iac versus acol, 1st half, board 4, Added stuff.

[kenberg]

Hi
I previously posted board 3 of the second half, my message being that I should have made it.
Board 4 of the first half is a different story. Double dummy I can make my 5 contract (Gib says so and can Gib ever be wrong?) but even DD it takes a bit to see how.


The hands:

                                      AKJ4
                                      842
                                      AQT743
                                      void


Q86                                                      T97532                                   
Q9653                                                  7
KJ85                                                     2
T                                                          AQ643

                                    void
                                    AKJT
                                    96
                                    KJ98752

I decided not to rotate the hands since you might want to compare with other tables. N is declared in 5 .
                                   

I will get to the bidding later, right now I want to look at double dummy play on the lead of the 7

We need 11 tricks. Where from? Well, five tricks in , one ruff, three top after the ruff, two tricks, that makes 11. But if we use a trump in dummy ruffing a , how do we bring in 5 trump tricks?

Oh. A trump coup. Of course

T1 Win on the board
T2 lead a , cover whatever W plays. Say it goes 6.8,T
T3,4,5 A,K,4, throwing two clubs and ruffing the 4
T6 small from table, ruffed in hand
T7 to the board.
T8 Another . We could hope W ruffs and we overruff, but W is not that helpful. So he tosses a since that's his only other choice. Weruff

We have the first 8 tricks, we need 3 more. Let's look at what is left.



                                      J
                                      8
                                      AQ7
                                      void


                                                            T97                                   
Q9                                                       
KJ5                                                     
                                                            AQ

                                    void
                                    JT
                                   
                                    KJ9

N is on lead.
T9 lead a

W wins and must lead. The choices are ugly. Presumably he leads a !G. We ruff for the 9th trick. We lead the . W ruffs (no choice) and is on lead We get the A and Q for 11 tricks. Note that it doesn't matter whether the J is the highest remaining . This is, I guess, a repeating coup.

Thihs appears to work.  I think.

If I could find that line at the table I could make a lot of money. Until I was caught peeking. Actually, peeking wouldn't help unless I am given an hour or so to figure how to make use of it.

5 is easier double dummy. Declarer, noting the stiff T, plans to establish clubs by leading the K and then, when next in hand, the J E gets his AQ, that's it. And I guess 3NT makes, also be establishing clubs. Establishing Ds won't work so well since after they are established you can't get there.

Bidding: I opened 1 , E bid 2 and S bid 3 . Even with 7-4 I probably would have made a negative double as S. It could get interesting after that if W bids 3 . In theory the defense gets 2 red aces, a club ruff and the AKJ of spades for down 2. And maybe S gets an eventual club trick. He can't ruff them all away. I have not thought through just what ha[[ens against a spade contract by E with optimal NS defense.

EW really do not want to play this in spades. or in clubs. NS can actually make something although it's very double dummy to make game. EW can't make anything.

Added: I don't know if I have ever seen this double use of the trump coup before. It depends on spades being 6-3, reasonable on the auction we had, and on W having at least four hearts including the Q, also reasonable on the auction and the lead. But it also depends on diamonds being 4-1 with W holding the K and J. It doesn't depend on the clubs being as distorted as they are. Eg 3-3 clubs, and thus 3-3 hearts will be fine. And we don't care which three spades W has.
It's the split that is hard to assume. Not impossible though.
Of course when you run the finesse you should lead the 9 from the board, not the 6, in case E has the stiff 8. I was just doing full DD when running the 9. Probably the 9 will not be covered by the J since W can reason that if E has the T there is no need to cover and if N has the T there is no purpose in covering.

Taking a specific case:

                                      AKJ4
                                      842
                                      AQT743
                                      void


T86                                                      Q97532                                   
Q65                                                      973
KJ85                                                     2
AT3                                                      Q64

                                    void
                                    AKJT
                                    96
                                    KJ98752

We suppose the lead is still the 7 (2nd from spots)

We proceed as before and after 8 tricks we have:

                                      J
                                      8
                                      AQT
                                      void


                                                             Q97                                   
Q                                                         9
KJ8                                                     
A                                                         Q

                                    void
                                    JT
                                   
                                    KJ9

Just as before we lead the from hand and W is in. He can give us our first trick of this end position by leading a , we take it and get out with the , not carding who wins, or W can lead the A, we ruff, and get out with the not caring who wins.
So we get all 6 of the s in our hand, the top 2 s, the top 2 s, and one ruff. 6+2+2+1=11.

