| ♠ | A J 8 3 | ||
| ♥ | 8 3 | ||
| ♦ | Q 10 9 8 | ||
| ♣ | K Q 10 | ||
| ♠ | K 10 4 2 | ||
| ♥ | K 3 | ||
| ♦ | K 10 7 | ||
| ♣ | A 8 5 2 |
Partner leads a 3rd/low ♠7, possibly consistent with Q-9-7, Q-9-7-x, or 7-x. Declarer wins ♠A and plays ♣K, how do you defend?
A friend sent me this hand, this was his analysis (which I agree with):
At the table, my reaction was to play the ♣A, since declarer could easily have a singleton or even a void. I won and played ♠K, which was not a success as declarer ruffed, overtook the ♣J with the ♣Q, and pitched a diamond loser on the ♣10.
In retrospect, I think there is a clear inference that suggests ducking the club. It's certainly not impossible for declaer to play the club suit on its own this way holding a singleton. However, you are looking at Kx in hearts. It is extremely likely that if declarer had no further entries to dummy he would take a heart finesse while he could.
If declarer were 2=8=2=1, he might have ducked the first trick. With 1=8=3=1, he might fear a diamond ruff if he didn't draw trumps. He still could possibly have x/AJTxxxxx/Axx/x though and play this way.
Winning the club is still ok if you cash your two diamond tricks immediately thereafter, but that seems like a big play.
Nice analysis, cute hand.
ReplyDeleteI defended this against Hamman on the same auction and lead. My instinct was to duck the club at trick 2 and this worked out. He took a trump hook, then led a second club -- I won, led the DK, got a count signal and we got our tricks. I guess I just felt that people always try to lead their stiffs towards dummy in this position, but the reason you give above is even better reason to duck.
ReplyDeleteI just realized the auction was given wrong -- declarer was 4th seat and responded 4H to partner's 1D. So he couldn't have a side ace with strong hearts, which changes things.
ReplyDelete