Culbertson’s Rule of Hand Evaluation #3

August 24th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

Do you try for game opposite a 12-14 1NT opening with either of these two hands?

I would answer “yes” in each case.  When I have a long major (five cards or more) and a seven loser hand opposite a weak notrump, I think about the chances for game.  Each of these two hands has only seven losers.  To ascertain whether to go ahead and make a game try, I invoke my favorite hand evaluation tool, Culbertson’s Rule.  Culbertson’s Rule says to invite game (or slam) whenever a “perfect minimum” for partner makes game pretty close to a lock.  (See two previous blog entries of mine for earlier applications, and further explanations, of Culbertson’s Rule.)

Opposite the first hand, so little as Axx, Kxx, KJx, xxxx (a flat eleven count) makes game an excellent proposition, and so I would not want to signoff in hearts but rather would choose to make a game try.  Opposite the second hand, I think the issue is a little less clear (even though the hand has more HCP than the first hand), but Kxx, Axxx, Axx, xxx (another flat eleven count) makes game pretty close to cold, and so again I would want to try for game.

In my weak notrump partnerships, the relevant bidding machinery is:

• 2♥, a signoff
• 2♣, game invitational Stayman
• 2♦, game forcing Stayman
• 3♥, a signoff, promising seven hearts (or 6 hearts with a side four card suit)
• 4♣, South African transfer to 4H
• 4♥, signoff

In each case, i would choose to bid 2♣ with the shown hand, and then rebid a minimum number of hearts next (unless partner bids 2♥ himself).  Of course, with this type of approach, opener has to be very careful of bidding 3NT at his third turn, because partner’s 2♣ response might be light on high cards.

At the club game on Monday, partner would have accepted the game try in hearts, making game as these were the hands of the partnership:

West ♠ AJ76 ♥ K64 ♦ K87 ♣ A74

East ♠ 92 ♥ AJ87532 ♦ QT4 ♣ J

West ♠ J964 ♥ J863 ♦ AK ♣ KQ2

East ♠ AQ5 ♥ KT7542 ♦ 74 ♣ T4

(Yes, on the first hand, I can see that West chose to show 12-14 when he actually held a flat, but control rich 15 HCP.)  The bidding on the second hand got a little complicated, because North overcalled West’s weak notrump with 2♣, showing an undisclosed one-suiter.  In my most sophisticated partnership, we could have handled the interference: East would pass 2♣, and then when South relays to 2♦ and North shows her suit with 3♣, East can bid 3♦, a transfer bid showing hearts and invitational or better values.  Perhaps the same sequence, but with 3♥ replacing 3♦ call, would inferentially communicate invitational values if not playing transfers (explaining why hearts were not bid on the first round), but those inferences seem to be clearer in the post mortem than they are at the table.

Thoughts about Toronto NABCs

August 15th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  3 Comments 

Just a few thoughts — mine own and comments on those I have heard made by others — on the Toronto NABCs:

• Food.  I love a tournament location that is attached to a food court.  Having the Toronto Underground Path available allowed me to eat quickly and not too expensively when scheduling or desire so dictated.  And when fancier or more diverse dining was desired, Toronto supplied plenty; no doubt that Toronto is one of the great world-class cities.  (My family came to visit, and Toronto offered many activities for my wife and children while I was playing bridge; none of the activities seemed to be arranged by the ACBL, however, which seems different from practice at some past NABCs.)
• Hotel room.  Although my room at the Sheraton was pretty expensive, the room itself was nice.  I heard dissatisfactory comments about the rooms at the Royal York.  Btw, the ACBL rep at Mega Housing was very helpful in arranging for a second, adjacent hotel room when my children arrived.
• Two playing sites.  Having two playing sites is, of course, an inconvenience … but I thought the shuttle bus between the two hotels nicely mitigated this issue.  I did hear one complaint that a regional pairs event was being held at one hotel while a regional team event was being held at another.  When one was planning to choose which event in which to play based upon what potential teammates he saw hanging around, the split location problem was substantial.
• Playing conditions.  Just OK.  A few times at the Sheraton, the playing area was too hot.  Much of the time there was little room between tables.
• Hand records.  On at least two occasions, insufficient numbers of hand records were available after a session.  A director explained to me that the number of hand records shipped to the site from Memphis HQ are based upon projected entry numbers, but I would still lodge a complaint: when the actual attendance is known to exceed the expected attendance, can’t ACBL staff crank up a copier and produce the additional hand records that are needed before the end of the session?

