[jdonn]

The suspense is killing me.

[mikeh]

The only argument that I can find is psychological and is susceptible to infinite spy v spy regression.

If we held Ax K1098xxx xx Kx, as a skilled defender we'd know at trick 4 that we were a sitting duck for a strip squeeze. A skilled defender, forced to stiff an honour, will do it as early as possible.

So a skilled declarer, attributing this level of skill to us, wouldn't be fooled by our pitching the club 7 from this holding....he'd expect it.

So when we play the club 7 early, declarer is caught in a weird sort of restricted choice scenario...... if we had the 2=7=2=2 hand with Kx clubs, we 'had' to make this pitch, while if we didn't, we might not think of it. Therefore the fact that we made the pitch suggests that we probably had no choice.

Even if he paid us the compliment of thinking that we would 'probably' think of this deception, the odds favour us making the play by force rather than deception by approximately the margin between our being good enough to stiff the K early otoh and, otoh, our being good enough to recognize that we had to be deceptive.

my head is spinning.....btw, I had come to the conclusion that the club 7 was the best pitch, for these reasons, before reading David's last post...if it is best for some other reason, that has entirely escaped me.

[jdonn]

I am far too much of a beginner at bridge to know the answer to this problem, but I'm not bad at logic. And I have the ol' sneaky feeling that if this was simply a case of spy vs. spy to make declarer think we were strip squeezed then we wouldn't be getting asked why only one particular discard will suffice.

[JanM]

jdonn, on Sep 3 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

I am far too much of a beginner at bridge to know the answer to this problem, but I'm not bad at logic. And I have the ol' sneaky feeling that if this was simply a case of spy vs. spy to make declarer think we were strip squeezed then we wouldn't be getting asked why only one particular discard will suffice.

Me too, although I (even with expert help ) haven't been able to come up with a hand where it matters what I do.

[benlessard]

Quote

The only discard from your hand to defeat the contract is the seven of clubs (no one so far has actually discarded this, so you all start again on an equal footing). Why will only this discard suffice?

My drugs in the coffee play start to look pretty good now..

[benlessard]

throwing all the H except 1 so that declarer has to think we are

1723. He still can play S right ?

[Zelandakh]

dburn, on Sep 3 2010, 04:39 AM, said:

Your partner has played the nine and two of diamonds in that order, to indicate a doubleton.

I'm calling the director for my partner playing one of dummy's cards. Hopefully the distraction will give me a chance for the drug in coffee gambit...

[kenrexford]

Mike's suggestion seems the most plausible.

I considered briefly another remote possibility, but it requires a deep-thinking but insane partner and weird opponents.

This is the first opportunity partner will have to make an exotic play, his first chance to pitch. If Declarer actually started with 0-3-6-4 pattern, with partner making a weird lead, then partner, with 7-2-2-2 shape might have KJ tight in clubs and might strangely decide that this trick that a club Jettison play is required. Pitching the club might change his mind.

I also considered an insane Declarer who is distraught about not being in 6♦. Maybe pitching the club will convince him that the slam makes, and he will decide therefore upon some insane line.

[gnasher]

kenrexford, on Sep 4 2010, 03:09 PM, said:

This is the first opportunity partner will have to make an exotic play, his first chance to pitch. If Declarer actually started with 0-3-6-4 pattern, with partner making a weird lead, then partner, with 7-2-2-2 shape might have KJ tight in clubs and might strangely decide that this trick that a club Jettison play is required.

One might hope that partner would keep his feet on the ground for long enough to count six diamonds, one club and one heart, and work out that he needs me to have ♠A.

[dburn]

Well, you have all been good sports, and maybe this problem as originally set was too tough. Still, I am sure you can solve it with this additional clue: declarer has the king of clubs.

[mikeh]

I'm sorry...but he has the club K and we are supposed to beat this? Obviously not...we are supposed to hold the overtrick? Frankly, I've lost interest. If the hand was about overtrick(s), post it as mp, not imps.

[hanp]

I agree with mikeh, what should I vote?

[karlson]

Given that we've gotten to this point, I'm not sure why everyone is taking it for granted declarer has 6 diamonds - partner hasn't pitched yet. Sure, the original problem's wording strongly suggested you assume this, but none of us would be anywhere near 100% certain of this at the table.

That said, no matter how many diamonds declarer has, I don't see the layout where I'm supposed to pitch the ♣7.

