[Jinksy]

MPs against competent club opps.

---

N leads the 10♦. What d'you think the best line is?

[whereagles]

I dunno.. maybe let the ♦ pass, take 2nd round and hook the spade?

Another option is to take 1st diamond and bang down ♣K confidently. Sometimes this takes the trick

[nige1]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-16, 17:29, said:

MPs against competent club opps.
N leads the 10♦. What d'you think the best line is?

---

IMO 2♥ is a reasonable contract so nothing fancy. The priority is to draw trumps. Just win the ♦ lead (♦ may be 3-3 or blocked). Lead ♥K (hoping for a 3-3 ♥ break or ♥98 doubleton). If ♦ don't break, you may need the ♠ finesse or a squeeze.

[Jinksy]

My line at the table was:

Holdup once,
♠ hook (holds),
♥ to the K

I went one down when N showed up Axx of ♥s and 5♠s and gave his P a ruff, for 1 down.

I still can't see a better honest line for the contract, which is prob worth something in itself (we'd barely seen a board where more than a third of the room was in the same spot). Nige - on your line we're off anyway if the ♠Q is offside, I think, so it seems better (as in better chance to make) to assume it's onside and give ourselves the extra chance from (what I think is) the %age trump play.

Disregarding that, I'm still not confident which line maximises expected tricks. On the lie of the cards, it's one off if you just try to cash Hs from the top, too.

[Shugart23]

My immediate thinking was to take the diamond, lead over to the Ace of spades and lead the 4 of Hearts to the J of Hearts. How would that have worked out ?

[Jinksy]

I think all roads lead to one off on the actual cards. N can still give S a ruff, so they can cash their minor suit tricks/crossruff their way to 6 tricks, but can't quite manage a trump promotion for N's 9.

Why lead a ♥ to the jack, though? Once you've gone to the trouble of reaching dummy, I'm pretty sure small to the K is better play of the suit in isolation.

[nige1]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-17, 12:49, said:

I think all roads lead to one off on the actual cards. N can still give S a ruff, so they can cash their minor suit tricks/crossruff their way to 6 tricks, but can't quite manage a trump promotion for N's 9. Why lead a ♥ to the jack, though? Once you've gone to the trouble of reaching dummy, I'm pretty sure small to the K is better play of the suit in isolation.

If ♦ break 3-3, then the ♠ finesse gains little. An early ♠ finesse, even when successful, increases the chance of ruff, as actually happened. Whatever is the correct % play, however, it might not succeed on the actual hand. If you do risk the ♠ finesse, then it's close which trump finesse is best. If defenders threaten a trump promotion without cashing ♣A first, then you should consider discarding ♣K instead of ruffing.

[Jinksy]

Quote

If you do risk the ♠ finesse, then it's close which trump finesse is best.

Is it? As far as I can see, small to the K then a duck protects you against Qx with N or either Hx with S. Small to the J protects you against Qx with S or Ax with N. The K also gives you a better chance to retain control of the suit for a round.

Quote

If ♦ break 3-3, then the ♠ finesse gains little. An early ♠ finesse, even when successful, increases the chance of ruff, as actually happened.

I reasoned that S's failure to X ♠s suggested he wasn't about to give his P a ruff, and made him slight favourite to be without the Q. N's failure to overcall ♠s made him unlikely to have 5.

Is the risk of a ruff really so great that it makes up the difference in expectation between playing for a 3-3 split and playing for a finesse? And in any case, how do you expect to get to E's long ♦ having drawn trumps?

[nige1]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-18, 03:27, said:

Is it? As far as I can see, small to the K then a duck protects you against Qx with N or either Hx with S. Small to the J protects you against Qx with S or Ax with N. The K also gives you a better chance to retain control of the suit for a round.

Yes, if you risk the ♠ finesse, then small ♥ to ♥K rather than ♥J does seem better.

[nige1]

Jinksy, on 2014-October-18, 03:27, said:

I reasoned that S's failure to X ♠s suggested he wasn't about to give his P a ruff, and made him slight favourite to be without the Q. N's failure to overcall ♠s made him unlikely to have 5.

If declarer leads ♠ it facilitates a ♠ ruff. The 5-2 split was unlucky but defenders can often negotiate a ruff when ♠s are 4-2.

Jinksy, on 2014-October-18, 03:27, said:

Is the risk of a ruff really so great that it makes up the difference in expectation between playing for a 3-3 split and playing for a finesse?

If declarer needs the ♠ finesse, he can take it later. The question is whether risking an early ♠ finesse is worth the extra chance in trumps of RHO holding ♥A doubleton or ♥Axxx. IMO NO but it's a matter of judgement.

Jinksy, on 2014-October-18, 03:27, said:

And in any case, how do you expect to get to E's long ♦ having drawn trumps?

If ♦ are 3-3 or there's a squeeze, then declarer can use dummy's ♠A as an entry.