[inquiry]

An interesting defensive hand. In these problem hands, both you and your opponents will use Upside down count and attitude, with frequent suit preference signals. If partner leads your suit, he would lead low from three or small clubs, high from doubleton, unless he supported the suit, in which case he would lead high from three small, low from an honor.

Your double of 3♣ was lead directing. That gets your partner off to a club opening lead.

Use the "next" button to see the first four tricks.

A general comment about your signaling on this hand, "you' (East) were honest in your carding. In situations like this, you really don't have to be. This isn't because it is a problem hand, it is because your partner doesn't need help from you on this hand. Your partner, however, will card honestly.
Declarer wins the ♠KQ to trick 2 and three. Partner's carding is shown in the movie Declarer cashes the ♥Ace.

I didn't show the critical trick on this problem. It is my belief forum members will see what the problem is on this deal and get the defense right. IS this a suitable intermediate level problem (one that half or more of the intermediate players would get right)

---

[eagles123]

Quote

s, both you and your opponents will use Upside down count and attitude

Quote

"you' (East) were honest in your carding

i'm probably missing something but we seem to have given false count in both H and S?anyway 22 + 18 = 0 left for p and i think declarer likely 3244 as otherwise might opt for a major fit instead of nt.

how to defeat the contract havent a clue

[helene_t]

Yes it looks like partner gave false count in both suits. Maybe he thought he couldn't afford to play high from ♥T9x. Anyway, in the heart suit declarer's count is known from the bidding so we shouldn't give count.

Declarer's next play will be ♥J and the key play is to duck that trick.

[NickRW]

I agree that there is something very fishy about the count signals.

I think Helene is right, but am doubtful that 50% of intermediates would see this at the table. Indeed, in general in these forums, I think we mainly see posts from players who have forgotten how many mistakes they made when they were intermediate.

Nick

[StevenG]

No, a typical intermediate player would not have a clue how to take this contract off. I've twice had to explain to very experienced partners that if they have Kxx, and they can see Ax in dummy, that ducking twice will inevitably mean their King becomes good (this after they'd covered the Queen and seen the suit run ...). If they can't see it when the suit's in dummy, they'll never see it when the suit's hidden.

[kenberg]

Ben,

I like these problems and I hope you continue. However, I would prefer less emphasis on level. I regard myself as an advanced player and based on play in the I/A lounge and other areas, as well as my 2000+ masterpoints (not that I regard masterpoints as highly indicative of anything) this seems about right. Other advanced type players, many of them anyway, seem to like to play with me. An intermediate asked if I had time to mentor her. I played in a Stac yesterday and we had quite a bad game filled with errors. We cam in third. I am not an expert and don't claim to be, but I think advanced is correct.

So what happens here? I see a problem where I expect I will have to think about it for a while, maybe I'll get it and maybe I won't. I am told that you expect most forum people to get it right, it's maybe sort of an median level intermediate problem. Really?

I don't do well with being graded, I never have. Maybe some are easier with it than others. When I play I try to win. I will discuss with partner how things could have gone better. If he wants to give me a grade whether A through F or beginner through expert after each session, he will have to find a different partner.

I do hope you continue, and I will get to this problem when I have time, but I prefer to say that it is an interesting problem and I prefer not to rate the problem, my thoughts on it, others thoughts on it, as intermediate or advanced.

I regret any hard feelings these comments may cause, but I just really don't do well with being rated. Not even with being favorably rated.

[inquiry]

kenberg, on 2014-May-09, 06:19, said:

Ben,

I like these problems and I hope you continue. However, I would prefer less emphasis on level. I regard myself as an advanced player and based on play in the I/A lounge and other areas, as well as my 2000+ masterpoints (not that I regard masterpoints as highly indicative of anything) this seems about right. Other advanced type players, many of them anyway, seem to like to play with me. An intermediate asked if I had time to mentor her. I played in a Stac yesterday and we had quite a bad game filled with errors. We cam in third. I am not an expert and don't claim to be, but I think advanced is correct.

So what happens here? I see a problem where I expect I will have to think about it for a while, maybe I'll get it and maybe I won't. I am told that you expect most forum people to get it right, it's maybe sort of an median level intermediate problem. Really?

I don't do well with being graded, I never have. Maybe some are easier with it than others. When I play I try to win. I will discuss with partner how things could have gone better. If he wants to give me a grade whether A through F or beginner through expert after each session, he will have to find a different partner.

