[jschafer]

---

IMP scoring, our side doesn't bid.

1♥-1NT (5+♠)
2♠-4♠

T1: Q♦, K♦, A♦,2♦
T2: 3♦, 5♦, J♦, T♦
T3: 9♦, 2♠, 4♦, 8♦
10 tricks

[gordontd]

jschafer, on 2010-December-20, 07:08, said:

---

IMP scoring, our side doesn't bid.

1♥-1NT (5+♠)
2♠-4♠

T1: Q♦, K♦, A♦,2♦
T2: 3♦, 5♦, J♦, T♦
T3: 9♦, 2♠, 4♦, 8♦
10 tricks

4♠ certainly seems like an overbid, but I imagine East will go on over 3♠ anyway.

I'm not sure how much blame there is to assign - it's not a lot worse than 50% (if they find the right lead). Were they vulnerable?

[mfa1010]

I assume you are asking about the defense.

South should shift to ♣A on the reasoning that partner would have shifted to clubs without the ♣K.
I don't see ♦3 as a lavinthal for clubs. I'm used to showing length there.

[rhm]

75% South, 25% North.

North could have switched to ♣ after trick one. North can see that most likely the defense will need at least one ♣ trick and either another ♣ trick or a ♥ trick.
This requires that South holds either the ♣ ace or the ♣ queen and the ♥ king.
A ♣ switch at trick 2 would only cost if declarer has ♠Kxx, ♥KJTxx ♦xx ♣AQx.

However what did South play for?
If North has a ♠ trick or a heart trick cashing the ♣ ace will not cost and might be crucial if North has the ♣ king.

Playing the ♣ ace will at worst obviate a guess in ♣ if declarer has something like ♠Kxx ♥ AQxxx, ♦xxx ♣Kx.
But declarer should get this guess right, since North would have switched to a low ♣ at trick two with something like ♠xx ♥Kxx ♦Axxxx ♣Axx

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

Nroth should switch to clubs

I can't understand why south wanted to play ruff and discard when north signaled 6 diamonds, but that's another question.

[Free]

Fluffy, on 2010-December-20, 08:18, said:

Nroth should switch to clubs

He definitely COULD switch, but why SHOULD he?

I blame South much more, he has ♣A and playing a 3rd round of ♦ is ridiculous imo.

[kenberg]

I am with so far everyone else in thinking that the club should be played at trick 3. Still, let me think of how S might have reasoned:

"North, my brilliant partner, if holding the king of clubs, would surely have switched to a club, he didn't switch, therefore he doesn't have the king of clubs. Giving the king of clubs to declarer, I will give the queens of hearts and clubs to partner and hope declarer misjudges."

Personally, I think this is far-fetched. But the hand is posted, and I presume S had an argument. I am guessing that it is along the lines of the above. It's not a crazy argument, but the phrase "overthinking a simple situation" comes to mind. But then I am looking at all the cards.

[mikeh]

I don't blame N for not switching to a club...yes, that switch would have worked and can be justified, but the diamond continuation ought not to end the defence when it matters.

We don't know the NS carding methods. In NA, where 4th best is the default agreement, the 3 was a major error at trick 2. It is normal to play the card that you would have led originally, assuming you were making a low 'from length' lead...hence when one's agreement is '4th best', one returns one's original 4th best.

If they were playing that agreement, then N was marked with 4 diamonds, and declarer was 'known' to be 3=5=4=1, so that S couldn't expect to beat the hand immediately via a club switch.

However, even if declarer held stiff K or Q, and so the A sets up a ruffing hook against N, so what? Is there any lie of the cards, consistent with E having an opening bid, on which the club A loses? I don't think so.

So I give S the vast majority of the blame, note that N may have contributed to some defeatism with S if the diamond 3 was an error, and note that N could have but shouldn't have had to save the partnership by a club play at trick 2.

[jschafer]

East is marked with a maximum of a 14-count or so. It looks like everyone here seems happy to just get it down 1, not more when East does't happen to have a maximal hand for his 2♠?

[Phil]

jschafer, on 2010-December-20, 10:26, said:

East is marked with a maximum of a 14-count or so. It looks like everyone here seems happy to just get it down 1, not more when East does't happen to have a maximal hand for his 2♠?

What hand did you have in mind for -2?

[jschafer]

I should have mentioned (sorry!) that the ♦3 shows 2 or 4 ♦ remaining (so another ♦ will just be passive drawing declarer's last ♦). I can't think of any scenario where a ♣ switch from N could cost as you could be losing your ♣ tricks you have but the ♥s aren't going anywhere. Even the hand with ♠Kxx ♥AQxxx ♦xx ♣AQx looks like you are making 1♦, 2♥ and a ♠?

I placed declarer with something like ♠Kxx ♥AKTxx ♦xxx ♣Kx. Without a ♦ now declarer might try AK♥ and a ♥ discarding a ♦? Or maybe something like ♠xxx ♥AKQTxx ♦xxx ♣Kx. Now declarer has a bit more trouble and could go down 2? Maybe I went overboard on this one trying to look for reasons why partner didn't return a ♣, but would everyone blaming South have made the ♦ return themselves?

