[jallerton]

---

IMPs.

♣Q, 2, 5 [low = enc], 6
♣7, 3, K, 4
♣8, A, 9, ♠2
♥K ?

Do you duck or win? Why?

[Fluffy]

Win because declarer has

♠x
♥KJx
♦AKQ10xx
♣Axx

[wanoff]

Duck. He may need an extra entry to dummy holding ♥KQJx

[rhm]

Fluffy, on 2014-September-08, 01:45, said:

Win because declarer has

♠x
♥KJx
♦AKQ10xx
♣Axx

What if he has

♠-
♥KQJx
♦AKQxx
♣AT64

Rainer Herrmann

[PhantomSac]

rhm, on 2014-September-08, 03:59, said:

What if he has

♠-
♥KQJx
♦AKQxx
♣AT64

Rainer Herrmann

Then there's nothing I can do since he's cold?

[PhantomSac]

Fluffy, on 2014-September-08, 01:45, said:

Win because declarer has

♠x
♥KJx
♦AKQ10xx
♣Axx

He has 9 top tricks on this layout but elected to go down by playing the HK?

[gnasher]

Take it, because he has xx KQx AKQJ A10xx.

[wanoff]

gnasher, on 2014-September-08, 16:06, said:

Take it, because he has xx KQx AKQJ A10xx.

This thread is beginning to remind me of Spot the Braincell and Mrs Scum being advised to "Take it, take it"
You wouldn't expect a spade fit on this deal. What about x KQJx AQJxx Axx ?

[rhm]

PhantomSac, on 2014-September-08, 12:49, said:

Then there's nothing I can do since he's cold?

You are right.
I did not put enough thought into this one.

gnasher, on 2014-September-08, 16:06, said:

Take it, because he has xx KQx AKQJ A10xx.

Apart that 4♠ is cold for 11 tricks, who would butcher 3NT in that manner?
Remember declarer does not know where the ♥A is.

wanoff, on 2014-September-08, 17:47, said:

This thread is beginning to remind me of Spot the Braincell and Mrs Scum being advised to "Take it, take it"
You wouldn't expect a spade fit on this deal. What about x KQJx AQJxx Axx ?

Trouble is it hardly matters whether you duck or win at this point if declarer has this hand.

I can come up with layouts where ducking could be right.
For example

♠-
♥KQJxx
♦AQxx
♣AT64

You would have to duck again when declarer plays a low heart next.
Whether declarer would bid 2NT with that hand and pass 3NT is unclear, though I would not consider it insane.

Rainer Herrmann

[gszes]

DUCK

We can all dream up hands where it is a pure guess but what if declarer has
a heart suit similar to KQ9xx? to play the heart ace immediately ends up
giving up not only the heart suit but creates and entry to spades in case
declarer was void (not likely). Declarer can still go right by continuing
with the Q but at least we have created a guess:))

[shyams]

I guess I'll duck.

If declarer is ♠x ♥KQJx ♦AQJxx ♣Axx, two finesses in diamonds are needed to make the contract and the ♥10 provides the second entry.

Partner could show a ♥ feature by leading ♣10 at trick 3; partner chose ♣8 instead. For lack of anything better, I treat the ♣8 as a feature in ♦ and duck twice in ♥.

[gnasher]

gnasher said:

Take it, because he has xx KQx AKQJ A10xx.

rhm, on 2014-September-09, 02:36, said:

who would butcher 3NT in that manner?

I would. What line do you think he should follow?

[PhantomSac]

gnasher, on 2014-September-09, 13:46, said:

I would. What line do you think he should follow?

I doubt you would, as you would not have elected to play 3N instead of 4S opposite a weak 2 with good spades

Your line is definitely cool if you are in 3N though, I like it.

[MrAce]

PhantomSac, on 2014-September-09, 14:05, said:

Your line is definitely cool if you are in 3N though, I like it.

Justin, would you really duck clubs twice with this?
And why majority of replies assume declarer has solid diamonds? Example hand by wanoff (post #8) looks more likely to me. No?

