Hi Dear Mr Wolff
While the defense certainly is excellent and instructive, there are many interesting points about this deal. Perhaps south could have opened two clubs instead of two NT. North could have become declarer and would make three NT with overtricks assuming East doesn’t lead A and nine of spades initially . And if the event is masterpoints instead of IMPs, declarer knowing that some pairs might bid slam, should cash one high club and finesse next.
And with so many points, and as the cards lay, NS can easily make six clubs and four hearts even on the Moysian fit and probably five hearts makes if a spade is not led. But my submission is: is there a way to get there, four hearts or six clubs (doesn’t matter who becomes declarer)
Regards
Iain ClimieSeptember 5th, 2024 at 12:18 pm
Hi AVRR,
The problem with cashing one club (as here) is that Qxxx onside is far more likely than Q alone offside. I think a better shot is to run the CJ on the first round or, if entries are really plentiful, lead towards the CAK109 intending to finesse on the first round thus picking up Q alone onside.
As you say though (and many thanks to Bobby) a very instructive play to add to the arsenal. A bit like leading the S2 from AK832 Axx Kxx xx after 1N 3N. Partner has nothing so let declarer think it is safe to knock out the HA instead of taking the D finesse, although if the DA is on your right you are fine anyway.
Regards,
Iain
bobbywolffSeptember 5th, 2024 at 1:49 pm
Hi AVRR,
It is always very nice and almost always very instructive to have you join us with your discussions and conclusions on the hand of the day. But today it is not so vaguely appearing that you are playing results, rather than percentages.
Methinks, suggesting that declarer should, in the normal course of starting the clubs, and with the hope of scoring 5 tricks first cash the ace before then finessing is a markedly non-percentage play because of the mainly 4-2 club division with, of course, the queen onside.
Also your suggesting of both a club slam and 11 tricks with hearts as trump are dead on course, and certainly correct, but why indeed should they be better than the shorter route of 3NT (with only 9 tricks necessary) and, of course, having South the less dangerous side to be declarer.
In no way, am I even suggesting that you are anywhere near wrong with your advice, only
that you should have prefaced those comments to taking advantage of placing, is sometime the option, but not nearly as often as some of us might like to have it.
bobbywolffSeptember 5th, 2024 at 2:06 pm
Hi Iain,
Sorry for my duplication of effort, since I failed to read your comment before I should have.
While I did enjoy your clever advice (when your partner, is known by the bidding to be dead broke) to, at least attempt to use that information to good advantage (except for “the unlucky expert who did just that, but because of a strange twist, was allowed the lead (suit break) with the only the nine of some suit that could take a trick, but then played a negative factor in your overall plan because he thought you had one less card in your Prince Albert set of 13.
Shades of Victor Mollo, but with our great game, nothing should totally surprise anyone like you or me, since we intend to do so, for a triple number of years and then hopefully continue to do so in a venue not known for its heat.
I know you will reply “The devil you say”!
bobbywolffSeptember 5th, 2024 at 10:17 pm
Hi Everyone,
You should have bid that slam, since both finesses worked and trumps were 2-2.
You could have stayed out of that slam, when trumps were 4-0, the only way it is not a lay down. You would have talked them out of bidding that laydown slam if you, as dealer, had opened 4 spades with your decent 5 card suit. Sure, partner also had 5 with you, but he might have even had 6. Often heard conversation, Shoulda, coulda, woulda!
Subscribe to our feed
Bridge-related
Hi Dear Mr Wolff
While the defense certainly is excellent and instructive, there are many interesting points about this deal. Perhaps south could have opened two clubs instead of two NT. North could have become declarer and would make three NT with overtricks assuming East doesn’t lead A and nine of spades initially . And if the event is masterpoints instead of IMPs, declarer knowing that some pairs might bid slam, should cash one high club and finesse next.
And with so many points, and as the cards lay, NS can easily make six clubs and four hearts even on the Moysian fit and probably five hearts makes if a spade is not led. But my submission is: is there a way to get there, four hearts or six clubs (doesn’t matter who becomes declarer)
Regards
Hi AVRR,
The problem with cashing one club (as here) is that Qxxx onside is far more likely than Q alone offside. I think a better shot is to run the CJ on the first round or, if entries are really plentiful, lead towards the CAK109 intending to finesse on the first round thus picking up Q alone onside.
As you say though (and many thanks to Bobby) a very instructive play to add to the arsenal. A bit like leading the S2 from AK832 Axx Kxx xx after 1N 3N. Partner has nothing so let declarer think it is safe to knock out the HA instead of taking the D finesse, although if the DA is on your right you are fine anyway.
Regards,
Iain
Hi AVRR,
It is always very nice and almost always very instructive to have you join us with your discussions and conclusions on the hand of the day. But today it is not so vaguely appearing that you are playing results, rather than percentages.
Methinks, suggesting that declarer should, in the normal course of starting the clubs, and with the hope of scoring 5 tricks first cash the ace before then finessing is a markedly non-percentage play because of the mainly 4-2 club division with, of course, the queen onside.
Also your suggesting of both a club slam and 11 tricks with hearts as trump are dead on course, and certainly correct, but why indeed should they be better than the shorter route of 3NT (with only 9 tricks necessary) and, of course, having South the less dangerous side to be declarer.
In no way, am I even suggesting that you are anywhere near wrong with your advice, only
that you should have prefaced those comments to taking advantage of placing, is sometime the option, but not nearly as often as some of us might like to have it.
Hi Iain,
Sorry for my duplication of effort, since I failed to read your comment before I should have.
While I did enjoy your clever advice (when your partner, is known by the bidding to be dead broke) to, at least attempt to use that information to good advantage (except for “the unlucky expert who did just that, but because of a strange twist, was allowed the lead (suit break) with the only the nine of some suit that could take a trick, but then played a negative factor in your overall plan because he thought you had one less card in your Prince Albert set of 13.
Shades of Victor Mollo, but with our great game, nothing should totally surprise anyone like you or me, since we intend to do so, for a triple number of years and then hopefully continue to do so in a venue not known for its heat.
I know you will reply “The devil you say”!
Hi Everyone,
You should have bid that slam, since both finesses worked and trumps were 2-2.
You could have stayed out of that slam, when trumps were 4-0, the only way it is not a lay down. You would have talked them out of bidding that laydown slam if you, as dealer, had opened 4 spades with your decent 5 card suit. Sure, partner also had 5 with you, but he might have even had 6. Often heard conversation, Shoulda, coulda, woulda!
SlAM, BANG, SPLIT.