Polish slam

Charles Brenner

unread,

Feb 9, 2012, 3:20:50 PM2/9/12

to

NS Vul. Imps. Dlr W
A J107652
KQ75 A43
A4 J8
AKQ543 86

West East
1C 1D
2D 2S
3C 3S
4C 4H
6C

No idea what the first three bids mean but I think the players were
chatting in Polish. 2S and 3S are natural I'm pretty sure, and 4H may
be a cue bid.

The first trick is trump 2, 6, 10, and you win. Glad they didn't lead
a diamond, that might leave some flexibility. Do you see anything?

I thought to duck a diamond. Declarer thought to cash the king of
hearts which brought 2, 3, 10. So?

Eric Leong

unread,

Feb 9, 2012, 4:04:03 PM2/9/12

to

King of hearts, ace of hearts, small heart off of dummy. If hearts aren't 3-3 you have to hope RHO has two clubs and two hearts and he can't overruff the club eight on dummy.

Eric Leong

Travis Crump

unread,

Feb 9, 2012, 6:40:58 PM2/9/12

to

I would just draw trump and duck a diamond. The odds of a major suit
squeeze is ~11.5%[not counting remote chance of Hxxxx of spades with
long hearts] which strikes me as better than trying to ruff a
heart/diamond which is hard to see how it could ever work without
assuming misdefense, certainly not 11.5%.

Travis

Adam Beneschan

unread,

Feb 9, 2012, 7:32:16 PM2/9/12

to

Isn't that playing him for an error? The only way that would work is
if he started with exactly 107 of clubs, in which case playing the 10
the first time can't gain (assuming he knows from the auction that
West has six clubs--someone who knows the system will have to tell me
whether that's the case). (Of course, if N/S is a weak pair, your
line also works if South's second club is higher than the 8 but he
wastes it on the third round of hearts, although he could still beat
you if he's 5=2=4=2. I guess it would help to know whether N/S are a
strong pair or not.)

-- Adam

Player

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 1:17:04 AM2/10/12

to

1C = strong or balanced or various Cs.
1D = negative
2D = GF

Ron

Charles Brenner

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 4:24:01 AM2/10/12

to

Yea, it's a better problem on a major suit lead. I had a blind spot in
presenting it.

Charles

Frances

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 6:45:01 AM2/10/12

to

The problem with ducking a diamond at once is you are then going to be
laughed at by RHO who played the C10 from J1097 with hearts 3-3.

Joachim Parsch

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 7:12:51 AM2/10/12

to

Frances schrieb:

Then you're down anyway, aren't you? Even if you judge to play 3 rounds of
hearts immediately (KA and towards the Q), *and* if you decide to play for
clubs 41, you will still lose a trump and a diamond, because RHO will
ruff the 4th heart and return a trump, killing the diamond ruff.

If clubs are 41, the contract is pretty hopeless. Beside hearts 33, I
see two extra chances (the major suit squeeze and Eric's). The squeeze
seems better, so it's probably best to play all the trumps and
then duck a diamond. If North has something like Kxx, 10xxx, Qxxx, xx,
he may not keep 4 hearts with 7 cards left. Maybe he should, but you
never know.

Joachim

Frances

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 8:18:10 AM2/10/12

to

Not if North has, say,
KQx
Jxx
KQxxx
x

and we just play four rounds of trumps

I admit that a singleton club lead would be a very strange choice
indeed from that hand, but I have seen people come up with that type
of lead before now, and I don't see why it's wrong to play a second
trump before ducking a diamond.

Or if you discover trumps are 4-1 you can instead play North to have
something like

Kxx
Jxxx

> If clubs are 41, the contract is pretty hopeless. Beside hearts 33, I
> see two extra chances (the major suit squeeze and Eric's). The squeeze
> seems better, so it's probably best to play all the trumps and
> then duck a diamond. If North has something like Kxx, 10xxx, Qxxx, xx,
> he may not keep 4 hearts with 7 cards left. Maybe he should, but you
> never know.
>

> Joachim- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Dave Flower

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 10:41:03 AM2/10/12

to

On Feb 9, 8:20 pm, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:

Absent an explanation of the bidding, I do not know how much the
defence knows about declarer's holdings, but it seems to me that, if
you plan to execute a squeeze, it costs nothing to run the trumps,
discarding spades from dummy, before ducking a diamond. You have no
real threat in diamonds, but the defenders don't know that.

Dave Flower

Eric Leong

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 10:41:55 AM2/10/12

to

I would rather not deny my opponent's God given right to make a mistake.

Eric Leong

Charles Brenner

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 10:56:37 AM2/10/12

to

My idea in ducking a diamond immediately is the hope that by
apparently trying to ruff a diamond I may delude them about my shape.
Easy to say that one of them will win and the other give count, but
it's possible that they will have different views until the post
mortem, and even possible that one of them will think I have TWO more
diamonds until after a fatal discard. Certainly, I will get an
immediate second trump play rather than a clarifying play in spades
for example. Also, there are even players who form an idee fixe about
the hand and then fail to untangle their thoughts later on even when
evidence shows they should. All this isn't terribly likely against
good players (which I think everyone at the table was), but it may be
more likely than a legitimate squeeze.

Charles

jogs

unread,

Feb 10, 2012, 9:57:08 PM2/10/12

to

What about after drawing trumps, cash the
diamond ace and spade ace. Then exit the
diamond. Does this give opponents an additional
chance to err by trying to cash a high spade?

Frisbieinstein

unread,

Feb 12, 2012, 6:15:38 AM2/12/12

to

On Feb 10, 4:20 am, Charles Brenner <challambren...@gmail.com> wrote:
> NS Vul. Imps. Dlr W
> A J107652
> KQ75 A43
> A4 J8
> AKQ543 86
>
> West East
> 1C 1D
> 2D 2S
> 3C 3S
> 4C 4H
> 6C
>
> No idea what the first three bids mean but I think the players were
> chatting in Polish.

1C 12-14 HCP without DSH suit or any 18+
1D 0-7 pt.
2D 23+ HCP
2S 4+, decent spade suit
rest of the bids natural.