[Fluffy]

---

You can double if you want.
You lead ♦A and partner plays ♦10 (UDCA)

[whereagles]

Guess what? You control clubs, so you can simply play a spade and wait, no?

Still, UDCA or no UDCA it is common to define a situation like this as count. I.e. "On the lead of an ace (from AK), if dummy shows up with Qxx(+) 3rd player gives count."

[helene_t]

If partner has seven spades we need to give him a ruff to get it down. Otherwise I agree with Nuno.

[wank]

i continue diamonds. i think it's more likely p has 1 than 3 to give declarer a bit of shape as he seems to be rather weak in hcp. jt stiff in p's hand is fine too, but that gives declarer an unlikely hand.

basically i'm thinking p is 6313 and declarer has something like qx akqjxxx jxxx void

the only hand where we're getting it off with a spade switch where declarer might bid 4h is 2821 imo.

as to whether it's a guess or not, the sad fact is partner normally has a less-than-sporting way to make it clear whether he has 3 or not, so i might well feel aggrieved as declarer if leader got this hand right at the table.

[Trump Echo]

Seems to me, odds are that partner holds another small Diamond. If he held J10, he'd have played the Jack. If he held 10x, he'd play the 10. If he holds 10 singleton, he'd play the 10. With more than two ♦s, he'd play a middle card, which would not be the 10 unless he held J10x, which is not likely. In all likelyhood, Diamonds seems to be a safe lead as indicated by partner. I'd lead the ♦K.

Not a complete guess, but an educated guess.

[cherdano]

Trump Echo, on 2014-March-14, 20:30, said:

Seems to me, odds are that partner holds another small Diamond. If he held J10, he'd have played the Jack. If he held 10x, he'd play the 10. If he holds 10 singleton, he'd play the 10. With more than two ♦s, he'd play a middle card, which would not be the 10 unless he held J10x, which is not likely. In all likelyhood, Diamonds seems to be a safe lead as indicated by partner. I'd lead the ♦K.

Not a complete guess, but an educated guess.

Before making your guess, you could educate yourself about the signalling method indicated in the original post.

[johnu]

Trump Echo, on 2014-March-14, 20:30, said:

Seems to me, odds are that partner holds another small Diamond. If he held J10, he'd have played the Jack. If he held 10x, he'd play the 10. If he holds 10 singleton, he'd play the 10. With more than two ♦s, he'd play a middle card, which would not be the 10 unless he held J10x, which is not likely. In all likelyhood, Diamonds seems to be a safe lead as indicated by partner. I'd lead the ♦K.

Not a complete guess, but an educated guess.

Wrong analysis for UDCA

[johnu]

What was the diamond spot from declarer? If declarer has a singleton or ♠K, we don't have a spade trick. I'll play the ♦K. If partner shows out or plays the ♦J, I'll give a ruff. If partner play high low showing 3 diamonds, I'll play ♣A and try to give partner a club ruff, playing declarer for 2-7-2-2 or similar.

[Fluffy]

declarer had 7222 with ♠K so a spade switch was letting it make.

[Cascade]

I simulated 1000 hands with partner having a weak two with six spades and in which there were only 9 tricks for declarer.

459 times partner had the ♠ K and no ruffing value in a minor.

290 times partner had a ruffing value and no ♠ K.

This seems to suggest its better to play for the ♠K.

The rest of the time it didn't matter as partner had both or perhaps a trump trick.

These numbers would obviously modify if partner might have seven spades. Also these numbers hands with ♠xx are going to be less likely to jump to 4♥ which might place declarer with the ♠K

[johnu]

Your numbers look off to me.

I think the odds of declarer having ♠K is fairly high. If not holding the spade king, declarer bid 4♥ missing ♠AK, ♦AKQ, ♣AKJ.

With 6 hearts a doubleton diamond, and a presumed losing spade, the only possible distribution is

♠(?)x
♥AKQxxx
♦xx
♣Qxx

which is a pretty sick looking 4♥. Looks like a 3♥ bid to me without the ♠K. The spade king makes 4♥ look a lot better, but you need to give partner a club ruff to beat it.

With 7 hearts, a doubleton diamond, and a presumed losing spade, the only distribution is

♠(?)x
♥AKQxxxx
♦xx
♣(?)x

I think 4♥ still looks a little sketchy without the ♠K.

[gnasher]

wank, on 2014-March-10, 10:25, said:

as to whether it's a guess or not, the sad fact is partner normally has a less-than-sporting way to make it clear whether he has 3 or not, so i might well feel aggrieved as declarer if leader got this hand right at the table.

By thinking with three and not with one? As declarer you should take plenty of time before playing to trick one, so that third hand will be ready to play smoothly when it's his turn.

[Cascade]

johnu, on 2014-March-15, 02:35, said:

Your numbers look off to me.

I think the odds of declarer having ♠K is fairly high. If not holding the spade king, declarer bid 4♥ missing ♠AK, ♦AKQ, ♣AKJ.

I did try to make that point by saying that a hand with ♠xx would look less likely to jump to 4♥.

However I feel that eight solid and out is possible - say 2821.

[cherdano]

Cascade, on 2014-March-15, 01:18, said:

I simulated 1000 hands with partner having a weak two with six spades and in which there were only 9 tricks for declarer.

It's hard to put faith in your numbers unless you tell us the constraints you specified for declarer.

[johnu]

Cascade, on 2014-March-15, 04:26, said:

However I feel that eight solid and out is possible - say 2821.

Or 9 solid and out, but then declarer should have 10 top tricks.

[Cascade]

cherdano, on 2014-March-15, 06:49, said:

It's hard to put faith in your numbers unless you tell us the constraints you specified for declarer.

Essentially around eight or more playing tricks with hearts as trumps given there is only one trick in dummy since I only searched for hands that could be defeated. Maybe some wouldn't bid game with some of those hands heme the subjective comment about the spade King.

In practice this means 8 near solid hearts with our without the ♠k.

Obviously the big problem with this sort of simulation is the subjectivity of deciding exactly what hands other players will bid on. In this hand those issues are lessened as the bidding and known cards do not (in my opinion) admit to much variation. Nevertheless simulations can give a base from which to make more informed decisions. Here we need to make a judgement about whether the a priori odds of partner having the spade King based on known suit lengths outweigh the liklihood of the opponent bidding 4♥ without that card. Already just based on requiring or decision to master for the defeat of the contract the odds from the simulation have reduced from the 6:2 odds based just on the relative suit lengths.

[Fluffy]

I would never bid 4♥ with the hand declarer did, now I reall he had to finesse ♥Q, so he only had AKJ and a King.

[Cascade]

Fluffy, on 2014-March-16, 00:52, said:

I would never bid 4♥ with the hand declarer did, now I reall he had to finesse ♥Q, so he only had AKJ and a King.

Only 7 hearts?

[Fluffy]

yes 2722