[wank]

my only guess would be that declarer has 5 diamond tricks, despite partner's signal, 1 heart trick and KJT of clubs. he probably wouldn't believe you'd ditch the singleton 7 immediately so he may play to the ace in case you've got Qxxx giving partner a 7330 shape.

why would partner signal a doubleton with 3? he's an idiot? he's got 109x and was preparing to follow with the 9 under the queen if declarer crossed and led it off dummy? he's a compulsive liar?

[kenrexford]

I have thought about the possibility that Declarer only has four diamonds, also, but this keeps leaving me in an endless loop of "so what?"

Declarer ends up, still, with four diamonds, a heart, and needs four clubs. Whatever number of clubs that he needs is irrelevant, though. He either gets all the clubs or not, unless partner makes a mistake, it seems.

I suppose that Declarer might have made a mistake, though, by severing communications in diamonds for unknown reasons. If declarer has KJ10 tight in clubs, he might try the sneaky Jack next, trying to catch partner afraid to rise with Qxx for hear of crashing honors. If he tries King first, the suit blocks.

OK. I'll bite that Declarer messed up by playing three diamonds like an idiot and that partner needs to see me pitch a club to know that I have nothing in that suit.

Still, that shouldn't be necessary. If partner has Q9x in clubs, he can cover the Jack (or 10) anyway. The suit still blocks, even if our King and Queen collapse together. Plus, the 9 sets up for him in that event, anyway.

If partner has to count in a possible King-empty six-card heart suit for the opening, maybe that affects things.

[dburn]

karlson, on Sep 4 2010, 04:40 PM, said:

Given that we've gotten to this point, I'm not sure why everyone is taking it for granted declarer has 6 diamonds - partner hasn't pitched yet. Sure, the original problem's wording strongly suggested you assume this, but none of us would be anywhere near 100% certain of this at the table.

That said, no matter how many diamonds declarer has, I don't see the layout where I'm supposed to pitch the ♣7.

Obviously declarer does not have six diamonds. You may originally have formed that impression from the fact that partner has shown two diamonds, but in reality he has three. That being so, there is a danger you might (in theory, but not in practice) have anticipated...

This wasn't a matchpoint problem, mikeh - the conditions are exactly as I have given them. In truth, it wasn't a problem at all at the table - nobody would really discard ♣7 for any reason at all, let alone the actual (and only) reason why that discard alone would defeat the contract.

But here is a box, and here is some space outside the box in which you are at liberty to think. Or not, as it pleases you.

[Dirk Kuijt]

I don't pretend to have an answer, nor to be good enough to think of one.

But, let me raise a point which no one seems to have commented on. Why did declarer pitch a club from dummy on the second round of hearts, instead of a spade? He knows the hearts are ready to run. If we get in, the small spade is pretty worthless to him, while if he can run the clubs (as well as his diamonds), he takes 12 tricks. True, this isn't matchpoints, but it seems silly to throw away an IMP.

I admit to being baffled; I don't see how pitching a club can be a deceptive play, so what is going on?

[jdonn]

dburn, on Sep 4 2010, 04:56 PM, said:

karlson, on Sep 4 2010, 04:40 PM, said:

Given that we've gotten to this point, I'm not sure why everyone is taking it for granted declarer has 6 diamonds - partner hasn't pitched yet. Sure, the original problem's wording strongly suggested you assume this, but none of us would be anywhere near 100% certain of this at the table.

That said, no matter how many diamonds declarer has, I don't see the layout where I'm supposed to pitch the ♣7.

Obviously declarer does not have six diamonds. You may originally have formed that impression from the fact that partner has shown two diamonds, but in reality he has three. That being so, there is a danger you might (in theory, but not in practice) have anticipated...

This wasn't a matchpoint problem, mikeh - the conditions are exactly as I have given them. In truth, it wasn't a problem at all at the table - nobody would really discard ♣7 for any reason at all, let alone the actual (and only) reason why that discard alone would defeat the contract.

But here is a box, and here is some space outside the box in which you are at liberty to think. Or not, as it pleases you.

Take it from a dburn fan. The presentation of this problem has officially become quite annoying. It was annoying before, but it has switched from annoying in the "why would the 7 of clubs be right?" sense to "how much more sarcasm is required before we find out the answer?" sense.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Obviously declarer does not have six diamonds.

Well in that case my analysis is valid again and I remind everybody that I discarded 7♣ in 3rd post of this thread

[gnasher]

bluecalm, on Sep 5 2010, 10:17 AM, said:

Quote

Obviously declarer does not have six diamonds.

Well in that case my analysis is valid again and I remind everybody that I discarded 7♣ in 3rd post of this thread

Except that you are trying to persuade declarer that your partner chose not to raise hearts with xxxxxx Qxxx xxx -.