[mfa1010]

jschafer, on 2010-December-20, 13:05, said:

I should have mentioned (sorry!) that the ♦3 shows 2 or 4 ♦ remaining (so another ♦ will just be passive drawing declarer's last ♦). I can't think of any scenario where a ♣ switch from N could cost as you could be losing your ♣ tricks you have but the ♥s aren't going anywhere. Even the hand with ♠Kxx ♥AQxxx ♦xx ♣AQx looks like you are making 1♦, 2♥ and a ♠?

I placed declarer with something like ♠Kxx ♥AKTxx ♦xxx ♣Kx. Without a ♦ now declarer might try AK♥ and a ♥ discarding a ♦? Or maybe something like ♠xxx ♥AKQTxx ♦xxx ♣Kx. Now declarer has a bit more trouble and could go down 2? Maybe I went overboard on this one trying to look for reasons why partner didn't return a ♣, but would everyone blaming South have made the ♦ return themselves?

No.
This is a defense that must not fail. We can't sit and watch declarer inhale his long heart suit while we're having ♣AK. Or ♣AQ where we can give him a guess. Both defenders know that. If north didn't have the ♣K it would be an outright mistake not to shift to clubs, since he would be out of entries. With ♥Hxx he risks getting finessed so holding a heart honour is no excuse for not playing clubs.
(Your last example hand has 14 cards. Going for down two is not the target here.)

[kenberg]

jschafer, on 2010-December-20, 13:05, said:

I placed declarer with something like ♠Kxx ♥AKTxx ♦xxx ♣Kx. Without a ♦ now declarer might try AK♥ and a ♥ discarding a ♦? Or maybe something like ♠xxx ♥AKQTxx ♦xxx ♣Kx. Now declarer has a bit more trouble and could go down 2? Maybe I went overboard on this one trying to look for reasons why partner didn't return a ♣, but would everyone blaming South have made the ♦ return themselves?

Wait. If I understand correctly, you don't mean this. You are S, right, since you are hypothetically placing the king of clubs with declarer. So there have been two rounds of diamonds and you are on lead. There are no more diamonds in dummy for declarer to pitch, and he wouldn't if there were.

After the diamond continuation ruffed on board, and giving him the hypothetical ♠Kxx ♥AKTxx ♦xxx ♣Kx, declarer has lost two tricks and knows he will lose a club. his simplest line would be to trust that spades are 3-2 and hearts are 3-3. Not likely, but it's the case. He has to make sure he can get to the hearts, but once he decides on 3-3 he can set up the hearts first. After that, if he guesses clubs right he makes: Five spades, four hearts, one club.

Knowing that the hearts are splitting for declarer surely should prompt urgency. In theory he might decide that the presented opportunity is some sort of Greek gift, but that's to deep for me.

[l milne]

If North had the ace or queen of clubs, he should switch. Not switching with the King is fine.

South 100%.

[gnasher]

jschafer, on 2010-December-20, 13:05, said:

I should have mentioned (sorry!) that the ♦3 shows 2 or 4 ♦ remaining (so another ♦ will just be passive drawing declarer's last ♦). I can't think of any scenario where a ♣ switch from N could cost as you could be losing your ♣ tricks you have but the ♥s aren't going anywhere. Even the hand with ♠Kxx ♥AQxxx ♦xx ♣AQx looks like you are making 1♦, 2♥ and a ♠?

From North's point of view, declarer could have Kxxx KJxxx xx AQ. Now a club lets it through.

[jschafer]

I can see why (as South), a ♣ switch rarely loses and think it is only fair to be assigned some of the blame for not doing so. However, I'm not quite sure I understand the assumption that it is okay to continue ♦s with the K♣ but not with A♣ or Q♣ (therefore partner must have the K♣ when he plays a ♦). Give declarer a similar hand like ♠K9x ♥AKQTx ♦x ♣Qxxx (or ♣xxxx) and not switching to ♣s just hands over the contract. A ♣ switch by North looked clear to me on this North hand. It seemed like a ♦ continuation meant there was no rush to play on ♣s and that he probably had a ♥ or ♠ stopper/entry somewhere (in which case it is down anyway). Now a ♣ switch by me would just save declarer guesses he may not always get right (eg. ♠xxx ♥AKQTx ♦xxx ♣Kx, had an extra ♥ in before). ♠K9x ♥AKTxx ♦xxx ♣Kx may make without the ♣A as kenberg suggested but always will if I play ♣A). Since almost everyone disagrees though I must be missing something....

This would all make more sense to me if someone would be so kind as to give me an explanation as to why a ♦ continuation may be necessary to defeat the contract

[jschafer]

gnasher, on 2010-December-21, 04:33, said:

From North's point of view, declarer could have Kxxx KJxxx xx AQ. Now a club lets it through.

Fair enough, that makes sense. Thanks!

[whereagles]

South 100%.

Looking at no heart stopper, he should reason declarer could well have hearts ready to go, so a club is necessary. If the club fails (say opener has Kx), then pard might still have a trump or heart trick.

In this situation it's easy to fall asleep though. It has certainly happened to me.