[wynsten]

I was East defending 3NT, led the spade Q, run to North's K. We defeated the contract but it can be made if declarer plays correctly to the second trick. Use double dummy analysis if you need to, to find the right line, but what is going on? Does this play have a name?

---

[mikeh]

To make one has to play double-dummy, which is not remotely the way real players play bridge. In the real world nobody would make this. Not because nobody is 'that good' but because the required line is idiotic. It happens to work but why not play for the club Q to be onside no more than Qxx? That has to be a far better line than the one that actually works.

[wynsten]

mikeh, on 2015-August-23, 01:38, said:

To make one has to play double-dummy, which is not remotely the way real players play bridge. In the real world nobody would make this. Not because nobody is 'that good' but because the required line is idiotic. It happens to work but why not play for the club Q to be onside no more than Qxx? That has to be a far better line than the one that actually works.

Sorry Mike - by "play correctly" I didn't mean that the winning play is correct single dummy play; I meant correct double dummy play, which looks, as you say, "idiotic". But there must be method in the double dummy madness. It doesn't "just happen to work". Why does the play work, and what might it be called? Perhaps, in the future, you will face a hand where it is the winning single dummy line.

[bgm]

In a very simple word it involve end-play(s).

One feature of this hand is that declarer has 8 obvious tricks after trick 1, but it seems that there are no communication to reach his ♦ winners if one try to establish one more ♣ after ♥ hook. If ♦ winners are cashed prematurely then it will set up enough setting tricks for the defender.

Trick 2 is very delicate - It require you to cash exactly 1 ♦ and discarding a low ♣ before exiting in ♠.

The play line varies afterward, depends on the defensive line. Suppose declarer cash 1 top ♣, stripping E ♣ before exiting in ♠.

Here are some variations in general afterward:

- W cannot over take as this will promote S ♠8 as the 9th trick. E will be eventually end-played as a stepping stone to reach N ♦ winners.
- Suppose E tries to attack ♦. Then declarer can hook in ♥, exit in ♠ again (keeping ♣). This will kill the communication in ♠.
- If E tries to attack with a top ♥ now, declarer can win and play ♣ from top, to establish ♣ and end-play W. Most other variation have this similar ending.
- If E continue attack ♦, declarer can try the same end-play, or stripping W ♥ and throw in W by ♠, which give ♣J as the 9th winner.
- If E attack ♥, declarer can counter similarly by playing ♠ again. Then E has no entry to reach the ♥ winner, and lead to a similar ending.
- If E cash ♠ first, the ending is similar.


Cashing 2nd ♦ at trick 3 is fatal as it gives tempo for E to establish ♦.

The interesting case is: if declarer not cashing ♦ at trick 2, just cash 1 top ♣ and exit in ♠.
Then E can win and attack with a top ♥. Then if declarer tries the similar line above, W can play back the 4th ♣ to end-play dummy instead after winning ♣Q. So it is crucial for declarer to unblock the ♣ by playing the ♦ early.

[dboxley]

mikeh, on 2015-August-23, 01:38, said:

To make one has to play double-dummy, which is not remotely the way real players play bridge. In the real world nobody would make this. Not because nobody is 'that good' but because the required line is idiotic. It happens to work but why not play for the club Q to be onside no more than Qxx? That has to be a far better line than the one that actually works.

I think the obvious intent was to post an interesting double dummy problem, which this was...
Wow! Over 10000 posts! Do you stop to eat?

[mikeh]

dboxley, on 2015-August-23, 16:31, said:

I think the obvious intent was to post an interesting double dummy problem, which this was...
Wow! Over 10000 posts! Do you stop to eat?

well, the OP stated that the declarer would have made if he had found the 'correct' play at trick one, which doesn't sound like inviting a double dummy analysis to me. I'm not claiming that such was not the OP intent, only that it didn't read that way to me.

Meanwhile, after going after me in several posts a month or more ago (including a gratuitous shot on a thread where I had not even posted!), and then insulting me on my profile page, you seemed to take a break from attacking me to the point of an almost apology on my profile....but your true colours are shining through again. You clearly have issues....you should seek help Or just put me on ignore....that way we will both be happy

[BillPatch]

mikeh-Congratulations on the over 10,000 posts. You are one of my favorite bridge writers, based entirely on these forums.