[cherdano]

---

Opponents play 4-card majors and weak NT, so assume declarer has 15-17 balanced with 5 spades and 2 hearts.

Your partner is on lead, you are West sitting behind dummy.

Partner leads ♣4 (4th best from Txxx or better.)
♣4-3-Q-A.
♥T-K-A-7.
♥J-?

[FrancesHinden]

 cherdano, on 2013-March-15, 18:36, said:

Opponents play 4-card majors and weak NT, so assume declarer has 15-17 balanced with 5 spades and 2 hearts.

That assumption isn't consistent with declarer's hand.
Either partner has led from a 3-card club suit (not consistent with your comment about the lead), or declarer has 4 diamonds (not consistent with 15-17 balanced) or 3 hearts (not consistent with '2 hearts').
So the first thing I want to know is if declarer would consider something like AKxxx 10x Axxx Ax to be 'balanced'

p.s. what's the form of scoring? this is relevant

[cherdano]

 FrancesHinden, on 2013-March-16, 04:13, said:

That assumption isn't consistent with declarer's hand.
Either partner has led from a 3-card club suit (not consistent with your comment about the lead), or declarer has 4 diamonds (not consistent with 15-17 balanced) or 3 hearts (not consistent with '2 hearts').
So the first thing I want to know is if declarer would consider something like AKxxx 10x Axxx Ax to be 'balanced'

p.s. what's the form of scoring? this is relevant

Yes, declarer would consider 5242 balanced. What I meant to write is that with two 4-card suits, they would open the lower-ranking, so 2NT shows strong NT values and 5 spades unless 4333. I assume declarer would raise with 3 hearts.
(In fact, the UK crowd probably has a better idea of the bidding than me just based on "weak NT, 4-card majors, North is fairly weak".)
It was total points, but feel free to translate that to IMPs.

[y66]

HQ then D2 hoping to take a heart, 2 clubs and 2 diamonds.

I think pard is somewhat more likely to have a diamond honor than a spade honor.

Edit: The chance of pard having a top spade honor vs a top diamond honor is 4/7 vs 3/7 since he has 4 vacant spaces in spades and 3 vacant spaces in diamonds. So, HQ then S2 (not D2).

[FrancesHinden]

OK, so declarer is 5242.
I voted for 'duck' because that's would I would reflexively; declarer and partner's discard will be useful information on the next heart.
It's quite hard to see how ducking lets the contract through (although I'm sure it's possible to construct a hand).

So I duck.

I'll win the next heart and decide after I see what partner plays. He should tell me if he doesn't have a diamond honour.

By the way, I'm not confident that the CQ was right at trick 1. If partner has really led 4th highest then he either has 10964, A964 or A1064 (or possibly A1094 unless you'd lead the 10 from that). I'm not certain it was wrong, either, mind you.

[Free]

The only way I see to defeat this contract is if we ruin communications. Declarer is trying to setup ♥ (or maybe just his 9th trick (1♣, 1♦, 2♥ and 5♠ - having communication in ♦ to cash his ♠s). Give partner something like ♠Txxx and the ♦K and it's necessary to break declarer's communication. Take ♥Q and switch to a ♦.

[inquiry]

Not a guess. Win heart Queen and return a high spade.

[gnasher]

If all 5242s in range would rebid 2NT, it's a guess. Against AKJxx 10x Axxx A9 we have to switch to a diamond to break up communications (as suggested by Free). Against AJxxx 10x AKxx A9 we have to switch to a spade, cash two clubs, then exit with a spade. (On the second layout we can afford to duck the heart, assuming declarer doesn't have ♠10.)

If he was also allowed to bid 3♦ on this shape (as he would be in most English Acol partnerships), I'd switch to a diamond, because the 2NT bid looks awful on that second hand.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-March-18, 03:19

[rhm]

 FrancesHinden, on 2013-March-16, 04:13, said:

That assumption isn't consistent with declarer's hand.
Either partner has led from a 3-card club suit (not consistent with your comment about the lead)

This is a type of argument, which is dubious.
I understand Cherdano comment to mean they have agreed to fourth best.
It does not mean the ♣4 has to be from a four card suit. At the table you do not know this either.
The lead could be from ♣T42 or maybe even from ♣42

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

It could be from 1042, but it's not likely that partner would choose a 3-card club suit instead of a 4-card diamond suit, especially holding ♥Kx under dummy. A small doubleton lead seems even less likely.

Edit: On second thoughts, perhaps partner could be 5233, and declarer 4243?

[rhm]

 gnasher, on 2013-March-18, 06:03, said:

It could be from 1042, but it's not likely that partner would choose a 3-card club suit instead of a 4-card diamond suit, especially holding ♥Kx under dummy. A small doubleton lead seems even less likely.

Edit: On second thoughts, perhaps partner could be 5233, and declarer 4243?

Not sure if I have spades bottled up and expect my partner to have hearts I would lead from ♦Axxx or ♦Kxxx against this bidding.
Passive leads are underrated against 3NT when opponents have searched for a fit and not found one.

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

 rhm, on 2013-March-18, 06:19, said:

Not sure if I have spades bottled up and expect my partner to have hearts I would lead from ♦Axxx or ♦Kxxx against this bidding.
Passive leads are underrated against 3NT when opponents have searched for a fit and not found one.

If so, that's another argument for a diamond switch.

[PhilKing]

 gnasher, on 2013-March-18, 03:17, said:

If all 5242s in range would rebid 2NT, it's a guess. Against AKJxx 10x Axxx A9 we have to switch to a diamond to break up communications (as suggested by Free). Against AJxxx 10x AKxx A9 we have to switch to a spade, cash two clubs, then exit with a spade. (On the second layout we can afford to duck the heart, assuming declarer doesn't have ♠10.)

If he was also allowed to bid 3♦ on this shape (as he would be in most English Acol partnerships), I'd switch to a diamond, because the 2NT bid looks awful on that second hand.

I think the diamond is indicated for another reason - declarer's line looks very odd if he has the second hand you quote. I think at the very least, he should start with a low heart from hand. On the first, leading the ten is also "wrong", but he may just think he has loads of tricks and hasn't spotted the transportation problem.

[rhm]

 gnasher, on 2013-March-18, 06:54, said:

If so, that's another argument for a diamond switch.

Yes, I think it is not a guess.
Restricted choice on the opening lead argues that a diamond is more likely to be right than a spade

Rainer Herrmann