Pseudo-Sacrifice

Post by Fred.
IMP Scoring, EW Vulnerable, Dealer E
T98
J872
J3
A943
J AQ76542
Q954 -
T752 K984
QJ72 65
K3
AKT63
AQ6
KT8
E S W N
1S X P 2H
P 4H P P
4S X
Result: NS +800
Par Contract N:3NT+1
Comments?
Fred.

I don't like the 1S opening bid - open 3S, and pass for ever more>

Dave Flower

Berti Rupsli

2017-02-07 15:36:34 UTC

why 4S (unfav!) ???

Berti

KWSchneider

2017-02-07 16:09:24 UTC

800? Wow - either poorly played or DD defense. South leads a club? Or finds a club switch when he gets in with the SK?

Horrible bid by East. It's a pseudo-sacrifice from the start. Can't he envision the defense? SA, S ruff to start. And besides a likely trump trick, one of the minor suit tricks he was counting on for his sacrifice (unless he was counting on 5 or 6 minor suit losers).

--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

Charles Brenner

2017-02-07 18:48:50 UTC

800? Wow - either poorly played or DD defense. South leads a club? Or finds a club switch when he gets in with the SK?

Suppose top heart lead. Single dummy declarer playing a low spade is normal, leaving South a spade exit. Even if defenders do not thereafter handle the minors perfectly (When declarer exits a club, strip declarer's clubs then a heart from North), it's not clear to me that declarer should know to start diamonds by leading the king.

KWSchneider

2017-02-07 21:22:16 UTC

800? Wow - either poorly played or DD defense. South leads a club? Or fin=

ds a club switch when he gets in with the SK?
Suppose top heart lead. Single dummy declarer playing a low spade is normal=
, leaving South a spade exit. Even if defenders do not thereafter handle th=
e minors perfectly (When declarer exits a club, strip declarer's clubs then=
a heart from North), it's not clear to me that declarer should know to sta=
rt diamonds by leading the king.

He doesn't - you think South will duck a small diamond from East? If so, I'm leading x from KJxx and then dumping 2 diamonds on the good clubs. South always has a heart exit so no endplay to be concerned about.

--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

Fred.

2017-02-07 22:51:36 UTC

800? Wow - either poorly played or DD defense. South leads a club? Or fin=

The hand started with East ruffing the HA, low
spade taken by South's king, South exiting with
a spade.

East couldn't lead low from KJxx since North
held the jack. At the table East lead a low
diamond and South ducked.

Fred.

Fred.

Charles Brenner

2017-02-07 22:52:54 UTC

800? Wow - either poorly played or DD defense. South leads a club? Or fin=

He doesn't - you think South will duck a small diamond from East? If so, I'm leading x from KJxx and then dumping 2 diamonds on the good clubs.

You make a good point -- it is indeed difficult for the defense to collect their 3 diamond tricks even if declarer doesn't find the most challenging play. However yes, South perhaps should duck the diamond -- hoping for down 3 when down 1 is in the bag -- on the reasoning that if East has KJxx then North with xx would have put one through when in with the club Ace precisely to prevent this dilemma.

KWSchneider

2017-02-08 19:39:20 UTC

You make a good point -- it is indeed difficult for the defense to collect =
their 3 diamond tricks even if declarer doesn't find the most challenging p=
lay. However yes, South perhaps should duck the diamond -- hoping for down =
3 when down 1 is in the bag -- on the reasoning that if East has KJxx then =
North with xx would have put one through when in with the club Ace precisel=
y to prevent this dilemma.

Lot of pressure on North then, to distinguish between leading a diamond from xx and not from Jx. From Jx, you need to realize that the suit is frozen BEFORE you've fully uncovered the diamond suit. What would happen if declarer had AQxxxxx - Axx xxx and you didn't knock the DA out before the clubs are set up?

Kurt

--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

Charles Brenner

2017-02-08 22:19:05 UTC

So what? Even if correct about that hypothetical East hand you're just saying that North might switch to a diamond from Jx. That's irrelevant to the argument that I made. I didn't claim that North must lack the J to lead a diamond, only that North should hold the J for not leading a diamond.

I thought my post was rather conciliatory, but apparently you found it argumentative.

