Phil had a major impact on the match. How would you handle these problems?
Partner leads the ♠8. You win the ♠J and declarer follows this the ♠10. What do you play next?
And secondly a bidding problem (click on the highlighted bids for explanations):
Phil's actions gave us 25 IMPs on these two boards. What about you?
Posts
5 comments:
I had the first problem, although it was a little easier as we were defending 5H.
The main point is : what do you lead from 3 small? I think it was the 863. My partner led the 6, which looked like mud to me..but I think most experts prefer the smallest. The 8 was harder to read if they play second from bad, as presumably it could have been from 98xx. It is a good area for discussion, and this hand showed how crucial it can be.
By the way - I think it was hugely lucky to get away with this slam, off a cashing AK and Qxxx of trumps!
On the second hand, Phil seemed to have a weak 2 in diamonds..did he just forget the system? It certainly gave the opps a problem! It is probably right to pass, as you assume you are going to defend either 3S or 4H.
If declarer is 1651 we have to home that he needs to ruff diamonds twice in dummy to set up the suit in which case the Q of h would be our second trick. If the diamonds can be set up with 1 ruff returning a trump would be futile. So funnily enough,although it is usually helpful to know what partner leads from small cards, on this hand the spade situation is irrelevant as returning the Ace of spades cannot cost. If dummy's spades had been Q9xx there would have been a problem as returning a spade gives the contract when declarer has 10 AKJxxx AKQx xx.
The bidding on the first hand is actually really interesting. I was actually
T9
AKJT8xx
AKQx
-
So the auction hinges on the relative meanings of 4h and 5c. It is a GF auction, but im not sure that fast arrival should neccessarily apply, as some weak hands may play better in diamonds. Thus I don't think that 3H should show extras, and 4h just shows that hearts is definately the right strain (with no extras). It seemed unlikely that he had 3 hearts given his failure to bid 2h initially, so i guesses that he had no values or he might have suggested NT. If he had 4!d and 2 hearts he would have bid 3h so that a possible 5-4 diamond fit could be unearthed, and he has denied 4s. So he must be 4234, or have less diamonds and more clubs. Since 3h would invite me to show help with spades for 3N, I deduced that he had decent spades, and poor clubs, and possibly diamond shortage. Mr Townsend suggests that 5c in this auction is "Slam forcing" cue bid, forcing Paul to bid slam if he has a spade control. But I wasn't sure that we had this agreement - a priori its not clear that I shouldn't be looking for a diamond control, if i was something like, x AKJxxx AQxxx A?
So i gave it another At the table gyles one the js and switched to a low heart, but i was up to finessing. At the other table anne cashed the second spade and switched to the 9 of hearts. That is much harder to get right I think.
On the second board i had forgotten we played a multi :S A disciplined pass would have bought -6 i beleive :)
Defending 5H after cashing 2 spades it seems routine to return a diamond. Returning a heart is nearly harmless but it does disclose that the defender does not have Qxxx of hearts. Whether this information is enough to play against the odds in the heart suit I dont know. Dont think the heart led matters in the slightest.
Wel there is some significant pschology after you cash teh second spade. If you return a diamond, rather than attempting to cut down declarers ruffs, then its like you expect it to go off. Obviously if you were sitting with xx(x) trumps, and assumed that declarer had the Q of trumps, why would you do anything other than return a trump? Surely if you don't expect a trump trick the only way to beat this is to prevent declarer ruffing his hearts. I think that not returning a trump strongly implies that you expect a possible trump trick? I think the best defence is to cash two spades and table the 9h smoothly.
Post a Comment