[FrancesHinden]

I've been arguing about this hand with gnasher for the last couple of days.

Scoring: IMP

1♦ P 1♥ P
1♠ P 3♠ P
4♠ all pass

---

I'm giving you the auction as it was at our table, which was saner than the auction at his. I'm also giving you the first three tricks at our table...

LHO leads the queen of clubs, on which RHO encourages as you play low from dummy.
LHO continues with the jack of clubs, on which everyone else follows low.
LHO continues with the 10 of clubs, king, ace, ruff.

Plan the play

subsidiary question: gnasher claims it is correct to play the king of clubs at trick 1. Discuss.

[kenrexford]

Part I: I go elopement.

Part II: I'd duck and play clubs for splitting 6-2 like this Declarer. It seems like the only rational option. Ducking also has a possible benefit if RHO has A10xx. LHO with QJ98 might fear me having 10xx in hand and switch.

[y66]

Small spade to king playing for Jx either way.

My goal is to take 3 spades, 4 hearts, 2 diamonds and a club ruff.

Why does gnasher like CK at trick 1?

[Hanoi5]

I'm thinking of ruffing the third diamond in dummy, returning to hand to win 2 hearts and another diamond towards the table. I'm playing all suits to break evenly (hearts 4 in West) and spade J with West.

I'd only play the King from the table against someone who leads the Q from AQJ against suit contratcs, i.e. no one. If I held a singleton club I'd play the King (usually) especially to keep the leader from holding the first trick and possibly switching to a dangerous suit.

[gnasher]

y66, on Jun 11 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

Why does gnasher like CK at trick 1?

When I was declarer I covered with the king, and RHO played back the 3, then followed with the 2, so I knew that the clubs were either QJ10xx-Axx or QJ10-Axxxx. At the other table, Frances led ♣Q, declarer played low and 3rd hand encouraged, so the other declarer knew less than I did. Obviously, this doesn't work against all opponents - some would give count if you played low at trick one, and others wouldn't do anything informative after a cover.

That wasn't actually the reason that I covered - it was something I thought of afterwards. I covered because I thought LHO might have underled the ace. Curiously, although he hadn't, I was right in a way: later in the same match he did lead Q from AQJx against a suit contract.

[kenrexford]

gnasher, on Jun 11 2009, 09:28 AM, said:

y66, on Jun 11 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

Why does gnasher like CK at trick 1?

When I was declarer I covered with the king, and RHO played back the 3, then followed with the 2, so I knew that the clubs were either QJ10xx-Axx or QJ10-Axxxx. At the other table, Frances led ♣Q, declarer played low and 3rd hand encouraged, so the other declarer knew less than I did. Obviously, this doesn't work against all opponents - some would give count if you played low at trick one, and others wouldn't do anything informative after a cover.

That wasn't actually the reason that I covered - it was something I thought of afterwards. I covered because I thought LHO might have underled the ace. Curiously, although he hadn't, I was right in a way: later in the same match he did lead Q from AQJx against a suit contract.

This actually makes some sense.

I defended a hand a few years ago in Gatlinburg where I held AQJx in a side suit and dummy held Kxx. I switched to the Queen, playing Declarer for 10xx and a problem. If he played the King, my partner with the Ace could return the suit through his 10x for three tricks. If he ducked, I could then cash the club Ace for two tricks.

This made sense on that hand because Declarer was winning the rest of the tricks when he did get in (which is why partner freaked out at the pop of the King costing us a trick) and because I knew that we had already dropped a weird trick and needed strongly to get that back though some desperate move (which is why partner changed his tone to liking my play).

Unfortunately Declarer either did not have the 10 or had 109x. I don't remember why it failed. (Or, Declarer had a doubleton or did not even see the position.)

[helene_t]

Is the debate whether it makes sense to go for a partial elimination of the read suits (possibly a full elimination of hearts)?

[gnasher]

The line I played, which isn't necessarily best, was: ruff the third club, cash two hearts, spade to the 10 (which held), play a heart, planning to ruff low if RHO showed out and high if he followed.

When does that work, when doesn't it, and is there anything better?

[se12sam]

gnasher, on Jun 11 2009, 04:35 PM, said:

The line I played(...) play a heart, planning to ruff low if RHO showed out and high if he followed.

I'm no expert and therefore I fear I could be wrong. But at the point when you led a heart, if West is out of heart cards you are always down. West will over-ruff with his presumed ♠A and lead a club. Assuming the ♠9 did not fall on trick 6, the fourth club promotes a trump trick for the defense.

And if East fails to follow to the 3rd heart, it means we are playing West to have started with 3-4-1-5 OR for East to have ducked the first trump holding ♠A9x (West 2-4-2-5). Maybe it's best to put all your eggs in one basket and play for 3-3 in hearts.