KWSchneider

2017-02-10 20:30:44 UTC

So what? Even if correct about that hypothetical East hand you're just sayi=
ng that North might switch to a diamond from Jx. That's irrelevant to the a=
rgument that I made. I didn't claim that North must lack the J to lead a di=
amond, only that North should hold the J for not leading a diamond.
I thought my post was rather conciliatory, but apparently you found it argu=
mentative.

Charles - I appreciated your conciliation, and I'm not trying to be argumentative - my point is simply that there is no holding that North could sensibly have (Jx/xx/Jxx/xxx) where he/she shouldn't find a diamond switch. And by extension then, South should NEVER be put in a position of guessing to duck from AQx after a small diamond from East.

But should that remote possibility ever come to pass, South cannot duck because there is nothing that would provide him/her with any indication that North does/or does not have the DJ - and the cost of being wrong is too high.

--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

Charles Brenner

2017-02-11 01:14:48 UTC

So say you. Both Fred and I have explained why we believe the contrary. Did you understand what Fred explained? It's my experience that his analyses are worth reading.

Post by KWSchneider
And by extension then, South should NEVER be put in a position of guessing to duck from AQx after a small diamond from East.

That last sentence does follow from your premise all right -- but even accepting your premise the line of argument is logically irrelevant, because our discussion was about the (hypothetical) situation where South IS confronted with guessing what to do with AQx after a small diamond from East.

Post by KWSchneider
But should that remote possibility ever come to pass,

as we assumed

Post by KWSchneider
South cannot duck because there is nothing that would provide him/her with any indication that North does/or does not have the DJ

Absolutely there is, as I (and Fred) have explained. I'm bothered that you read the words I wrote but don't have any idea what I said!

Post by KWSchneider
- and the cost of being wrong is too high.

Sorry Kurt, I also already covered that and it's 100% wrong as well. The cost of being wrong isn't allowing a doubled game through. The game is down regardless. The possible gain or loss from being right or wrong are identical, so it's worth ducking if you can find even a 1% edge in doing so.

KWSchneider

2017-02-08 21:04:03 UTC

The whole key to the defense on this hand seems to be trick 3. If South comes back a small spade (After HA ruff), then South has to find the club switch for a diamond through. Any diamond will do, because North is playing South for AQx(x) and wants a ruff. After DQ, DA, Dx ruff, Cx to CA, East is cold for -800. But as I've stated before, I don't think 1 in 100 players would duck a small diamond from East, at trick 5 right after trump had been pulled.

Kurt

--
Posted by Mimo Usenet Browser v0.2.5
http://www.mimousenet.com/mimo/post

Fred.

2017-02-10 22:36:10 UTC

You might fairly argue that I was putting too much trust in
East's bidding, but I couldn't imagine even a bot East passing
2H holding AQxxxxx - K? A?. And a bot that could pass one if
these might also pass AQxxxxx - Kxxxx A.

Assuming that partner holds one of missing top minor cards, just
what is the risk in ducking a diamond at trick 5? And, if East
holds the latter hand, where bidding 4S and playing diamonds
before clubs actually make sense, then failing to duck the diamond
is disastrous.

Fred.

jogs

2017-02-07 18:36:30 UTC

1S is a mild overbid. No big deal.
East should learn double pinochle style of bidding.
Once he passed 2H, he is no longer allowed to bid.

Charles Brenner

2017-02-07 18:40:26 UTC

I'm fine with 1S, but having made that choice to freelance 4S even if it were NV seems a foolish gamble, even worse than passing initially & later bidding 4S (since then at least West has not partially denied a useful hand).

4H is a fine but unlucky contract. Bidding to 3NT would be absurd.

Will in New Haven

2017-02-07 20:14:06 UTC

I think opening 1S and bidding 2S over the 2H bid is fine. After that, leave it up to partner. Opening 3S, as has been suggested, is risky on a 7-4 hand as partner won't be able to evaluate his or her honor holding. If I were going to preempt, and I would at favorable, it would be 4S.

--
Will now in Pompano Beach

Player

2017-02-08 00:41:57 UTC

I really dislike East's and Sth's bidding. 1S is ok, though very light. The double is fine. South's 4H bid is idiotic. Partner could have a complete yarborough, why not bid 2S and then over 3C, 3H. Pd would of course bid 4H.
Easts 4S bid is indescribably bad. Pd has not supported S. The H void suggests that H are not breaking. Seriously, Fred, is east a beginner?

