[Echognome]

Scoring: IMP

P - (1♥) - P - (2♥)
P - (4NT) - P - (5♣)
Dbl - (5♥) - All Pass

---

*Note I altered the hand slightly for the problem if you look it up.

T1: ♣4 - J - Q - 3
T2: ♦9 - K - A - 3
T3: ?

Opponents have a switch auction and you lead the ♣4 which is your system lead from xxx. Partner wins the Q, declarer following with the 3.

Partner now returns the ♦9 to declarer's K and your A.

Now you've come to the crossroads. Do we need to cash another one of partner's clubs or do we try to give partner a diamond ruff? We play standard returns, so partner will return the ♦9 from 9 or 9x.

Here's what I thought was the interesting part of the problem. What do you envision partner's hand to be? Would it be consistent with the bidding and the play thus far?

What do you envision declarer's hand to be?

Advanced/Experts please feel free to show your answers as I think the thought process is the most useful part.

[ralph23]

Uhhh.... if I'm on opening lead and lead the 4 of ♣, how come I can see the hand to my right ? Something's amiss .....

[Echognome]

ralph23, on Sep 7 2007, 05:29 PM, said:

Uhhh.... if I'm on opening lead and lead the 4 of ♣, how come I can see the hand to my right ? Something's amiss .....

East is dealer. South is declarer. You are West and North is dummy. Your hand is the West hand (containing the ♣4).

[goobers]

Assuming a sane declarer, I will try a diamond. I will not play him for 2 quick losers in clubs after he bids blackwood.

[skjaeran]

Declarer should have a singleton club. That should be obvious from the bidding. He's got something like AKJ AKTxxx KQx 3. (He could of course have one spade more and a diamond less.) The only possible way to beat it is thus a diamond ruff.

[cherdano]

Another reason for a diamond is the following: Partner knows our club count from the lead (note declarer followed with the 3!) and knows we have a cashing trick (RKCB then stopping in 5 shows a lack of two keycards, and it should deny a void), so if there is a club to cash, partner could have done that himself before switching.

P.S.: Should have mentioned that this assumes we are playing 3/5 leads.

This post has been edited by cherdano: 2007-September-10, 19:04

[Echognome]

This is all very good (and correct) analysis.

But just to go through all the checks in case they matter on another hand, why would we suppose partner did not preempt with an inferred club holding of AQTxxx?

[Mbodell]

Echognome, on Sep 10 2007, 07:50 PM, said:

This is all very good (and correct) analysis.

But just to go through all the checks in case they matter on another hand, why would we suppose partner did not preempt with an inferred club holding of AQTxxx?

Because he's got 4 spades (maybe 5) and didn't want to preempt us if it was our hand?

[Echognome]

Mbodell, on Sep 10 2007, 05:31 PM, said:

Echognome, on Sep 10 2007, 07:50 PM, said:

This is all very good (and correct) analysis.

But just to go through all the checks in case they matter on another hand, why would we suppose partner did not preempt with an inferred club holding of AQTxxx?

Because he's got 4 spades (maybe 5) and didn't want to preempt us if it was our hand?

Yep. That's all I was looking for. Partner indeed held a 4=2=1=6 shape. It's possible he holds a 4=1=2=6 shape however, but I think that your best chance for a set is to return a diamond. As it happened declarer was a bit off his rocker and partner held the ♠K as well (along with the fact that I switch the ♦T and J from my own and dummy's holdings), so the contract went 4 off. I still thought it a useful exercise in thinking through what should be consistent not only with declarer's bidding, but partner's as well.

[gwnn]

As a side note, there are people who religiously pass unfav. 1/2 seats on 6-card minors (if no 2♦ weak two available).