[foobar]

Against WC silent opps, you arrive in 6♠

---

Opening lead is A♦, ruffed by South.

You draw trumps, West having four and E pitching ♦s. You play three rounds of ♥s, East having two and pitching one more ♦.

What next?

Hint: This hand is has a unusual solution, and is more bemusing than anything else, but it would be interesting to see if someone can guess the layout.

[smerriman]

(I assume by draw trumps you mean play the top 3, leaving the J with West).

Well, I'm stumped. If clubs break 3-2, we just play clubs from the top and make 12 tricks. So I'm guessing we're meant to figure something out when West has 1 club.

West therefore has 3 diamonds. So ruffing a diamond now (or after cashing 1 club) won't help; West will just ruff the second club and play a diamond or heart winner. Playing two top clubs doesn't work; West will again ruff and return a heart or diamond, after which we'll lose another club.

Playing the club Ace, seeing the J or T drop from West, and then running the 9 doesn't help either; West can just discard a diamond and we're down 2 (even if he ruffs we're down 1).

If we had kept the heart Ace, then that last line does work. But given that we didn't, I don't see anything other than hoping for a 3-2 break.

[0deary]

“You draw trumps” hence JS dropped singleton with East, so it’s a problem now if East was 1255. Could still make it if North had the 8 and South the 9 clubs?....

[FelicityR]

West should have ♦AK on the lead - given that dummy has bid ♦s - and 4 small ♠ so is more likely to have a singleton ♣. If South has four ♣s to JTxx, then after the cards that have been played isn't it always going down? I'll be interested in the solution as I cannot see one, not being expert level myself.

[thearb]

I was dummy on this hand, at the other table declarer had a much easier ride on a heart lead. In case Foobar is asleep and to save you going up a blind alley, I can confirm E did have a singleton SJ. And you also shouldn't assume that the lead of an ace against a slam guarantees the King. W made a very good lead, 14 IMPS swung on this deal and as we lost by 20 IMPs, it was a reasonably close match.

[Cyberyeti]

Cashing the hearts is terrible, you must play clubs first. I also don't think I draw all the trumps.

[gszes]

Spoiler

I was the moron that led a heart (after different bidding) I did not look at the hand since it seemed routine at our table. My guess here is that the squeeze is already in place and after the 3rd heart dummy needs to underlead from Q9 of diamonds hoping to find rho with the now stiff dia K and 4 clubs. The dia Q then becomes trick 12 via 5s 3h 1d 3c. ummmm I wont find this at the table any more than i found a dia lead.

[nige1]

foobar, on 2018-March-31, 16:37, said:

Against WC silent opps, you arrive in 6♠. Opening lead is A♦, ruffed by South. You draw trumps, West having four and E pitching ♦s. You play three rounds of ♥s, East having two and pitching one more ♦. What next?
Hint: This hand is has a unusual solution, and is more bemusing than anything else, but it would be interesting to see if someone can guess the layout.

After ruffing the opening ♦ lead, you cash 4 ♠s and 3 ♥s.. As Gszes points out, this squeezes RHO down to ♦K and 4 ♣s. If LHO is void in ♣s, when you cross to ♣A, it becomes apparent that your only chance is to duck a ♦.
Notice that to make the contract, you do not need to hold the ♣9 or ♣8, on this layout.
If RHO's original shape was 1264, it's harder to guess right.

---

Suppose the layout is like this. On ♦A lead, after ruffing and cashing major winners to reach a similar ending, you can still succeed on a stepping-stone squeeze.
You cross to ♣A, dropping LHO's ♣T, cash ♣Q, and advance ♣9. RHO does not cover but you put him in with a ♦ to gain access to your ♣K.

---

[Cyberyeti]

Nigel, do you lose ANYTHING by playing a club at trick 2 ? which is what I'd do.

[FelicityR]

thearb, on 2018-April-01, 04:55, said:

I was dummy on this hand, at the other table declarer had a much easier ride on a heart lead. In case Foobar is asleep and to save you going up a blind alley, I can confirm E did have a singleton SJ. And you also shouldn't assume that the lead of an ace against a slam guarantees the King. W made a very good lead, 14 IMPS swung on this deal and as we lost by 20 IMPs, it was a reasonably close match.

So you're saying that there was a possibility that West led an unsupported ace against the slam? That could be a disaster if dummy turns up with a better ♦ suit than bid as the lead gets ruffed and there is always an added possibility partner could be subject to a ruffing finesse to set up winners. I do realise that cashing an ace on trick 1 against a small slam is popular these days, but given that dummy has bid ♦s, it could give a tempo to declarer if he is void, too. I don't think it is so moronic (as gszes puts it) to lead the unbid suit ♥s.

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-April-01, 08:33, said:

Nigel, do you lose ANYTHING by playing a club at trick 2 ? which is what I'd do.

Rarely but, for example, LHO might be void (as in my 1st layout, above).

