[Phil]

---

The OL is a low club. PTP.

[BunnyGo]

Phil, on 2011-October-01, 05:28, said:

---

The OL is a low club. PTP.

Pitching a heart, and playing A and another spade works on all 2-2 and 3-1 trump splits. Is it worth varying this to cater to 4-0 splits? 4 spades in RHO will succeed the same way, but 4 spades in LHO will go down on A and another spade.

I think it's the best I can do.

[Hanoi5]

KT83 in LHO is unmanageable unless you see his/her cards and play a small spade to the 7. Finessing seems normal so the only problem is losing to the king and having a diamond returned for a ruff so I suppose a spade to the Ace and another spade is the right play.

Edit:
Oh! You could play a small spade from North towards the Q. But if RHO plays low and you insert the queen you lose to KTxx in East. Was there any pause after you bid 6? Could the lead from a club honour mean that West holds a 'possible' spade trick? Or could it just be asking for a diamond switch if partner gets the hand? I stand by Ace and another.

[Phil]

Hanoi5, on 2011-October-01, 06:19, said:

KT83 in LHO is unmanageable unless you see his/her cards and play a small spade to the 7. Finessing seems normal so the only problem is losing to the king and having a diamond returned for a ruff so I suppose a spade to the Ace and another spade is the right play.

Edit:
Oh! You could play a small spade from North towards the Q. But if RHO plays low and you insert the queen you lose to KTxx in East. Was there any pause after you bid 6? Could the lead from a club honour mean that West holds a 'possible' spade trick? Or could it just be asking for a diamond switch if partner gets the hand? I stand by Ace and another.

You are thinking along some correct lines, but look at the card combination again in trump again. I'm trying to see if anyone can figure out a compelling reason to play one opponent over the other for the spade length.

Also, since this isn't getting a lot of interest, I'd like to hear other's opinions about how best to play this in MPs.

[pooltuna]

assuming IMPs pitch a ♥, play a ♠ to A and another

[han]

I see a compelling reason to play a low spade towards the jack: if LHO has Kx you make an overtrick.

If LHO shows out on the first spade you have no problem, so the most you lose is a chance for a diamond ruff.

The safety play that wins (almost) nothing but loses the overtrick on very common holdings looks sexy but in the long run it's too costly.

[han]

BTW, I think that east is more likely to hold 4 spades, with a void east might have been able to bid hearts.

[han]

BTW2, what premier league is this?

[gnasher]

han, on 2011-October-01, 14:57, said:

BTW2, what premier league is this?

The English one.

[Phil]

Tom Townsend played this against Frances.

If trump are 2-2 or 3-1, there isn't a problem unless RHO can get in and find a surprise diamond ruff, but that is unlikely. You can take a safety play against one opponent, but not both. I think there is a reason to choose RHO and not play the ♠Q from hand. Why?

If a good player held ♠KT83 and was on opening lead, its quite possible that declarer has a safety play available. Leading a diamond would open up a possibility of a losing a trump finesse and then a diamond ruff so declarer would be more inclined to play ♠A, ♠.

Here, since declarer didn't get a diamond lead, I would be inclined not to want to safety though LHO but would want to through RHO as a result.

[han]

I don't buy this argument at all. If you hold K108x of trumps on this auction, perhaps you can force dummy to ruff a club or heart? You know dummy is short in at least one of these suits, and you don't expect dummy to hold 5 spades. Why wouldn't opening leader lead away from the club king or queen hoping for this instead of swindeling the opponents into not taking a satefy play?

If you play your hands on the assumption that your opponents find all briliantly deceptive opening leads you are going to be disappointed quite often, even in the English premier league.

[Phil]

han, on 2011-October-03, 09:51, said:

I don't buy this argument at all. If you hold K108x of trumps on this auction, perhaps you can force dummy to ruff a club or heart?

And how do you propose we do that? Leading over to partner's Ace (that he doesn't have) and having partner lead a 2nd high card in the suit (that he doesn't have either).

Quote

You know dummy is short in at least one of these suits, and you don't expect dummy to hold 5 spades.

True, but the point is equally valid when the trump holding is AQ7x / AJ7x opposite J9xxx / Q9xxx

Quote

Why wouldn't opening leader lead away from the club king or queen hoping for this instead of swindeling the opponents into not taking a satefy play?

This is a good reason for making an attacking lead. Its not a valid reason to eschew a safety play. However, if you are looking at KT8x, how aggressive do you need to be?

Quote

If you play your hands on the assumption that your opponents find all briliantly deceptive opening leads you are going to be disappointed quite often, even in the English premier league.

At what point does an opening lead like a diamond stop becoming brilliant, and start becoming standard for a good player? I have seen Fred Gitelman make a similar lead on at least two occasions (maybe he remembers) - once I think he held KQx under dummy's presumed ace into a nine card fit and he made a phony shortness lead.

[BunnyGo]

Phil, on 2011-October-03, 01:33, said:

Tom Townsend played this against Frances.

If trump are 2-2 or 3-1, there isn't a problem unless RHO can get in and find a surprise diamond ruff, but that is unlikely. You can take a safety play against one opponent, but not both. I think there is a reason to choose RHO and not play the ♠Q from hand. Why?

