BBO Discussion Forums: Defending 3NT - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Defending 3NT

#1 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2013-January-30, 11:28


There was some doubt about whether 3NT promised long hearts or could be 18-19 balanced. Declarer thought that it showed the former, but wasn't certain.

You're going to have live with English leads. Partner leads 7, which could be from K87, J87, 87x, 87xx or 7x. How would you defend?

Edit: Sorry, I meant to put this in Interesting Bridge Hands - I'm not trying to exclude anyone from the discussion.

Further edit: IMPs.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-January-31, 02:39

... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#2 User is offline   WellSpyder 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,627
  • Joined: 2009-November-30
  • Location:Oxfordshire, England

Posted 2013-January-30, 11:33

Andy, those are the West and South hands we are seeing, are they, at least in terms of how they correspond to the bidding shown?
0

#3 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2013-January-30, 11:38

 WellSpyder, on 2013-January-30, 11:33, said:

Andy, those are the West and South hands we are seeing, are they, at least in terms of how they correspond to the bidding shown?

Sorry, I've fixed it. "Hands rotated for convenience" never seems very convenient when I'm doing the rotating.
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#4 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,024
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2013-January-30, 12:59

I'm not going to cater to partner's possible K87. We can't run the suit immediately on that layout, and declarer will have side values to compensate for the lack of a true stopper: he may well hold the heart K and club A, making defence impossible.

So I want to assume declarer holds the spade K. I think I need to find out if he also has the J, so I will play the 9 at trick one.

What I do later depends on how declarer plays and precisely what cards partner shows, assuming that we play some form of smith such that he can clarify his spades a tad.

Hmmm...If I am allowed to hold this trick, I continue with the Q, which would get partner unblocking the J if he has it, and won't set up a quick second winner for declarer if declarer holds KJxx(x).
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#5 User is offline   Fluffy 

  • World International Master without a clue
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,404
  • Joined: 2003-November-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:madrid

Posted 2013-January-30, 13:22

I also play the 9, it even defeats the contract when aprtner has K87 and Kxxx
0

#6 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,482
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2013-January-30, 17:02

I was wondering how we'd lost an imp on this board.
(not relevant to the discussion here, of course)
0

#7 User is offline   dake50 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,211
  • Joined: 2006-April-22

Posted 2013-January-30, 22:52

I'm guessing South has SK +CAQ for his free 1NT.
Win SA out C10. Win SA +HK +DK is our best score.
0

#8 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2013-January-31, 11:44

 mikeh, on 2013-January-30, 12:59, said:

I'm not going to cater to partner's possible K87. We can't run the suit immediately on that layout, and declarer will have side values to compensate for the lack of a true stopper: he may well hold the heart K and club A, making defence impossible.

So I want to assume declarer holds the spade K. I think I need to find out if he also has the J, so I will play the 9 at trick one.

What I do later depends on how declarer plays and precisely what cards partner shows, assuming that we play some form of smith such that he can clarify his spades a tad.

Hmmm...If I am allowed to hold this trick, I continue with the Q, which would get partner unblocking the J if he has it, and won't set up a quick second winner for declarer if declarer holds KJxx(x).

If your 9 wins, presumably declarer has Kxxx. In that case, he will let your queen win as well. He knows you don't have AQJ109x, becase you didn't open 2.

What will you do when your queen holds, and what layout are you playing for?
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#9 User is offline   Fluffy 

  • World International Master without a clue
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,404
  • Joined: 2003-November-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:madrid

Posted 2013-January-31, 14:56

yup. that's why I would play low to partner's jack, hopefully he can see the need for a diamond switch
0

#10 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,993
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2013-February-01, 17:20

 Fluffy, on 2013-January-31, 14:56, said:

yup. that's why I would play low to partner's jack, hopefully he can see the need for a diamond switch

If we're playing for that, is there anything we can do to help him? I wonder if playing 10 followed by 9 would be a good idea.

Also, when partner leads 7, it's not that likely that he has J. There are six ways he can have 87x or 7x, and only one way he can have J87. If declarer has KJxx(x), what can or should we do?
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
0

#11 User is offline   Fluffy 

  • World International Master without a clue
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,404
  • Joined: 2003-November-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:madrid

Posted 2013-February-02, 07:49

If delcarer has KJxx let him win a trick with the jack, and then hope partner finds the diamond switch and has Q and J. If declarer wins the K from KJxx I think he will get us.
0

#12 User is offline   PhilKing 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,240
  • Joined: 2012-June-25

Posted 2013-February-02, 08:37

If declarer has the KJ (highly likely) and the A, he is cold - five hearts, two clubs, on spade and one diamond. To beat it, I think need partner to have the AJ or the A and the diamond jack (I am assuming pard has the K, obviously).

If I win and play a club, we are OK in most cases. The T should do, and I am toying with the nine. But maybe I should switch to a diamond, since if pard has the AJ we should still beat them. I can also set it even if partner has the bare bones - xx Kxxx xxxx Axx - I did not need a jack in partner's hand, after all.

Overtricks be damned - a diamond it is!
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

5 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users