I do hope you continue, and I will get to this problem when I have time, but I prefer to say that it is an interesting problem and I prefer not to rate the problem, my thoughts on it, others thoughts on it, as intermediate or advanced.

I regret any hard feelings these comments may cause, but I just really don't do well with being rated. Not even with being favorably rated.

Ok, I will take the emphasis off. I was trying to gain a handle on what level of problem is typical for different student levels. I always under estimate problem difficulty. Remember, I try to teach squeezes to intermediate players on this forum and got shouted down. I will no longer ask about skill level. I might even more all future questions (I got hundreds of them, actually) to the interesting hand forum rather than try to guess if they are a beginner level problem or expert or this forum level problem. In fact, we might just do away with the intermediate, advanced, and expert forums all together. That would probably be a good thing.

[shyams]

helene_t, on 2014-May-09, 02:51, said:

Yes it looks like partner gave false count in both suits. Maybe he thought he couldn't afford to play high from ♥T9x. Anyway, in the heart suit declarer's count is known from the bidding so we shouldn't give count.

Declarer's next play will be ♥J and the key play is to duck that trick.

... and hope that partner has the ♦8.

After we duck, declarer will play two more rounds of spades and our two discards will be ♦9 and ♣2. If declarer started with ♦A8xx, we cannot defeat 6NT.

[kuhchung]

Thanks for the play problems.

[kenberg]

Are we ruling out the possibility that declaer, holding KQx, AJ9, Axxx, AK9 decided to play in 3NT rather than 3Nt after responder's smolen 3♠?

This holding would be consistent with West's play to the first heart. South expects a club lead, he doesn't mind, he has no idea partner is about to raise 3NT to 6NT, he might well decide that this looks like 9 tricks to him.

But here he is in 6. Well. he has a decent chance for four tricks in hearts. He has three in clubs. Certainly three in spades and maybe four. So he could be tinking: If the heart King is on my left they cannot attack diamonds when they are in. What I will do is take my top hearts, take my spades, take mu clubs. If I need ot finesse the Diamonds, I will do that.

The reason for taking the two spades early? Maybe the Jack falls. If so 4+4+1+3 =12 and then, if it is East who wins the heart and plays a diamond, I ain't taking no practice finesse.

So I see the bidding and the play as consistent with declarer being 3=3=4=3.Maybe South would have bid 4♥, maybe he wouldn't. But partner did play the deuce of hearts.


Added: If declarer is really 3=3=4=3, with AK9 in clubs, he is quite possibly making this hand. He certainly is getting three clubs and four hearts. He will probably play off the top spade eventually and when the Q does not fall he will lead the ♦ Q. If it holds he switches to clubs. 3+4+2+3=12.When in with my heart probably I play a diamond, let him guess then. But probaly he either lets it ride or else he goes up and later hooks the spade. Either way works.

So I guess I should be thinking he has two hearts. Not so much because of the T92 problem but rather because I don't think we are beating this if he is 3=3=4=3.



Could it be wrong to play the T/9 from T92? Maybe, but partner would have to have KJ, right? If declarer has the J it never matters and if partner has KJx it doesn't matter. But count might matter. Could be T92 though, so maybe that is how it went.

I suppose the next thing that happens is that declarer plays his J and partner follows with the 9 or T. Mayb count should still apply here, so that if he has both the 9 and the T he plays the 9. If so, then if we are lucky enough that he was dealt the T2 he will of course follow with a T, denying the 9. If he follows with the 9 we should probably assume he has the T.

[kenberg]

inquiry, on 2014-May-09, 09:24, said:

Ok, I will take the emphasis off. I was trying to gain a handle on what level of problem is typical for different student levels. I always under estimate problem difficulty. Remember, I try to teach squeezes to intermediate players on this forum and got shouted down. I will no longer ask about skill level. I might even more all future questions (I got hundreds of them, actually) to the interesting hand forum rather than try to guess if they are a beginner level problem or expert or this forum level problem. In fact, we might just do away with the intermediate, advanced, and expert forums all together. That would probably be a good thing.

I sympathize with some of the issues you mention, but I would not go to extremes. I also, a couple of times, posted something on the B/I forum and was told that it was not appropriate. Now in fact I play a lot of pick up, I often play with self described intermediates, and I think that I was in a better position than some of my critics to judge whether what I had to say would have been of interest to those who list intermediate skill level.

Certainly squeezes get mentioned here, and they should. I would have to look up a vice squeeze, but such topics are by no means off limits imo.

