makes that impossible. On the hand in question I had bid 2 (natural) over a 1NT on my right so no matter ow adventuresome I might be the Q was probably not from QJ92 so a case can be made for giving count if not holding any honor.

And that applies to the dropping of other honors also. If I have led the Q from QJ9x I am not apt to want partner dropping the T.

So: Drop the J under the Q, but if the J is not in sight allow that the lead could be from QJ9x. In which case I think we want attitude, not count.

[kenberg]

Now about the squeeze hand. I'll start with my initial thinking.

Lho started with the A and then switched. From this I assume that they cannot run five spades, else they would have. So spades are 4-3. Who had 4, who has 3? That's not entirely clear. T1 went A658 (I played the 8 hoping I would look short in the suit since I want them to continue spades).
Then came the switch, 42TA.  It is safe to play on spades, and might be useful, so I did.  Lho takes with the K, Rho plays the 2. So maybe he has four? Another club comes back, and Rho throws a small .

This gets interesting. Lho had five clubs.There is some evidence that he is the one with only three spades. What happens if he has three diamonds? Yes, then I could simply cash my diamond winners.  But it also means that he was dealt 3=2=3=5, and this means that a - squeeze against Rho is, perhaps, possible.

But the count still needs to be rectified. So back to hand with a and lead another , Lho plays the Q (having previously played the A and the K).

Crunch time. I had not really thought this out all the way. But assuming he will continue with a third club then the - squeeze will be dead. So what to do?

The above argument was: If are 3-3 then all is well, I will just squeeze Rho in the majors instead of squeezing Lho in the minors. But there is a catch. If Lho really is 3=2=3=5 then the squeeze will work IF they do not kill the entries. But once I pitch a from dummy, Lho can stop fretting about the - squeeze and, instead, help his partner defend against the - squeeze. He can  lead a . Of course he might not. But he might. the count is still not rectified so if he leads a , and if I rectify by leading a and letting him hold the trick, now  anther heart kils the needed entries.

So the major suit squeeze will fail if Lho is 3=2=3=5 and if he finds the right defense.

As it happens, Lho is 3=0=5=5 so he has no heart to lead, so I can bring in the contract if I pitch a instead of a on this last . But how double dummy is this? Well, I didn't pitch a , I pitched a .

Now they can beat me but they didn't. Lho continued a . I took it and cashed the diamonds. On the last diamond Rho has to choose a discard holding QJT9 and the J. Maybe he thought his partner had started with four spades. At any rate, he pitched the 9. Now I had my 9 tricks. A pseudo-squeeze. Sometimes a pseudo works.

Mostly I think it is a fun hand to think about. It's true that if I pitch a on the third spade, and if Lho lead another I can rectify the count just be ducking and now, assuming he does not have anther spade to cash, I make it. And even if he was dealt 3=2=3=5 this will work providing he does not shift to a heart after wining the third spade.

Nobody said bridge was easy.

[wackojack]

Maybe this is one disadvantage of leading Q from KQ109x.  Partner has 2 small.  Declarer takes and say finesses to you in a 2nd suit.    You decide that a lead from QJ10 sequence is more likely than a KQ10 sequence and so switch to your suit which is headed by KQJ10x since you have another possible entry. This  ambiguity would not occur if you lead K from KQ109x as partner would always return the suit not seeing the Jack in dummy. 

[kenberg]

Maybe this is one disadvantage of leading Q from KQ109x.  Partner has 2 small.  Declarer takes and say finesses to you in a 2nd suit.    You decide that a lead from QJ10 sequence is more likely than a KQ10 sequence and so switch to your suit which is headed by KQJ10x since you have another possible entry. This  ambiguity would not occur if you lead K from KQ109x as partner would always return the suit not seeing the Jack in dummy.

I git a bit confused about who was who here but I think I get it. Say Ken leads the Q and Jack is the one who then wins the finesse. Not realizing that Ken's suit is ready to go, Jack switches to his own suit. Yes, this seems possible. Unlikely enough to not be much of a worry, but yes, it seems it could happen.

[poco1]

I personally have never come across the lead of Queen from KQ10 x(x) against NT, asking for an unblock of the Jack, if it is held by partner. In the UK, I believe that the standard lead from that holding is the King. I have always taught my students never to lead an honour against a NT contract without three honours, (counting the 10 as an honour,)  unless the suit has been bid or supported by partner. The lead of an Ace would promise a suit headed by AKJ10, (possibly just AKJ if 6 or more were held) and partner would be expected to unblock the Queen or give count. The lead of a King would promise a suit headed by KQJ or KQ10. On that basis, the same objective could be achieved, i.e. partner unblocking the Jack if it is held. Although not part of this discussion, the concept of "strong tens" should maybe be considered. With those, the lead of a ten shows an interior sequence type holding such as KJ10, AJ10, K109 etc. The lead of a Jack, then, denies holding any higher honour. The standard lead from a suit headed by 109 then becomes the 9. I have played them myself for many years. In a regular partnership, they work well. Food for thought, anyway.

[kenberg]

We (pn this side of the pond) don't lead the Q from KQT2 for  the J to be pitched, we might not want it pitched if the auction is 1NT -3NT. We ask for this pitch only from KQT9(x).

Suppose partner holds J53.  If the K is led he plays an encouraging 5, or an encouraging 3 in udca, but he does not drop the J. If the Q is led he drops the J, trusting that this is safe.

On the hand we had, perhaps the J could have been dropped anyway, since the auction began with a 2 overcall of 1NT and the dummy hit with three cards. Even if the lead was from only a five card suit, KQTxx establishes with the continuation. On the other side, partner could reason that if I wanted the J dropped, I could have led the Q. Otoh, I did not know the dummy would hit with three cards (so if I really had bid 2 on KQT54 maybe I don't want a pitch. Coming in over 1NT on KQT54 is not something I would be all that likely to do).  These are fine points. Basically, the Q asks for the drop of the J, the K does not so with Jxx partner encourages in response to the lead of the K, drops the J in response to the Q. If he just has Jx and the K is led, as was the case here, it might depend on the circumstances.