[PhantomSac]

MrAce, on 2014-September-09, 14:23, said:

Justin, would you really duck clubs twice with this?

Sure why not? Even if you're going to take the normal line of the HA being on you are going to need to duck 2 clubs since you have to cross in spades twice to lead hearts up twice, so you don't want to lose more than 2 clubs 1 spade and 1 heart.

[PhantomSac]

MrAce, on 2014-September-09, 14:23, said:

And why majority of replies assume declarer has solid diamonds? Example hand by wanoff (post #8) looks more likely to me. No?

Because declarer having solid diamonds are the layouts where winning the heart is necessary I suppose? Ducking seems like a normal reflexive play but it feels like maybe we're being duped somehow, probably just because it's posted here so it might be some kind of extreme hand. For instance fluffys initial idea without 9 top tricks, eg x KJxx AKQJx Axx is probably in the game, declarers legitimate play is quite low and it would be another sexy play to bang out the HK and hope for the duck. And of course that might even be the best legit line anyways, RHO having the AQ of hearts and 3 clubs.

Seems like either play could work but in general I'm not playing for them to make super good/flashy plays. And if they do, it would take them a long time to figure it out, if a guy just whips out the HK I am ducking in tempo, if he tanks for a few minutes and plays the HK the KQJx kind of holdings become less likely lol. Same with gnashers proposed layout/play, even if the bidding was consistent I think few people would take gnashers line and of those they would have to think for a long time before coming up with it rather than just taking a heart finesse.

[wanoff]

PhantomSac, on 2014-September-09, 14:49, said:

Because declarer having solid diamonds are the layouts where winning the heart is necessary I suppose? Ducking seems like a normal reflexive play but it feels like maybe we're being duped somehow, probably just because it's posted here so it might be some kind of extreme hand. For instance fluffys initial idea without 9 top tricks, eg x KJxx AKQJx Axx is probably in the game, declarers legitimate play is quite low and it would be another sexy play to bang out the HK and hope for the duck. And of course that might even be the best legit line anyways, RHO having the AQ of hearts and 3 clubs.

Seems like either play could work but in general I'm not playing for them to make super good/flashy plays. And if they do, it would take them a long time to figure it out, if a guy just whips out the HK I am ducking in tempo, if he tanks for a few minutes and plays the HK the KQJx kind of holdings become less likely lol. Same with gnashers proposed layout/play, even if the bidding was consistent I think few people would take gnashers line and of those they would have to think for a long time before coming up with it rather than just taking a heart finesse.

I'll buy that.

Why is it posted.... though you don't have that info at the table.
Speaking as a non mathematician, I would think KQJx is pretty rare, certainly less common than the various solid 5 cd diamond holdings or AKJxx
If declarer did need 2 entries, he might alternatively have tried a small ♥ to the 10.
♥K not that flashy from x KJxx AKQJx Axx.....what else could you play ?

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2014-September-09, 13:46, said:

I would. What line do you think he should follow?

Assume you have xx KQx AKQJ A10xx.

As declarer if I assumed RHO has the ♥A the main line looks to me simply establishing 2 heart tricks by playing hearts from dummy.
Anyway it can hardly cost to cash diamonds first
If I assumed LHO had the ♥A I would certainly play diamonds first with one option being of exiting in clubs.
If West controls spade he will have to come down to two hearts giving you interesting options when he has the heart ace and either the jack, 9 or 7.
So cash your diamonds discarding spades and unless something surprising happens play a spade and then decide which heart to play from dummy.
Admittedly I would probably not play West for A7.

Not very brilliant I admit but playing the king from hand might loose irrespective of where the ♥A is

Rainer Herrmann

[jallerton]

Thanks for the replies.

A very strong player failed to find the winning defence at the table, and it did not seem obvious to me why he should have done so.

This was the actual layout:

---

[PhilKing]

Who was declarer (don't be shy)?