Here is a distinction: If I post here, on I/A, I am generally posting to ask the opinion of people who I regard, as a group, my equals. And I am delighted to hear from experts. I am unlikely to post a topic of my own on the expert forum although I do sometimes comment there. I am definitely better than some "experts". But then so is my dog, and he has been dead for five years. If I post on B/I, I am pretty much saying "I am an advanced player and I want to say something that may be helpful to you". It's a different sort of post and probably requires a different presentation. I can imagine some I's would say "He must be addressing the B's, this is trivial". Others I's might wonder what on earth I am talking about. I let them sort themselves on this.

Anyway, please keep posting the hands. I think the I/A forum is just the right place for what I have seen so far.

[kenberg]

shyams, on 2014-May-09, 09:30, said:

... and hope that partner has the ♦8.

After we duck, declarer will play two more rounds of spades and our two discards will be ♦9 and ♣2. If declarer started with ♦A8xx, we cannot defeat 6NT.

I just saw this. I agree.

[kenberg]

This seems to be quite a complex hand, requiring just about everything.

It is stipulate that partner would lead a small club from three small in my suit (clubs) once I double. It's important since assuming the play goes as shyams envisions, club, top spade two spades, ♥ AJ ducked, spade hooke, another spade, then I as East must decide if declarer could have begun life as 3=2=5=3. If so, he has three and only three club tricks and I must hold my diamonds. But since partner's ♣ 6 demonstrated that he cannot have three, we know delcarer has at least four. I cannot toss two clubs, I simply can't, and so I don't really have to think further. As shyams says, partner needs to have the ♦ 8 or it is hopeless, but I really don't have to think that clearly as long as I am sure declarer started with four (or more) clubs. With that knowledge, I know that I cannot discard two clubs.

I realize shyams was way ahead of me on this, but it was just this morning that I started worrying about whether declarer could be 3=2=5=3 and read over the stipulations carefully.

I guess the take away lesson is
a. Have agreements.
b. Remember them.
c. Remember which spot partner played and draw the right inference.

[inquiry]

This is the full hand. The comments about the ♦8 are, of course correct. But if you win the ♥K on the second round of the suit, it doesn't matter who has the ♦8, so the location of the diamond eight is not germane to the problem, but nice to point it out I guess. (odds are 4/7 that partner will have the ♦8, why? That is the next point.

Declarer has to be 3-2-4-4. Let's see why. Ok I forgot to switch the carding from the standard the pair I kibitzed misplay this one to the UDCA I want to use in my problems I will try to get better at remember this stuff. But the logic is if declarer had 4♠ they are more likely to play in spades (and partner gives count presumably), if he had 3♥ thee is no way to defeat it, if he had 5♣ he would have redoubled your double of stayman, and partner's club lead can't be third best if you work the spots, so declarer has 4 clubs, thus 4 diamonds.

---

[kenberg]

An interesting hand. I gather that it made, but Norht knows that the hands are not fitting well and I think he could take it easy.Raise 3NT to 4NT maybe, if he feels he has not done enough yet, but unless South has some unstated values it seems to me this is apt to be an iffy slam, and it was. The clubs are well placed, the lead helps, the diamond King is onside, the fourth spade causes discarding problems for East, and it still takes a defensive error to come in? Living a little dangerously it seems.

Anyway, bridge is complex and but here there is a simplification: If East knows from carding that S has four (or five, which I agree is highly unlikely since we are not playing 3♣ XX) then East absolutely cannot toss two clubs. Accepting that as fact the defense is then easy enough. If you cannot toss a second club, and you obviously cannot toss the heart, you have no choice.

I am not at all sure I would have doubled 3♣. If I do not, I suppose West leads a passive diamond against 6NT. I'm not sure how that would go.


Btw, it might be interesting to check how many know which card their partner would lead from 6,4,3 after I have doubled for the club lead.

[inquiry]

kenberg, on 2014-May-11, 12:24, said:

Btw, it might be interesting to check how many know which card their partner would lead from 6,4,3 after I have doubled for the club lead.

That answer will vary. Each card will be played at trick one by different people.

A tot of people will lead the 4, as either mud (middle up down) or 2nd highest from junk.
Others will lead the 6, top of nothing
Some will lead the 3, as count.

Whatever you partner leads, you REALLY SHOULD know which it would be. I made it simple by stating an obvious and fairly common agreement.

As long as partner doesn't lead the ♦8 the defense should prevail by similar logic (don't cover the dummy's diamond honor). The not covering is necessary to prevent a late entry to the hearts (after you duck the king at first).