[Cyberyeti]

nige1, on 2018-April-01, 08:54, said:

Rarely but, for example, LHO might be void (as in my 1st layout, above).

But I think you're OK if he ruffs a loser as now you don't play hearts

Example, he ruffs and plays another diamond, you ruff, heart to dummy, ruff a third diamond, draw trumps, cash ♣AQ and the 4th diamond goes on ♣K as you still have a heart entry.

[nekthen]

FelicityR, on 2018-April-01, 08:44, said:

So you're saying that there was a possibility that West led an unsupported ace against the slam? That could be a disaster if dummy turns up with a better ♦ suit than bid as the lead gets ruffed and there is always an added possibility partner could be subject to a ruffing finesse to set up winners. I do realise that cashing an ace on trick 1 against a small slam is popular these days, but given that dummy has bid ♦s, it could give a tempo to declarer if he is void, too. I don't think it is so moronic (as gszes puts it) to lead the unbid suit ♥s.

So the way to get this contract down, is the even more unusual lead of a low diamond, trusting partner to put in the ten if dummy plays low?

[thearb]

FelicityR, on 2018-April-01, 08:44, said:

So you're saying that there was a possibility that West led an unsupported ace against the slam? That could be a disaster if dummy turns up with a better ♦ suit than bid as the lead gets ruffed and there is always an added possibility partner could be subject to a ruffing finesse to set up winners. I do realise that cashing an ace on trick 1 against a small slam is popular these days, but given that dummy has bid ♦s, it could give a tempo to declarer if he is void, too. I don't think it is so moronic (as gszes puts it) to lead the unbid suit ♥s.

Flix,

Sometimes leading an unsupported ace is the only way to beat a slam. No need to look far to find an example deal! There are no rules as such, much will depend on the auction and the competency of your opposition. I would you commend to David Bird's books on opening leads. At MPs it is often the case that grabbing your trick at trick 1 is the only time you will get it. The leader may have taken the view that the K was likely on his left anyway. Much depends on the other suits and your holding in those suits. It is as important to lead the right suit as to lead the right card from that suit. There is no right or wrong, there are too many variables. Bridge is a game of percentages - rules are really guidelines.

The situation is entirely different defending 6NT when a passive lead becomes much more attractive.

[foobar]

nige1, on 2018-April-01, 07:45, said:

After ruffing the opening ♦ lead, you cash 4 ♠s and 3 ♥s.. As Gszes points out, this squeezes RHO down to ♦K and 4 ♣s. If LHO is void in ♣s, when you cross to ♣A, it becomes apparent that your only chance is to duck a ♦. If RHO's original shape was 1264, it's harder to guess right.

---

Suppose the layout is like this. On ♦A lead, after ruffing and cashing major winners to reach a similar ending, you can still succeed on a stepping-stone squeeze.
You cross to ♣A, dropping LHO's ♣T, cash ♣Q, and advance ♣9. RHO does not cover but you put him in with a ♦ to gain access to your ♣K.

---

Spoiler

Anyone who plays for layout #2 takes home the cake, but chalk one up for a brilliant lead by West.

[Cyberyeti]

As I thought, simply playing AQ♣ at tricks 2 and 3 is good enough

[thearb]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-April-01, 17:51, said:

As I thought, simply playing AQ♣ at tricks 2 and 3 is good enough

Yes you still make on this layout doing that, but only because the AK diamonds are in opposite hands. But you will go down if he has led from AKxx diamonds as you now have no play, he will ruff your high club and exit a trump or heart and wait - whereas declarer's line works on any layout where he can pick up the clubs even if trumps are 4-1.

[Cyberyeti]

thearb, on 2018-April-02, 02:22, said:

Yes you still make on this layout doing that, but only because the AK diamonds are in opposite hands. But you will go down if he has led from AKxx diamonds as you now have no play, he will ruff your high club and exit a trump or heart and wait - whereas declarer's line works on any layout where he can pick up the clubs even if trumps are 4-1.

Nope, I can now draw trumps finishing in dummy, run the ♣9 and my hand is high. Note I only play the second high club if I see J or 10 from W on the first round and yes he can mess me up from J10xx.

[maartenxq]

foobar, on 2018-March-31, 16:37, said:

Hint: This hand is has a unusual solution, and is more bemusing than anything else, but it would be interesting to see if someone can guess the layout.

Given that we failed to bid 7 ♠ we now play a dummy reversal, ruffing all ♦and not touching trumps.

Maarten Baltussen

[thearb]

Cyberyeti, on 2018-April-02, 05:58, said:

Nope, I can now draw trumps finishing in dummy, run the ♣9 and my hand is high. Note I only play the second high club if I see J or 10 from W on the first round and yes he can mess me up from J10xx.

Nope. Not what you said earlier, you've changed your line. You said "As I thought, simply playing AQ♣ at tricks 2 and 3 is good enough"

Turns out that doesn't work after all. Now you are saying something entirely different.

You should think about changing your handle to Harry Hindsight.