If a good player held ♠KT83 and was on opening lead, its quite possible that declarer has a safety play available. Leading a diamond would open up a possibility of a losing a trump finesse and then a diamond ruff so declarer would be more inclined to play ♠A, ♠.

Here, since declarer didn't get a diamond lead, I would be inclined not to want to safety though LHO but would want to through RHO as a result.

Sorry, you're suggesting leading the Q and letting it run as a safety play? And if you lose to the king and then a diamond ruff? Ok, I dunno which is more likely (K offsides with 5-0 diamonds or 4 spades onside), but I just wanted to make sure this is what you were proposing.

[FrancesHinden]

The 4♦ rebid was alerted and explained by North to West as showing a heart splinter. So a club lead is pretty much expected on this auction under what you might think to be 'normal circumstances': if West has a spade void, you will usually get a club lead because that's the most likely suit where a trick can be set up if the missing keycard is a side-suit ace (or the king of trumps).

Mind you, this inference is actually not available to declarer, because he hadn't read that part of the notes and thought 4D was the 'traditional' strong 4-6 type hand.

[Phil]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-October-03, 13:11, said:

The 4♦ rebid was alerted and explained by North to West as showing a heart splinter. So a club lead is pretty much expected on this auction under what you might think to be 'normal circumstances': if West has a spade void, you will usually get a club lead because that's the most likely suit where a trick can be set up if the missing keycard is a side-suit ace (or the king of trumps).

Mind you, this inference is actually not available to declarer, because he hadn't read that part of the notes and thought 4D was the 'traditional' strong 4-6 type hand.

Thanks Frances. I was hoping you would check in on this.

Given that you held ♠KT3 as I recall, I think the deal was played under 'normal circumstances' (no adverse trump split) so a club lead is normal. I like this hand for the theoretical aspects related to the safety plan and the inferences related to the diamond lead.

Geoffrey at the other table made 7 by running the Q and then finessing against the 10 once the 8 appeared. Which this works as a safety play against your hand, once his RHO plays the 8 I thought his best line for 13 is to play to drop T-8 offside.
Did you ask him about this? The 8 and 3 do not appear to be equals on this deal, so RC shouldn't apply.

[gnasher]

KTx-x is less likely than Kx-10x - it's roughly 48% instead of 52%. Maybe Jeffrey had some extra information. The hand sitting over the diamonds was x K9xx xx K98xxx. Facing a passed partner at favourable, he might well bid 3♣.

[jallerton]

Phil, on 2011-October-03, 15:08, said:

Geoffrey at the other table made 7 by running the Q and then finessing against the 10 once the 8 appeared. Which this works as a safety play against your hand, once his RHO plays the 8 I thought his best line for 13 is to play to drop T-8 offside.
Did you ask him about this? The 8 and 3 do not appear to be equals on this deal, so RC shouldn't apply.

A frequent vugraph commentator by the name of Geoffrey might well have advocated the line for 13 tricks because he seems to have GIB permanently turned on.

The player by the name of Jeffrey who was declaring this hand received a heart lead to the J,K and A and then started with low spade to the jack, finishing with 12 tricks. This is an annoying spade suit because you know the contract can always be made if you take the right view, but there is no 100% line available. Low to the J is technically better than starting with the Q because the former still gives you an outside chance of making when the suit transpires to be 4-0 the "wrong" way. For example, if LHO is 4333 he has to follow whilst you cash side suit winners and shorten trumps, then he gets thrown in at trick 11 to lead into the divided tenace.

What about starting with the ace? Low to the A has the advantage of avoiding the outside chance of a diamond ruff, but gives up on the above endplay and reduces the chance of an overtrick. So which is better? If you expect the contract to be in the same in the other room, then I agree with Han that you will maximise your expected IMPs by taking the best line for the overtrick. I would expect most opponents to get to 6♠. However, in practice there is a chance that they won't get there and here lies the complication; if you go off in 6♠ when the other table is in either game or grand slam, your team-mates may not be pleased with your line of play.

[paulg]

han, on 2011-October-03, 09:51, said:

If you play your hands on the assumption that your opponents find all briliantly deceptive opening leads you are going to be disappointed quite often, even in the English premier league.

Commonplace in the second division. However it is deceptive in the sense of seeming to be a desire to let the contract make.

[phil_20686]

gnasher, on 2011-October-04, 01:46, said:

KTx-x is less likely than Kx-10x - it's roughly 48% instead of 52%. Maybe Jeffrey had some extra information. The hand sitting over the diamonds was x K9xx xx K98xxx. Facing a passed partner at favourable, he might well bid 3♣.

I discussed this with some other players who played this hand in grand. While small to the J is % for 13 tricks, running the Q might work as it is not clear for the opposition to cover or not - with 5 in the dummy it would be wrong to cover when declarer has 6 spades as he will be playing to go up with the ace anyway. Depending on the auction that might be enough to swing it. Certainly covering never gains if south has 5 spades, which might seem quite likely on many auctions.