[lmilne]

This hand came up at the club today. My client and I were defending, see if you can play it better than our declarer did.

---

1. West leads the ♠A, showing the king, and East plays the ♠2, discouraging.
2. West switches to the ♦3 (attitude), and you win East's queen with the ace.
3. You play a low club to king, and East drops the Queen.
4. You play a spade from dummy, ruffing low.
5. You play a diamond to the king...
6... and ruff another spade low.

What now?

[MrAce]

Are you sure we can make this at all, even with 3-2 ♥ QTx off side ?

I mean we had a play even for 1-4 ♥ split as long as W holds stiff T or Q but i am afraid we are going down now due to our earlier mistakes.

Imo, declarer should have kept on playing clubs after Q was dropped. But i may be missing something.


Now declarer can play ♣ J in order to make, hoping that W has Qx ♥, any other play will fail even with Qx ♥ on i am afraid, due to his earlier mistakes.

I expect W to be 4144 or 4054 or 5044, With 5-0 hearts not really to many chances of making.

[Vampyr]

MrAce, on 2013-May-31, 05:08, said:

Imo, declarer should have kept on playing clubs after Q was dropped. But i may be missing something.

Yes, I should have thought that setting up the South hand was sensible, rather than going for this dummy-reversal line.

Quote

I expect W to be 4144 or 4054 or 5044

And we knew this at trick 2, so...

[lmilne]

1. Declarer has played perfectly up to this point
2. If you think hearts are 3-2 or 4-1 with a conveniently stiff honour, when you've been doubled by a hand that has no aces or kings, you must play in different company to me!
3. Bringing back -500 will not win the board.

Any takers?

edit: I wouldn't be posting a play problem where you have to work out what to do having already messed up the hand!

[MrAce]

lmilne, on 2013-May-31, 06:26, said:

1. Declarer has played perfectly up to this point
2. If you think hearts are 3-2 or 4-1 with a conveniently stiff honour, when you've been doubled by a hand that has no aces or kings, you must play in different company to me!
3. Bringing back -500 will not win the board.

Any takers?

We obviously must be playing in different sections. if you play always for 5-0 trump split when you are doubled in game which you reached with combined 21 hcps.

I play ♣ at trick 3 and make my 4♥ doubled when 2-3 3-2 ♥ splits, i make when 1-4 ♥ split T-Qxxx Q-Txxx, and i do not go down more than 1 if any of these does not happen. (except 5-0)

When you asked the problem, it is very normal for readers to play it to make. Had we known that when we are doubled in game with 21 hcp, it auto means 5-0 trump break, we could have easily answered your question....

Which is to play small ♣ now ,not the T or J, because W will duck regardless in order to let his pd ruff and play trump. I am just trying to figure out, and really trying hard, which part of that play you found so interesting and posted and expected us to know we were supposed to play for down 1 ? Especially after giving me literature about the company you play against, conveniently skipping the fact that defense could have easily get their +500 anyway, LOL.

From what i read out of your so called "perfect line" W must be either

AKxxx
--
Jxxx
A9xx

or

AKxx
--
Jxxxx
A9xx

[lmilne]

MrAce, on 2013-May-31, 06:55, said:

We obviously must be playing in different sections. if you play always for 5-0 trump split when you are doubled in game which you reached with combined 21 hcps.

I play ♣ at trick 3 and make my 4♥ doubled when 2-3 3-2 ♥ splits, i make when 1-4 ♥ split T-Qxxx Q-Txxx, and i do not go down more than 1 if any of these does not happen. (except 5-0)

When you asked the problem, it is very normal for readers to play it to make. Had we known that when we are doubled in game with 21 hcp, it auto means 5-0 trump break, we could have easily answered your question....

OK, the exercise was in both card-reading and then working out to play a low club rather than the instinctive jack my opponent played. Perhaps it's too easy for people who wandered in from 'Expert-Class Bridge' which is way I posted it to this section.

If you can construct an East hand which even remotely resembles a double (and where you can make 4♥) given that West has ♠AK ♦J ♣A minimum I would be interested!

edit: oh, and playing for -1 instead of making on non-existent layouts (versus -2) is a pretty common way to win 7 imps

[lmilne]

In response to your edited post:

Firstly, ruffing spades in hand doesn't cost against hearts 4-1 - assuming there is no singleton Q or 10, and I don't think many Easts are doubling with xxxx Qxxx QTxx Q, but maybe you have a different opinion. And it is the only play for to get out for -1 after the West ducks the ace of clubs.

If West has AKJx x Jxxx Axxx it doesn't really matter how you play, you pretty much always go one off. The way I see it, you can choose to try and establish clubs, and hope that East has doubled on three low hearts and a balanced 4 count, or try and save a trick against the much more likely 5-0 break by reversing the dummy. I actually think our guy played very well up until trick 7.

Secondly, I'm not sure ducking the ace of clubs was a clear error by my partner - she couldn't be sure declarer had 6 clubs on this auction, and playing the ace could cost when declarer has JT8xx.

[MrAce]

lmilne, on 2013-May-31, 07:08, said:

OK, the exercise was in both card-reading and then working out to play a low club rather than the instinctive jack my opponent played. Perhaps it's too easy for people who wandered in from 'Expert-Class Bridge' which is way I posted it to this section.

If you can construct an East hand which even remotely resembles a double (and where you can make 4♥) given that West has ♠AK ♦J ♣A minimum I would be interested!

edit: oh, and playing for -1 instead of making on non-existent layouts (versus -2) is a pretty common way to win 7 imps

Dude...doubling 4♥ with Jxxx Qxxx Qxxx Q when your pd started with DBL, is far from being "non-existent" If you really sincerely believe that i suspect you haven't seen enough. He may even do it for telling his pd to lead a club, which can be the only way t o defeat 4♥ in another hand when East holds Qxxx or even xxxx. You are still conveniently skipping the fact that defense could have defeat you by 2 if that was the lay out ! Jesus !!


Please read your original topic, you did not even mention that this was a team game. How on earth were we supposed to know that -200 can possibly be a good score ???? When you say "playing at club" it is very normal for us to take it as MP.

[lmilne]

MrAce, on 2013-May-31, 07:32, said:

Please read your original topic, you did not even mention that this was a team game. How on earth were we supposed to know that -200 can possibly be a good score ???? When you say "playing at club" it is very normal for us to take it as MP.

You're right, I forgot to mention it was IMPs. My mistake.
I still don't think flying with the ace of clubs is automatic or possibly even correct. Of course, it works on this layout, I understand that.

[MrAce]

lmilne, on 2013-May-31, 07:49, said:

You're right, I forgot to mention it was IMPs. My mistake.
I still don't think flying with the ace of clubs is automatic or possibly even correct. Of course, it works on this layout, I understand that.

It's ok mate. I was frustrated because i was busting my @$$ to make 4♥, i had no clue it was IMPs and -200 could be a good score Once i washed my hands and gave up from making 4♥ when 5-0 hearts, i focused on 4-1 splits. Declarer's line makes sense at team game, i admit.