[Phil]

---

Here's a hand from the 1Q of the Spingold Final. West leads the ♦K, 3, 2, 4. He thinks about it for awhile and continues a diamond which you ruff.

Plan the play.

[nige1]

Phil wrote "Here's a hand from the 1Q of the Spingold Final. West leads the ♦K, 3, 2, 4. He thinks about it for awhile and continues a diamond which you ruff. Plan the play."


My guess (a line that caters for ♠ 4-0 and ♥ 5-1 but loses to singleton ♠Q ) : Ruff ♦, ♥Q, run ♠9, finesse ♠T, ♠A, ruff ♥, ♠K chucking ♣, ♣A. Claim.

---

Amusingly, If LHO were 4-6-1-2 with ♣KQ and RHO played two rounds of ♦ then...

• The second ♦ would squeeze LHO fratricidally, at trick two.
• Assuming that LHO discards a trump, the ♠K later squeezes LHO in the round suits.

[vianu2]

West just led the k ♦ followed by another and obviously can't be squeezed by himself at this tric. E bid the ♦ so it would be strange to miss KQ♣.
Of course if E opens some 3♦ for example (don't know his hand) Zia will never be forced to decide how to make this slam.
Play for 1(0)-1-8-3(4) ruf the ♦, ♥ to Q, finesse ♠ (jack to dummy) take all 3 spades, ruf a ♥ and take the last trump then ace ♣.
Is that so bad?

[Hanoi5]

I wonder whether West hesitated during the bidding or something.

[nige1]

Hanoi5, on 2011-August-01, 07:11, said:

I wonder whether West hesitated during the bidding or something.

I didn't watch this session, so I don't know what works in practice. But we're told that LHO tanked at trick two, ignored his partner's club signal and led a diamond instead, so there is a vague inference that he is trying to protect ♠Qxxx by putting declarer to an immediate trump guess. Of course, he may simply be protecting his partner's singleton ♠Q.

[vianu2]

nige1, on 2011-August-01, 09:20, said:

I didn't watch this session, so I don;t know what works in practice. But we're told that LHO tanked at trick two, ignored his partner's club signal and led a diamond instead, so there is a vague inference that he is trying to protect ♠Qxxx by putting declarer to an immediate trump guess. Of course, he may simply be protecting his partner's singleton ♠Q

It cant be!!!
Returning ♣ u allow declarer to play ♠ from dummy and u don't protect the Q♠ !! No matter u have xxx ♠ or qxxx u must return ♦.

[vianu2]

Phil, on 2011-July-31, 22:01, said:

Plan the play.

who had the q♠ btw?? Please

[gszes]

I dont know how this hand is layed out BUT
I dont like it one bit. With 4 spades it is
EASY to continue dia from the w seat not caring
one whit if it gives up a ruff and sluff. Why
would it take W so long to find such a play??

Thats one another strike against 40 trumps
why would E need W to make a club switch if
they have the presumed club KQ and AQJ dia????
That makes no sense they would simply overtake
and make the club switch themselves.

It appears E has something akin to
Qx x AQJxxxxx Kx and w
xx Txxxx Kx Qxxx

W trying to represent long spades by making an
apparently risky dia play. W is pretty sure
12 tricks are making unless p has trump Q
(counting 5 hearts 5 spades club A and dia ruff)
and dia play best chance to lead declarer astray.

a third strike against 40 trumps is with say
void x AQJxxxxx Kxxx would E not even consider
a 5c bid (after the 4n bid)? vulnerability not
shown so i am only speculating.

[nige1]

gszes, on 2011-August-01, 19:17, said:

I dont know how this hand is laid out BUT I dont like it one bit. With 4 spades it is EASY to continue dia from the w seat not caring one whit if it gives up a ruff and sluff. Why would it take W so long to find such a play??

If LHO holds 4♠ and 5♥, perhaps, he should take a little longer Then LHO's best defence may be to cash ♦K and switch to a ♣, hoping that RHO has ♣K and declarer is a trick short

[vianu2]

gszes, on 2011-August-01, 19:17, said:

I dont know how this hand is layed out BUT
I dont like it one bit. With 4 spades it is
EASY to continue dia from the w seat not caring
one whit if it gives up a ruff and sluff. Why
would it take W so long to find such a play??

Interesting analyze. So we should plan our declarer taking care of opps hesitations too?
Now when i know W took long time to back another ♦..i want to review my declarer Got the lesson.

[gnasher]

gszes, on 2011-August-01, 19:17, said:

It appears E has something akin to
Qx x AQJxxxxx Kx and w
xx Txxxx Kx Qxxx

Doesn't that West hand look like a negative double?

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2011-August-02, 04:14, said:

Doesn't that West hand look like a negative double?

The hand is not exactly what Zia held.
Zia had QTx in ♦ and only 4 cards in ♣.
So overtaking in ♦ was not an option for East.

Rainer Herrmann

[Phil]

rhm, on 2011-August-02, 04:58, said:

The hand is not exactly what Zia held.
Zia had QTx in ♦ and only 4 cards in ♣.
So overtaking in ♦ was not an option for East.

Rainer Herrmann

This is correct. I had inputed the hands from memory and South definitely held ♦QTx. Sorry for the error.

[Phil]

I thought this was a fun hand to watch. Zimmermann made a nice play of tapping dummy at T2 which removed an option for declarer to check for ♠Q stiff.

In a vacuum, "xxx/Q">"Qxxx/void", but with diamonds a likely 7-2 (sorry about the original diagram), the chances 4-0 split exceed the specific 3-1. I played around with this on rpbridge.net's suit calculator and as long as East has more vacant spaces than West, its best to take a 1st round finesse.

This hand reminds me a lot of Case 20 from: Las Vegas Casebook

This deal was played in the 1st day of the LM's which was the 1st NABC event I played in after a long layoff. Our auction was 1♥ - (4♦) - 4♠ - AP. Bocchi played in 4♠ against me and made 6 after my partner shifted to a club at T2. After the hand, he commented on what would have happened if partner chose to tap dummy at T2 and that he would have had a guess.