[mikeh]

 nige1, on 2020-July-11, 11:24, said:

Taking up the gauntlet grasping at straws and assuming layouts like FelicityR's Start ♦ ruff, ♣A, ♦ ruff
- If West has singleton ♣Q, then run ♠J unless covered.
- Otherwise cash ♣K. If West follows with ♣Q then run ♠J unless covered.
- If West has singleton ♣T then the defence can usually succeed (e.g. if West has 2 black singletons and ♥K, then he can exit in ♦s -- the ruff-sluff is useless to declarer)
- But if West has a ♠ void, (e.g. as on left) then you can ruff out ♣Q, cross to ♥A, cash your good ♣ and take the ♠ finesse.
- Otherwise hope ♠ 2-1 and either ♣ 3-3 or East is end-played

---

Imagine you are west. You hold void KJx AQ10xxxxxx x

You open 1D, LHO doubles, partner bids 1N

How many diamonds does he have?

How many spades does he have?

What is a typical heart holding for 1N?

And your bid after rho doubles 1N is?

2D?????

In an expert game?

Gimme a break.

[nullve]

West didn't have nine diamonds.

[pilowsky]

Ok, here's my inexpert guess. They're playing Precision. 1♦ shows 11+ not necessarily much to do with diamonds.
The hand looks (something) like this:

---

West bangs down the ♦Ace, but the contract makes on any lead. At least this layout does .

[mikeh]

 pilowsky, on 2020-July-11, 20:10, said:

Ok, here's my inexpert guess. They're playing Precision. 1♦ shows 11+ not necessarily much to do with diamonds.
The hand looks (something) like this:

---

West bangs down the ♦Ace, but the contract makes on any lead. At least this layout does .

I guess you’d bid 1N with that responding hand but nobody else would, lol.

[pilowsky]

It's a fair point, Mike. A few months ago I bid 1NT with a similar hand and at the end, Mrs women's champion, sitting South, turned to my partner (West) and with a snarl on her face said "He's got both majors!!!". Inexpert indeed. My Mother also said I was trying. I guess I should have been a lawyer . Mind you, "nobody" is a very strong word. I like to tolerate a little ambiguity.

[nige1]

Nullve says "West didn't have nine diamonds."
++++++++++++++++
Those were just extreme examples of classes of makeable distributions.
On the left is a milder example ...
After ♦ ruff, ♣A, ♦ ruff, ♣K, you might as well advance ♣J.
If East ducks, then, on a good day, you might take a successful view and run it.
But if East covers, then you continue with the previously suggested line. i.e.
ruff, ♥A, ♣9, ♠ finesse.

---

[Cyberyeti]

 nige1, on 2020-July-12, 01:58, said:

Nullve says "West didn't have nine diamonds."
++++++++++++++++
Those were just extreme examples of classes of makeable distributions.
On the left is a milder example ...
After ♦ ruff, ♣A, ♦ ruff, ♣K, you might as well advance ♣J.
If East ducks, then, on a good day, you might take a successful view and run it.
But if East covers, then you continue with the previously suggested line. i.e.
♥A, ♣9, ♠ finesse.

---

Swap a small spade and a small heart and you look rather silly.

[nige1]

Cyberyeti "Swap a small spade and a small heart and you look rather silly."
++++++++++++++++

Or ♣ 3-3 and ♠ 2-1
Story of my life
But you can survive if East has a singleton ♠ honour
See layout on left.
Remember: you start ♦ ruff, ♣A, ♦ ruff, ♣K.
Now, you take the view to successfully ruff-finesse ♣J
West can (over)-ruff and exit in ♦s. but you ruff in hand
Now you enter dummy with ♥A,
to cash the good ♣ and finesse ♠s.

---

[nullve]

 pilowsky, on 2020-July-11, 20:10, said:

Ok, here's my inexpert guess. They're playing Precision. 1♦ shows 11+ not necessarily much to do with diamonds.
The hand looks (something) like this:

---

West bangs down the ♦Ace, but the contract makes on any lead. At least this layout does .

1♦ showed 4+ diamonds and I doubt East would bid 1N with four hearts.

 nige1, on 2020-July-12, 01:58, said:

Nullve says "West didn't have nine diamonds."
++++++++++++++++
Those were just extreme examples of classes of makeable distributions.
On the left is a milder example ...
After ♦ ruff, ♣A, ♦ ruff, ♣K, you might as well advance ♣J.
If East ducks, then, on a good day, you might take a successful view and run it.
But if East covers, then you continue with the previously suggested line. i.e.
♥A, ♣9, ♠ finesse.

---

This is the kind of layout I was hoping for when I played the hand. And the successful (but not necessarily better - you be the judge) line, which would have worked against the very similar layout in Felicity's last example, would not have worked against his one.

 FelicityR, on 2020-July-09, 01:18, said:

The key probably for this hand is to make an assumption whether the opponent's ♠s are 2-1 or 3-0 from the outset. Or is it possible to combine both chances?

 nullve, on 2020-July-09, 02:55, said:

Yes! There is a line that works both against this (IMO plausible) layout and the actual one.

To be clear, East did actually not have three spades.

