Join Bridge Winners
All comments by Akin Koclar
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
“For those who say a 2♣ rebid is “artificial”, then I would inquire how ever to show ♣'s, and just what the “artificial 2♣” shows or asks?”

2 for me shows a 4-3-5-1 with extras (i.e. 15-17 HCP) whereas 2 shows a minimum hand with 3 hearts. A rebid of 2NT would imply an unbalanced hand with short hearts, 3-4 clubs and invitational values.
April 26, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I think the spade ace lead was fatal for the defense on the first board. You still get your heart trick after the spade lead and continuation, which results in a trick in each suit for the defense. Promoting the Q is necessary to set 3.
April 25, 2016
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Sorry, fit-jumps were unavailable.
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Because you would like to contest the auction in hopes of reaching a makeable contract and would like to join the bidding sooner rather than later?
Oct. 14, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
_____A
_____32
_____-
_____-
2_______-
- ________4
A_______2
A_______2
_____K
_____-
_____K
_____K

Playing in 7, declarer claims: “I'll ruff a heart and the dummy is high.”

Considering that it would be quite safe and rational to play the king of a suit whose ace has just been discarded, declarer should be allowed to make, even though he is not aware that there is still a trump out.

The problem with allowing such incomplete claims on the grounds that going down would be “irrational” is that this establishes a precedent for more complicated cases and one would eventually have to decide where to draw the line on rationality.
July 8, 2015
Akin Koclar edited this comment July 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
Ruffing the 4th in dummy doesn't work when RHO has 2-3-4-4, because you block the spade suit. Also, if you decide to play for 4-1 diamonds, play a club to dummy and ride the 10, that way, you make an overtrick when clubs break and cater for Rosenberg's supernatural defense, although I guess the leader surely has a club void which may lead to 3 defensive ruffs for down 2…
March 16, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
The 6 was important, because declarer would have gone down after a diamond to the king if he held the 5 instead. West would have exited with the J after winning the ace, and maintained a tenace (8-6) over declarer's 7-5 in the endgame.
Feb. 12, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
If the J denies any higher honors and if declarer can be counted on to have exactly 4 hearts for his bidding, declarer must have something like Ax AKxx KJxxx xx. If his second spade is not the 10, a high spade return will set the contract, provided that partner unblocks the 8 from 108x, and declarer does not find the inspired play of a diamond to the ace, followed by the jack of spades. In any case, a top spade prevents declarer from taking 10 tricks. Declarer's play, on the other hand, which resulted in a blocked diamond suit, seems seriously flawed.
Jan. 8, 2015
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I can't see why cashing the club would be necessary, we can't be endplayed in hearts if declarer is 2-5-3-3, because declarer has only 7 tricks. On the other hand, cashing the club lets declarer make if he has Ax AQJxx Jxxx Qx. It could be argued that partner would have played the 6 from 1063 on the second round, therefore declarer has 3 clubs and not 4 diamonds, but since cashing the club cannot be necessary, why take the risk?
Dec. 17, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
In my opinion, there are three alternatives, which are: Pass, 3NT and 4. A case could be made for each of those:

i) Pass: Partner has at least invitational values, and he probably denied a huge diamond fit. If he has a doubleton spade, pass will get us a great result. Even if he has shorter spades and a fit for diamonds, it is likely that a diamond contract will be difficult to play with RHO holding short spades and long diamonds, so defending seems indicated; we can at least hope to negotiate either a heart or a club ruff if necessary. The vulnerability also gives us less incentive to declare; +500 is not a significant loss against our game, and any plus score is a gain when no game can be made.

ii) 3NT: It is possible that the opponents go for -200 when we have a vulnerable game, which is actually bad. Furthermore, there is the minuscule chance that 3 doubled makes, which would be disastrous. Bidding 3NT would prevent those scenarios from materializing. It could also enable partner to make a slam try with a diamond fit, decent values and short spades, to which we could respond cooperatively with our prime minimum.

iii) 4: A vulnerable 3 overcall is more likely to be made on an 8 card suit rather than a 6 card suit. Usually LHO will hold 7 spades, and our holding indicates that partner is probably short in spades. Since partner did not bid 4 or 4, it is likely that he has a fitting hand for diamonds. Admittedly, we may need some diamond spots to ruff all those spades, or quite a lot of high card points in order to make 5. The bottom line is that if we are not passing 3 doubled, we may as well opt to play in a suit contract which seems to have better odds than 3NT, as I find it difficult to construct a hand which makes 3NT better than 5. There is also the chance that partner has the nuts with x Axxx Axxxx Kxx (maybe he should support diamonds with that hand?), which makes 6 quite good, and it may be impossible to bid that if you bid 3NT (or pass 3 doubled, obviously). On the other hand, you may need to refer to some external references in order to maximize your chances in playing a ridiculous diamond combination while trying to get rid of all your spade losers, therefore it may not feel right to suggest a diamond contract with a suit headed by the jack.
July 11, 2014
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
I find it ridiculous to pull players away from the table and ask them what their actions would be had they been informed correctly, let alone calling a second player away and asking his hypothetical action in a hypothetical auction. Maybe the director should also have asked South whether he would pull the double of 4C to 4NT? Then maybe he should have called East and asked if he would double 4NT given that he had K9xxx in declarer's main suit?

All in all, I think it is clear that the result should stand in this case, since the non-offenders were not damaged. What to do if 4C doubled would have been a favorable result for the non-offenders is unclear to me, since I am not keen on giving two way shots two players. Maybe an expert-player poll to determine if 4C is a logical alternative?
Dec. 28, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
When East plays the king of diamonds, he expects his partner to overtake and return the suit when holding Ax. Therefore, with 5 diamonds, East knows that the defense cannot take more than 2 diamond tricks when the king holds, so he cashes the second diamond (the last diamond trick for the defense) and returns a club.

When East has 4 diamonds, he does not know whether 2 or 3 diamonds will cash, so plays a low diamond next. Now, using the above reasoning, West should deduce that his partner does not hold 5 diamonds. Since he has 3 diamonds, he knows another diamond will cash. If he had 4 diamonds, he would try cashing the king of clubs instead.

I should also add that this approach presumes that the objective is to set the hand, which requires that the defense can cash either 2 diamonds and 2 clubs, or 3 diamonds and 1 club, hence the assumption that either 2 or 3 defensive diamond tricks are available. In matchpoints, you should probably also consider cashing exactly 1 diamond and 2 clubs when declarer has, say, AKxxxx Kxx x Jxx, where you cannot set him no matter what, but can prevent him from scoring an overtrick.
March 24, 2013
Akin Koclar edited this comment March 24, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
One case for finessing is that the opening leader might have led a singleton heart or club if he was not holding the two missing keycards.
Jan. 19, 2013
You are ignoring the author of this comment. Click to temporarily show the comment.
How about an exclusion 5?
Nov. 28, 2012
.

Bottom Home Top