It seems to me that the main issue is to bet that E has a stiff that is not the K or J. That's a tough thing to rely on. But once we decide to play on that assumption, the rest falls into place. I just needed to tell the opponents that I needed to think about the hand for a day or two before playing it.

[wackojack]

A really tough hand to play and time the trump coup Ken.

The hands:

                                      AKJ4
                                      842
                                      AQT743
                                      void


Q86                                                      T97532                                   
Q9653                                                  7
KJ85                                                     2
T                                                          AQ643

                                    void
                                    AKJT
                                    96
                                    KJ98752
 
I am interested in the bidding and whether the take out of 3NT is justified. 
After 1 -(2 ) - 3 -3
Presumably partner's 3 is just forcing for 1 round
Presumably your bid of 3 is showing length, no extra strength and not forcing. 
Then you partner bids 3  .  Does that show now a game force?  Or forcing to 4minor?  (Avert your eyes Joe?)  I assume game force showing a good heart stop and not necessarily a 4 card heart suit.  Or could it be that partner thinks it is possible that he has a 4-4 heart fit with you.  If not, what is partner looking for?  3NT contract?  A cue looking for slam possibilities?  A waiting bid to get more info from you?
OK you bid 3NT saying that you do have spades stopped. Also your partner might reason that you have 4 spades because otherwise the opps have a 10 card  fit and would have raised spades.  So could deduce 4261 or 4360.  If these assumptions are correct and I have not missed a rival assumption, then your partner should definitely not have taken you out of 3NT.

PS This has the flavour of an MSC question and I did not have the time to try this month's quiz prefering to look real problems closer to home.

 

[kenberg]

Not surprisingly, Carl and I have not discussed system enough to be exactly sure of what means what in complex auctions.

After N opens 1 and E says 2 , I probably would have doubled with the S hand.  I have four hearts, four good hearts, so that's probably what I would do despite the 7 card suit. But I can imagine a pair agreeing to play that bidding 3 first and later bidding is a way of saying "Yes, I have four hearts, but I also have a ton of clubs so if you do not like hearts we might well want to play this in clubs" If that is what bidding 3 and then 3 says then I think 3NT should probably be passed. The general idea is that once I have said what I have to say, then I stop talking.

So I think agreeing on something like the above, that is, "Sure, usually with some clubs and four hearts I make a negative double but with truly long clubs I make an exception" is a reasonable agreement, it is not something Carl and I have talked about. We agree that a double of 2 would have shown hearts and a bid of 3 over 2 shows (of course) but bidding clubs and then hearts? My general rule is to try hard to keep it simple. IN this case, that means I X over 2 even if that 7 card suit seems worth mentioning.
Now if pard doubles over 2 would I bid NT? Probably not. I have very well stopped but I am a bit short in . So I rebid 3 . And now? pard probably rebids 4 since he is a bit short in spades.
I suppose we could say that if pard doubles 2 I should bid 3NT. I might well do so with, say, a 3=3=5=2 hand with decent seven if the s are Qx. But a  void?

So I suppose this shows that an agreement where over 2   S first bids 3 and then 3 showing this hand would be good. I can now bid 3NT. Otoh, I still have to make 3NT.

I have a six card suit and a void, pard has a 7 card suit and a void, it's not surprising that we do not have written notes on how to handle this. We have to make it up as we go along.

So yes, I think as the auction went, 3NT probably should be passed on. The S hand is very shapely, but that has been said.

I don't second guess my partner in these weird situations, but I do think I would have passed the 3NT on that auction. But I also confess I would have doubled over 2 instead of bidding 3 .

So, so, so,...

So if I just find the repeated trump coup all is well. And I would be famous.  And, and, ...
Fwiw, we did find our only 8 card fit.

Further thought leads to other, probably better, lines of play. Fun, fun, fun.