[pescetom]

MP

---

A curious auction, comments are welcome.

But the play is the thing.
West leads ♦K and you see the dummy in North.
How do you plan to defend here?

[jillybean]

Curious is not the word I would have chosen.

Partner has the ♦K, likely a black card, and either a singleton or void in hearts.
I want to keep declarer off dummy, so I will win the trick and return the ♣6. I don't want to plonk down the Jack because it will look like a doubleton.
Isn't a spade switch obvious?

Declarer is forced to play from his hand, so I will just sit back, take my tricks, and exit in clubs.

Now tell me how it should be done.

[pescetom]

Thanks.
What do others think?

[apollo1201]

I was wondering what is best, letting dummy ruff twice so I score both my trumps and a black winner that will surely (?) come, or tackle trumps by low or ace and low to prevent ruffs.

Partner leaving 2NT and not bidding D makes me think declarer is 63 in the reds.

[pescetom]

apollo1201, on 2026-September-03, 07:11, said:

Partner leaving 2NT and not bidding D makes me think declarer is 63 in the reds.

Our 1♦ opening is 4+ cards and fairly solid, so Partner's 2♦ could be 4 cards and a couple of honours (she could also have bid 3♦ with 5 cards purely competitive or 2♥ as an invitational or better raise).

[pescetom]

Not many were prepared to bite here, so maybe it was not purely intermediate after all.

I got it wrong like Jillybean, relieved that Declarer could do nothing to stop me scoring both my trumps as well as the diamond Ace and another black suit trick which we "had" to have (the classic wargaming mistake of assuming that the enemy will have only the level of strength that we can face).
Instead Declarer had both black Aces and clubs King too and ruffed three diamonds before you could blink.

My three opponents pointed out smugly that I should have have cashed hearts ace and another trump, to deny two ruffs.
I ruefully agreed, although thinking to myself that I could equally well just play a small trump to deny one ruff and score both my trumps.

Here is the full hand
MP

---

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-September-04, 06:43, said:

Not many were prepared to bite here, so maybe it was not purely intermediate after all.

I got it wrong like Jillybean, relieved that Declarer could do nothing to stop me scoring both my trumps as well as a diamond and another black suit trick which we "had" to have (the classic wargaming mistake of assuming that the enemy will have only the level of strength that we can face).
Instead Declarer had both black Aces and clubs King too and ruffed three diamonds before you could blink.

My three opponents pointed out smugly that I should have have cashed hearts ace and another trump, to deny two ruffs.
I ruefully agreed, although thinking to myself that I could equally well just play a small trump to deny one ruff and score both my trumps.

Will post the diagram later.

Are you still playing with your 3rd opponent?
Before you post the hand I would be interested to hear from other BBF'ers. After you post the hand it's too easy to say how things should have gone.
never mind, the cats out of the bag

[apollo1201]

pescetom, on 2026-September-04, 06:43, said:

My three opponents pointed out smugly that I should have have cashed hearts ace and another trump, to deny two ruffs.
I ruefully agreed, although thinking to myself that I could equally well just play a small trump to deny one ruff and score both my trumps.

Haha 2 points for me then

So declarer had
A
KJ to 6
4 small
AK

And why did partner keep silent over 2NT with
xxx
x
K to 4
Q to 5

This is definitely not tje contract you want to play even facing an expected 18-19 bal that guaranteed 4 dia.

[pescetom]

The diagram is in the wrap-up post above.

apollo1201, on 2026-September-04, 06:50, said:

And why did partner keep silent over 2NT with
xxx
x
K to 4
Q to 5

This is definitely not the contract you want to play even facing an expected 18-19 bal that guaranteed 4 dia.

It's a fair question, although we do have the agreement that any bid over 2NT is GF in an uncontested auction and while I would not expect that to be on here, the matter is undiscussed. I didn't want to get into that discussion because the auction had been a bit tense: I had made it clear I was unhappy with the tempo of North's pass over 2♦ and I suspect that influenced all the calls after my 2NT - and my poor defence decision too.

[heart76]

Pretty sure I am opening 1NT downgrading a tiny bit my 4333 with ugly quacks and Jxx in clubs.

[pescetom]

heart76, on 2026-September-05, 04:09, said:

Pretty sure I am opening 1NT downgrading a tiny bit my 4333 with ugly quacks and Jxx in clubs.

I agree that is reasonable. I would have done so in a field where I thought was likely that others would do the same.

[WasWinM]

I tried to come up with a hand that might lead to this auction and this play. The closest I could imagine is this: A, J1098xx, xx, AKQx, where this player can visualize Kxx in hearts for the delayed heart raise and a nasty surprise for the big NT hand. That leaves partner with singleton heart King so the only play I don't want to make is heart A, so I chose to overtake and return a low heart, just to make sure nothing boneheaded happened somehow.

Obviously, I don't do well against speculative bidding like this.

[pescetom]

Yes the bidding is speculative, as you politely put it. As I mentioned, there was tension at the table after the Pass by North.

I was wondering if anyone would see a reason for West to lead the singleton trump, which could set the contract by 2 on the actual layout. I do not.

[mike777]

pescetom, on 2026-September-06, 01:48, said:

Yes the bidding is speculative, as you politely put it. As I mentioned, there was tension at the table after the Pass by North.

I was wondering if anyone would see a reason for West to lead the singleton trump, which could set the contract by 2 on the actual layout. I do not.

Leading a trump makes lots of sense. Where are the opponents tricks coming from?

Partner shows a balanced 18.
Double makes sense at MP
If 4H makes, it is a losing bd for us, so the double is free

[Cyberyeti]

Would have bid 3♦ not 2

Would have led ♦2, partner now knows declarer has 4 diamonds and plays A and another trump if we didn't win the auction

[Zelandakh]

Isn't the West hand a clear 3♦ call after the interference?

[pescetom]

Zelandakh, on 2026-September-06, 06:29, said:

Isn't the West hand a clear 3♦ call after the interference?

Not to us, 3♦ would be 5 cards purely competitive and 2♥ invitational or better.

[Zelandakh]

pescetom, on 2026-September-06, 06:37, said:

Not to us, 3♦ would be 5 cards purely competitive and 2♥ invitational or better.

While I am a fan of the LoTT, you should think of your hand in terms of ODR rather than slavishly looking only at the number of trumps held. This allows you to bring some judgement into the auction, which is in the end your biggest advantage over the competition at club/social level.

[pescetom]

Zelandakh, on 2026-September-06, 06:42, said:

While I am a fan of the LoTT, you should think of your hand in terms of ODR rather than slavishly looking only at the number of trumps held. This allows you to bring some judgement into the auction, which is in the end your biggest advantage over the competition at club/social level.

I don't assume I have much O or D here
The most likely hand for partner in East is a weak NT after all (this is not UK).