Fred.

2017-02-08 04:41:02 UTC

Actually, both East and South were bid by Bridge Baron 23.
I considered 4S remarkable even for a bot. Maybe it
decided from the bidding that NS had 10 trump and so must EW.

I defended as South after letting the bots have their way. As
play went, I didn't see how ducking the diamond could hurt. East
could hardly be leading the 4 from doubleton KJ, and with KJ4
or better East is entitled to hold the defense to 2 diamond tricks.
(North is pretty much marked with the club ace or the diamond king
after even a bot's pass of 2H.)

I'd decided, with no particular justification, that clubs were
a safer exit than diamonds or hearts if I got thrown in with
the spade king on the third round. As it turns out, this was
correct, but I'm having a hard time finding a rationale
clearly supporting the decision.

Fred.

Co Wiersma

2017-02-08 13:01:10 UTC

Post by Fred.

Actually, both East and South were bid by Bridge Baron 23.
I considered 4S remarkable even for a bot. Maybe it
decided from the bidding that NS had 10 trump and so must EW.
I defended as South after letting the bots have their way. As
play went, I didn't see how ducking the diamond could hurt. East
could hardly be leading the 4 from doubleton KJ, and with KJ4
or better East is entitled to hold the defense to 2 diamond tricks.
(North is pretty much marked with the club ace or the diamond king
after even a bot's pass of 2H.)
I'd decided, with no particular justification, that clubs were
a safer exit than diamonds or hearts if I got thrown in with
the spade king on the third round. As it turns out, this was
correct, but I'm having a hard time finding a rationale
clearly supporting the decision.
Fred.

But there is nothing in the bidding suggest that NS have more then 8 trumps.

Co Wiersma

Charles Brenner

2017-02-08 15:17:19 UTC

Post by Fred.

Actually, both East and South were bid by Bridge Baron 23.
I considered 4S remarkable even for a bot. Maybe it
decided from the bidding that NS had 10 trump and so must EW.
I defended as South after letting the bots have their way. As
play went, I didn't see how ducking the diamond could hurt. East
could hardly be leading the 4 from doubleton KJ, and with KJ4
or better East is entitled to hold the defense to 2 diamond tricks.
(North is pretty much marked with the club ace or the diamond king
after even a bot's pass of 2H.)
I'd decided, with no particular justification, that clubs were
a safer exit than diamonds or hearts if I got thrown in with
the spade king on the third round. As it turns out, this was
correct, but I'm having a hard time finding a rationale
clearly supporting the decision.
Fred.

Your earlier post said winning the spade king on the second trick -- which makes more sense -- and that then you exited with a spade. If the play continued with declarer pulling trumps and leading a diamond then yes, you would have had an easy duck. But declarer does much better to lead a club rather than diamond, which I assume was Kurt's point. If South fails to rise King, then a few tricks later the diamond lead from declarer's hand does give South a genuine problem with two winners in dummy.

Fred.

2017-02-09 15:35:25 UTC

Post by Charles Brenner

Post by Fred.

Actually, both East and South were bid by Bridge Baron 23.
I considered 4S remarkable even for a bot. Maybe it
decided from the bidding that NS had 10 trump and so must EW.
I defended as South after letting the bots have their way. As
play went, I didn't see how ducking the diamond could hurt. East
could hardly be leading the 4 from doubleton KJ, and with KJ4
or better East is entitled to hold the defense to 2 diamond tricks.
(North is pretty much marked with the club ace or the diamond king
after even a bot's pass of 2H.)
I'd decided, with no particular justification, that clubs were
a safer exit than diamonds or hearts if I got thrown in with
the spade king on the third round. As it turns out, this was
correct, but I'm having a hard time finding a rationale
clearly supporting the decision.
Fred.

Since South's general program is to avoid the endplay, and rising with
the king loses only against East holding Axx, I think South will rise
with the club king and exit with a club. On taking the club ace, North
can see the potential winners in dummy too. If unable to beat dummy's 4th
club North should attack diamonds immediately. Even if controlling the
clubs North will probably attach diamonds unless holding a diamond honor
to protect (can we assume the jack on the bidding ?:) )

With a decent North I think South is fairly safe ducking the first
diamond after East plays on the clubs. A bot is a different matter.

Fred.

Lorne Anderson

2017-02-08 11:25:42 UTC