Board 7
Both sides vulnerable
Both sides vulnerable
| ♠ K 8 4 ♥ J 9 5 4 2 ♦ Q 9 4 ♣ 8 3 |
I pass in first seat. RHO opens one club in fourth seat. There is little point in a one heart overcall. I pass. LHO bids one spade, and RHO rebids one notrump (15-17). I pass, and LHO raises to three, ending the auction. I lead the four of hearts.
| NORTH
Sam ♠ Q J 10 3 2 ♥ Q 8 6 ♦ K 2 ♣ K 10 9 |
||
| WEST
Phillip ♠ K 8 4 ♥ J 9 5 4 2 ♦ Q 9 4 ♣ 8 3 |
| West | North | East | South |
| Phillip | Sam | Jack | Stephen |
| Pass | Pass | Pass | 1 ♣ |
| Pass | 1 ♠ | Pass | 1 NT |
| Pass | 3 NT | (All pass) |
Declarer plays the six from dummy, partner plays the ten, and declarer wins with the ace. If partner has king-ten third of hearts, we have a shot to beat this. When I get in with the spade king, I play another heart. If declarer misguesses and plays the queen, he will go down.
Another way to beat this is to run diamonds. If partner has ace-jack fifth or ace-jack-ten fourth of diamonds, I can shift to a diamond when I'm in with the spade king. True, if partner has ace-jack fifth, declarer can block the suit by playing low from dummy. But he's unlikely to do that.
How will I know which suit to play? One way to solve this problem is with Smith echo. Partner can play high (or low if you prefer) on declarer's first lead to encourage a heart continuation and can do the opposite to suggest a shift. We don't play Smith echo, however, which, in general, is fine with me. Though on this particular deal, I have to admit it might be helpful.
Opposite a reliable partner, Smith echo would not be necessary. It would already be clear to continue hearts. With a diamond tenace over dummy and ten third or doubleton of hearts, partner knows good and well he wants a diamond shift when I get in, so he would simply play low at trick one. That might blow a trick, but it's hard to see how it can blow the contract. So, if partner could be trusted, it would be wrong to continue hearts only if partner's heart ten were a singleton.
Since Jack is not up to offering that kind of help, I just have to go with the odds. At the moment, the percentage play is to continue hearts. Better to play partner for one card (the heart king) than for two (the ace-jack of diamonds). But the odds may change as I get more information. In particular, if I find out declarer has three hearts, I know a heart continuation is pointless. Even if partner has the king (and somehow worked out not to play it at trick one) and even if declarer puts up the queen, I have no re-entry.
Declarer plays the deuce of clubs--eight--king--five. This is why I said above that Smith echo might be helpful. I can't tell whether the five is high or low, so this time it would not have helped even if we were playing it.
Declarer leads the ten of spades--five--six. Partner is surely giving correct count here. So declarer must have ace doubleton of spades. That means he is unlikely to have a doubleton heart. He might rebid one notrump with a 2-2-4-5 pattern, but that is the only way for him to have two hearts. (Personally, I might have a 2-2-3-6 pattern as well, especially if the club suit is below par for a three club bid. But Jack claims he would not bid one notrump with six clubs.)
On the other hand, there are two patterns for opener where partner has five diamonds: 2-3-3-5, and 2-4-3-4. Since each of these patterns is a priori more likely than 2-2-4-5, partner is more than twice as likely to have five diamonds as he is to have three hearts. So, even though it is playing partner for two high cards instead of one, a diamond shift is now the percentage play. And that's before taking into account the possibility of partner's having ace-jack-ten fourth of diamonds. The only reason I haven't taken the spade king and played a diamond already is that declarer's line of play is bugging me. Why is he taking a spade finesse with ace doubleton? I'm the dangerous hand. He doesn't care if partner wins the spade king. So why risk blocking the spade suit? Or losing to a stiff king in my hand? Why not just play ace and another spade?
Take the hand I've almost decided to play him for, for example:
| ♠ A x ♥ A K x ♦ x x x ♣ A x x x x |
Does declarer's line of play make any sense? What's he going to do if the queen of spades holds? Unless the king is doubleton onside, he can no longer run the spades. He must hope for a three-two club break.
The same thing is true if declarer has the diamond ace instead of the heart king:
| ♠ A x ♥ A x ♦ A x x x ♣ A x x x x |
Again, ace and a spade looks pretty routine. What does taking the spade finesse even gain?
That last question is the key. If I can answer that, I should be able to call declarer's hand. What taking the spade finesse gains is it avoids giving up the lead, provided two spade tricks is all you need. So there are two things that must be true about declarer's hand: (1) It is dangerous to give up the lead even to RHO. (2) He must have exactly seven tricks outside the spade suit.
For (1) to be true, declarer must be missing both the diamond ace and the heart king. Then it is dangerous to lose the lead even to partner, since I might be able to gain the lead in one of the red suits in order to lead the other. If declarer is indeed missing both red honors, I should win and switch to the jack of hearts. If declarer covers, he is down. If he guesses to duck, I can switch to a diamond, hoping partner has the jack as well or that declarer misguesses and plays the king.
Condition (2) is the toughie. I don't see how to satisfy that condition without giving declarer six clubs:
| ♠ A x ♥ A x ♦ J x x ♣ A Q x x x x |
With this hand, a spade finesse makes sense. If declarer plays ace and a spade, he could go down even if the spade king is on his right. The spade finesse guarantess the contract if the spade king is onside and retains chances if it isn't. I'm not saying it's the right play. That's declarer's problem, not mine. It is at least a reasonable play, which is all I care about when drawing inferences as defender. The spade finesse is not a reasonable play with either of the previous two hands.
The only problem is, this hand violates Jack's constraints. He says he can't have six clubs. Since it's the only hand I can think of where a spade finesse makes sense, I guess I have to admit defeat. Either I'm missing something or declarer is misplaying the hand. I don't know what declarer has, so I have to fall back on simply making the percentage play.
I shift to the four of diamonds--king--ace--five. So far so good. Partner plays the three of diamonds--ten--queen--deuce. I still have time to switch to a heart if I change my mind and decide declarer was 2-2-3-6 after all. But I'm sure partner would have led a high diamond, not a low one, if he didn't have the jack. I play the nine of diamonds to partner's jack, and partner cashes two more diamonds. Down two.
| NORTH
Sam ♠ Q J 10 3 2 ♥ Q 8 6 ♦ K 2 ♣ K 10 9 |
||
| WEST
Phillip ♠ K 8 4 ♥ J 9 5 4 2 ♦ Q 9 4 ♣ 8 3 |
EAST
Jack ♠ 9 7 5 ♥ 10 3 ♦ A J 7 6 3 ♣ Q 7 5 | |
| SOUTH
Stephen ♠ A 6 ♥ A K 7 ♦ 10 8 5 ♣ A J 6 4 2 |
I said before that declarer would be unlikely to duck the diamond if I shifted. But maybe I was hasty in saying that. Shifting from the queen or jack of diamonds is attractive, since it might work by force. Shifting from ace of diamonds is considerably less attractive, especially when for all I know hearts are running. On top of that, ducking in dummy is actually the percentage play (by a factor of two to one) any time I have only three diamonds. In retropect, I think a good declarer might well get the diamonds right.
Whether our teammate got the diamonds right or whether West didn't find the shift I can't say. But, one way or another, three notrump made at the other table. So we pick up 13 imps.
Table 1: +200
Table 2: +600
Result on Board 7: +13 imps
Total: +17 imps
No comments:
Post a Comment