[louisg]

Scoring: IMP

1NT-2C
2H-2S
3NT-P

2S=4 cards, invitational

---

We play Rusinow leads, upside down attitude, standard count, reverse Smith echo.

T1: HT, K, 6, 3
T2: DK, 2, 6, 5
T3: D3, C2, DJ, DQ
T4: CA

Who (if anyone) is at fault?

[bluecalm]

Tough luck imo.
CA could be a good play if partner had KQ (AK AQxx AJxx xxx for declarer) and signalling clubs could be necessary if partner had Axx or even AQ (AJx AQxx AJxx xx for declarer)

Maybe it can be deduced that declarer can't have 18 count so partner either has Q♥ or A/K♠ and maybe Q♥ can be eliminated somehow. Still it's too complicated for me I wouldn't worry much about not getting it right.

[ashdown4]

I can only wish that all 3NTs I give away were this subtle.

West should probably assume that partner who has not doubled Stayman is more likely to have KJxxxx of clubs than KQxxxx. Not that West's next move is clear.

Just my $0.02..

Best regards,
Alex

[Jlall]

Wow I think the CA is a horrible play. Declarer has AQ AJ in the reds, and obviously a spade honor. We can count 3 hearts, 4 diamonds, and 1 spade. What is the point of playing the CA? Just continue to drive hearts. This is not a position where we need to be active.

We also know declarer is 4-4 in the reds, so 2443. This actual layout is not a surprise at all. The only possible hands for declarer are:

Ax
AQxx
AJxx
Qxx

Kx
AQxx
AJxx
Qxx

Ax
AQxx
AJxx
Jxx

(The spade x could be the ten or not, whatever). In all of these layouts, playing a heart will set them. In 2 of the 3 layouts, playing a club lets them make. In the last layout partner would probably have Xed 2C.

I have ignored any kind of 3442 shape because I think partner would at least X and possibly bid with 7 good clubs so it should be impossible, but even if declarer somehow is 3442 and we can run all the clubs, a passive heart still beats them.

[Tomi2]

partner discarded ♣2 ... if he had 6 tricks there, why would he throw one away?

[louisg]

Jlall, on May 11 2010, 11:52 PM, said:

The only possible hands for declarer are:

Ax
AQxx
AJxx
Qxx

Kx
AQxx
AJxx
Qxx

Ax
AQxx
AJxx
Jxx

(The spade x could be the ten or not, whatever). In all of these layouts, playing a heart will set them. In 2 of the 3 layouts, playing a club lets them make. In the last layout partner would probably have Xed 2C.

In your second layout playing a club does not let them make. Further, if South has the spade ten, a club is necessary if declarer is going to guess the spades. Likewise if South's clubs are Kxx. Would East have encouraged clubs with Axxx xx x QJxxxx? Something to think about.

I'm not saying that the CA is correct, just that there is more to this hand than you have considered.

[bluecalm]

Quote

Declarer has AQ AJ in the reds

Do we know that for sure ? Partner would play a 6 from Q6.

[Jlall]

louisg, on May 12 2010, 05:57 AM, said:

Jlall, on May 11 2010, 11:52 PM, said:

The only possible hands for declarer are:

Ax
AQxx
AJxx
Qxx

Kx
AQxx
AJxx
Qxx

Ax
AQxx
AJxx
Jxx

(The spade x could be the ten or not, whatever). In all of these layouts, playing a heart will set them. In 2 of the 3 layouts, playing a club lets them make. In the last layout partner would probably have Xed 2C.

In your second layout playing a club does not let them make. Further, if South has the spade ten, a club is necessary if declarer is going to guess the spades. Likewise if South's clubs are Kxx. Would East have encouraged clubs with Axxx xx x QJxxxx? Something to think about.

I'm not saying that the CA is correct, just that there is more to this hand than you have considered.

Yes ok we still beat it if they have SK CQ on a club shift.

I know that they are on a guess if they have the ST, but we have let them make 100 % on the club shift.

There is not really "more than I have considered" my point is that a heart is always right, and a club lets them make sometimes. It is not a hard hand. You don't always have to do something active on defense, sorry!

[gnasher]

I would have let this through even earlier, by doubling 2♣.

[Cascade]

Marshall Miles in his excellent book Defensive Signals suggest that an attitude discard should rarely be from the suit you want led.

Certainly on a different hand with fewer clubs east would not be able to afford to discard a club winner. Similarly at MPs a club discard is just throwing away a trick. And even at IMPs we might as well have the extra trick if we can.

Therefore I feel with great clubs east would often be able to discard a high spade - I suppose there are some exceptions - Jxxx might not look too attractive looking at four in the dummy.

And as Justin says at any rate passive is good here.

[Phil]

Less signals, more bridge!

[louisg]

Jlall, on May 12 2010, 02:19 PM, said:

louisg, on May 12 2010, 05:57 AM, said:

Jlall, on May 11 2010, 11:52 PM, said:

The only possible hands for declarer are:

Ax
AQxx
AJxx
Qxx

Kx
AQxx
AJxx
Qxx

Ax
AQxx
AJxx
Jxx

(The spade x could be the ten or not, whatever). In all of these layouts, playing a heart will set them. In 2 of the 3 layouts, playing a club lets them make. In the last layout partner would probably have Xed 2C.

In your second layout playing a club does not let them make. Further, if South has the spade ten, a club is necessary if declarer is going to guess the spades. Likewise if South's clubs are Kxx. Would East have encouraged clubs with Axxx xx x QJxxxx? Something to think about.

I'm not saying that the CA is correct, just that there is more to this hand than you have considered.

Yes ok we still beat it if they have SK CQ on a club shift.

I know that they are on a guess if they have the ST, but we have let them make 100 % on the club shift.

There is not really "more than I have considered" my point is that a heart is always right, and a club lets them make sometimes. It is not a hard hand. You don't always have to do something active on defense, sorry!

But a heart is not always right (KT AQxx AJxx K/Qxx). And should East, with spades bottled up, signal so emphatically for a club?