Tough Defense
Tough bidding
The hand posted on the 10th September on the All News home page where South played in 4S provided an opportunity to demonstrate a successful tough defense. However with better bidding should NS be in the undefendable 5D contract as the cards lie instead?
The NS hands are an example of where playing in a 44 fit sometimes provides extra tricks. A problem NS have based on the bidding shown is that South's opening bid range is so wide that North doesn't feel that they can make a positive bid over the cue bid so the opportunity to find the diamond fit is missed.
We don't know NS's base system from the post but should South have instead opened a game forcing 2C with their 3 loser hand? Many pairs would have as part of their partnership agreement that a game forcing opening 2C bid could include a 9+ playing trick option for exactly this type of hand. If S had opened 2C this may first have had the advantage of dissuading a bid from West at all, in which case a bidding sequence such 2C 2H 2S 3H 3S 4D 5D should get NS to 5D. However if West overcalled 2H then a bidding sequence 2C (2H) X 2S 3D 3S 3N 4D 5D or similar would get NS to 5D. The key difference for both sequences is that after the game forcing opening bid N can confidently continue to contribute to the bidding and show their diamond suit or diamond suit support eventually.
Latest Posts on this Thread
- STANLEY ABRAHAMS27 Sep 2018 at 02:22PM
Hi Sean, why don't you post the actual hand, if you want comments? We don't want to go back and forth trying to see if your analysis "undefendable 5 Diamond contract" is correct. I would wager that many declarers would go down after 3 rounds of clubs. However I am interested in your further comments.
- STANLEY ABRAHAMS27 Sep 2018 at 02:29PM
Continuing; After 3 rounds of clubs, ruffed, S has to play one high diamond, then ruff a Spade with the 9, yes the 9, of Diamonds, and then finesse the 8. Would you have found this?
- SEAN LYNCH28 Sep 2018 at 01:04AM
Thanks for your comments, Stanley.
I would like to think I would use the following reasoning or similar at the table to find the undefendable line as the cards lie:
- If West overcalled the 2C opening with 2H and North ended up the declarer and a club is led and not a heart, and there are 3 rounds of clubs with West playing AKQC and East 23 10 C, then after ruffing the 3rd round of C North leads a diamond to the xxAJ. Declarer knows at this point West probably has 5+ heart for their overcall, probably 5C unless East has false carded, and the JD. That JD looks like a singleton. If it is a singleton and West has 5H then continuing with a high S and ruffing high with the 9D allows the marked finesse to be taken and the contact to be made. If the JD is a singleton and West has 6+H the contract is unmakeable.
- If West doesn't overcall the 2C opening and South is declarer and there are 3 rounds of clubs with West playing AKQC and East 23 10 C, then after ruffing North leads a diamond to the xxAJ. Again the JD looks like a singleton and a high S then S ruff with the 9D is marked to allow the marked D finesse to be taken.
However if I exercised too much imagination I could well overthink that West might have deliberately false carded to make me think the JD was a singleton and then take the wrong line and play off the top diamonds.
You need to be logged in to reply to threads.
Click here to log in.
Click here to log in.