[pilowsky]

ok mitt sista kast av tärningarna
Obviously, only an idiot would fail to bid their major. My last attempt. East must have 6-10 any distribution and no 4CM for 1NT. West must have Diamonds and opening points. They must have a nice fit in diamonds to push you into a slam.
Here's my last try.
tack för matchen!

---

I really hate this hand.

[Cyberyeti]

 pilowsky, on 2020-July-12, 05:32, said:

ok mitt sista kast av tärningarna
Obviously, only an idiot would fail to bid their major. My last attempt. East must have 6-10 any distribution and no 4CM for 1NT. West must have Diamonds and opening points. They must have a nice fit in diamonds to push you into a slam.
Here's my last try.
tack för matchen!

---

I really hate this hand.

You really think E bids 1N with 6 card support for partner's known 4 card opener ? E has 4 or 5 diamonds almost certainly, most likely 4

[pilowsky]

As I said, I really 'hate' this hand. But if you really want to go nuts here's a .lin file with 64 hands that have exactly 9HCP North, 13HCP South, and the same ♠♥♦♣ distribution for N and S. So if you really want to pickle your noodle you can load them onto a table and see what happens .

[nullve]

West had fewer than three clubs.

This is a very tiny hint given that West would not likely bid 5♦ with as little as 1363* (let alone 2353!) shape

* I have indirectly told you that West had at least one spade and at least three hearts.

[mikeh]

On my original line, I suggested that we would be hoping for the club Queen to be doubleton or clubs 3-3, and that I’d play spades to split with east having 2. Obviously, if west has 10x, one has an additional chance by running the club J after diamond ruff, spade to the ace, club A, diamond ruff, club King. Provided one infers that east would not have bid 1N with, say, Kx Jxxx QJxx xxx, then running the jack is percentage, since west surely has at least 7 diamonds, and hearts can be assumed (usually) to be 3=3.

It’s a bit self-serving but I like to think that seeing the club 10 under the king would have been a wake up call. If the club 10 (or Q) doesn’t appear, one has to hope that east chose to suppress a very weak 4 card major

[nullve]

East's failure to support diamond immdiately (in a 5542 system with could-be-balanced 1♦) made me think West most likely had eight diamonds. And West's failure to lead a club suggested he had at least two, so I thought he was most likely 0382, as in Felicity's last example. So I played the way nige1's suggests and ruffed the ♦A, played a club to the A (West following with the five) and ruffed the (my own) ♦K. But then it was already too late. mikeh's line would also have failed.

But I'm starting to think that 1372 was West's most likely shape and that both mikeh's and nige1's lines therefore are (much) better than the winning one, which could never work against ♣Tx in West's hand nor even a friendly 3-3 club break.

The actual layout:

---

This post has been edited by nullve: 2020-July-12, 14:03

[nige1]

Nullve "I played the way nige1's suggests and ruffed the ♦A, played a club to the A (West following with the five) and ruffed the (my own) ♦K. But then it was already too late. mikeh's line would also have failed. The actual layout:"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So the winning line is ♦ ruff, ♣A, ♦K, exit in ♠s
West is end-played to lead
- a ♥ into the tenace or
- a ♦ for a ruff-sluff..
I don't think an expert would play like that
Especially as, If defenders' spade honours are swapped, then East can overtake, to lead either major -- and defeat the contract : (
But the original play problem was fascinating. Thank you Nullve

---

[Cyberyeti]

 nullve, on 2020-July-12, 13:25, said:

East's failure to support diamond immdiately (in a 5542 system with could-be-balanced 1♦) made me think West most likely had eight diamonds. And West's failure to lead a club suggested he had at least two, so I thought he was most likely 1382, as in Felicity's last example. So I played the way nige1's suggests and ruffed the ♦A, played a club to the A (West following with the five) and ruffed the (my own) ♦K. But then it was already too late. mikeh's line would also have failed.

1382 has a slight problem, did you mean 0382 ?

So in reality you have to ruff the diamond, club to the ace and play a small spade to endplay W, not something you're likely to find at the table

[nullve]

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-12, 13:59, said:

1382 has a slight problem, did you mean 0382 ?

Yes. Corrected now.

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-12, 13:59, said:

So in reality you have to ruff the diamond, club to the ace and play a small spade to endplay W

Yes.

 Cyberyeti, on 2020-July-12, 13:59, said:

not something you're likely to find at the table

At least not if I think West is most likely 1372.

[mikeh]

 nullve, on 2020-July-12, 14:13, said:

Yes. Corrected now.


Yes.


At least not if I think West is most likely 1372.

This entire thread has been a disappointment. Yes, you can make this, double dummy, but the winning line is frankly silly

As is the bidding.

I don’t find problems that require bad bridge to be very interesting.

[FelicityR]

 nige1, on 2020-July-12, 13:51, said:

But the original play problem was fascinating. Thank you Nullve

Yes, I agree. It certainly got me thinking - for hours It's one of those hands where you 'take a view' and if you get it right then the contract can be made. But I am also in agreement with mikeh and Nigel that the winning line is obscure, and the bidding is a bit off the radar, too. However, it certainly generated an interesting debate.