From: Dag.Ostvang@avh.unit.no (Dag stvang)
Subject: Secure(?) 3 NT
Organization: University of Trondheim, Norway
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 16:41:11 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.11b


In article <1992Nov5.165702.27280@wuecl.wustl.edu> Giuseppe Bianchi writes:

>In article <1992Nov4.200102.25424@ugle.unit.no> Dag.Ostvang@avh.unit.no 
>(Dag Xstvang) writes:
>>
>>
>>At IMPs, neither side vulnerable, you are dealer and open 1 NT which
>>partner lifts to 3 NT. The heart jack is led, and you consider the
>>following play problem:
>>
>>
>>                             Dummy
>>
>>                             S A 6 5 4
>>                             H Q T
>>                             D Q 7 2
>>                             C K 6 5 3
>>
>>
>>                             You
>>
>>                             S K J 8
>>                             H A K 7 3
>>                             D J 5
>>                             C A J 9 4.
>>
>>
>>You take the heart queen, and cash the heart ten, everybody following. You   
>>do not think it likely that LHO has a 5-card suit, given the lead.
>>If so, what is your line of play?
>>
>>                                          Dag Ostvang

 (Apologetically, a small error has crept into the posting of this problem,
  one of dummys small spades should be changed to a small diamond. However,
  this does not seriously affect the play.) 

>After looking at the given answers, I realized that all those lines (also the
>one proposed by myself)  are not _secure_!! 
>In particular all those lines fail to handle the 4-1 club split.
>
>This is the reason (suppose to play small club to the 9):
>
>after small club to the 9, return in heart for the A, cashing the second
>heart (while pitching a club and a spade, or two spades),
>small club to the K discovering the 4-1 split, and club for the ace, the
>end of play is the following (supposing to pitch a club and a spade):
>
>A x x
>-
>Q x x
>-
>
>
>K J x
>-
>J x
>J
>
>So, playing J of clubs for the Q of LHO, we MUST pitch a spade and thus
>LHO can find the KILLING return in spades! I'll gain my trick with the
>J of spades, but now the A of spades is blocked and I'll have to move diamonds
>for the down 1 (against the perfect defense discards).
>
>And if I cash the spade A before playing club? It doesn't work too: LHO
>return in diamond for RHO who cross in spades!
>
>After a while I found the (almost) 100% line
>
>- Small club to the A,
>- AK of hearts (finding the 4-3 or 3-4 distribution; if LHO shows up 
>  immediately showing a lead from Jx I stop after cashing the A), pitching
>  two spades.
>- small club ducked (if LHO follows)!
>
>I win: 
>   - against the C 3-2 and 2-3, of course;
>   - against the C 4-1 LHO is endplayed, and with the (best defense) return 
>     in spades for my J in hand, I play spades for the A, A of clubs and 
>     clubs!! LHO can decide if to give me the king of spade or play diamond
>     giving me the Q in dummy (if the hearts were 2-5 i don't have to pitch
>     the second spade, thus my spade A is not blocked).
>   - against the C 1-4 or 0-5 I win with the K and move a small club 
>     toward my J
>

  When the deal arose, the west hand was S Q73 H J84 D AK3 C QT87. Yes,
  LHO had made an irregular lead.
  At one table, the secure line was found. At the other table, declarer,
  playing the other way around, on receiving a low heart lead, proceeded
  to take all the finesses for down one. This was not a good hand for
  finesses.

>and against the C 5-0? In this case I have to hope that the leader started
>with 3 or less hearts (practically sure, after the lead). 
>The play should be C->A, cash only 1 top heart (if you cash 2 hearts 
>you have the same problems specified before), and club ducked.
>
>This line loses only against the 5-2 heart split, that is VERY unlikely after
>the lead, and, as said, the H4-3 C5-0, very unlikely too. 
>(BTW: after the discovery of a 5-2 heart split, there are a LOT of other
>chances to make the contract (club 3-2, 2-3 or 1-4, finesse of spade ..).
>
>I _WAS_ missing something! The deal was much more interesting of what it
>seemed!
>
>BTW: of course all those considerations are valid in IMP: at MP this line
>GUARANTEES the bottom, given a LOT of possibilities to score an overtrick.

 I would really have hated to have this problem at pairs.

                                            
                                              Dag Ostvang