Thanks to all the volunteers and sponsors!

Repelling a switch

August 15th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  1 Comment 

How can declarer increase his chances that the opponents do not find the winning switch?

That was the issue I had to face on Board 20 of the Saturday evening, July 23 session of a two-session regional pairs at the Toronto NABCs.

West ♠ 985 ♥ AK3 ♦ KQ ♣ JT876

East ♠ Q2 ♥ JT9 ♦ A653 ♣ KQ42

As West, I opened 1♣ and rebid 1NT over partner’s 1♦ response.  Partner raised to 3NT and North led the ♥5.

Clearly, I need to knock out the ♣A.  I was fortunate to have escaped a spade opening lead.  How can I best continue that good fortune when I must let the opponents in once again?

I played a heart from dummy and South followed with the ♥6 (presumptively right side up count).  I won the first trick with the ♥K, trying to look like a man with AK tight.  I led a club from hand and North hopped with the ♣A, his partner playing the ♣3.

At the table, not only did I escape a spade switch, but when North returned a second heart (the two), I was back to owning three heart tricks, recovering the trick I intentionally gave away at Trick 1!  Three hearts, three diamonds, and four clubs for +630 was worth 31.5 mps (on a top of 33, I think).

The whole hand:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠ A764 ♥ Q8752 ♦ J92 ♣ A
West ♠ 985 ♥ AK3 ♦ KQ ♣ JT876		East ♠ Q2 ♥ JT9 ♦ A653 ♣ KQ42
	South ♠ KJT3 ♥ 64 ♦ T874 ♣ 953

Trump squeeze

July 17th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

I declared an interesting hand yesterday at a local sectional tournament.

West ♠ K953 ♥ A2 ♦ J85 ♣ AQ98

East ♠ AJT72 ♥ T976 ♦ A72 ♣ J

South led the ♣7.  Needing pitches for my diamond losers, I ducked the club in dummy, losing, as expected, to North’s ♣K.  North returned a club.  As planned, I pitched a diamond from my hand.  Somewhat surprisingly, South followed suit with the ♣3 and dummy’s nine won the trick.  I led a spade off of dummy and North pitched a club.  Winning the ♠A, I advanced the ♠J.  South chose to cover the ♠J, and I drew the last trump ending in dummy, cashing the ♦A along the way.

I pitched my last small diamond on the ♣A and when I led the ♣Q from dummy, pitching a heart from my hand, South, last to discard on this trick, was placed in an uncomfortable position:

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠ irrelevant ♥ ♦ ♣
West ♠ — ♥ A2 ♦ J8 ♣ (Q)		East ♠ 7 ♥ T97(6) ♦ — ♣ —
	South ♠ — ♥ KQJ ♦ KQ ♣ —

Seeing that pitching a diamond honor would allow me to ruff a diamond, reach dummy with the ♥A and pitch a heart loser on the established ♦J, South discarded a heart honor.  I next played the ♥A and a heart to my T9.  South won the trick with his last heart.  I ruffed the forced diamond return and cashed a good heart for a welcomed eleven tricks.  +650 was worth a factored 15.91 mps out of 17.

Although the defense might have had opportunities to perform better, the ending is interesting.  I think the position is called a trump squeeze (or a ruffing squeeze?).  The whole hand was:

Dealer: S (#7) Vul: Both	North ♠ — ♥ 843 ♦ T943 ♣ KT6542
West ♠ K953 ♥ A2 ♦ J85 ♣ AQ98		East ♠ AJT72 ♥ T976 ♦ A72 ♣ J
	South ♠ Q864 ♥ KQJ5 ♦ KQ6 ♣ 73

The smell of Swiss success

July 1st, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

Two hands from a pretty successful mid-week regional Swiss team finish have stuck in mind.

Do you know your suit combinations?

On the first of the two hands, I was on lead with the ♥A in the midgame defense against the opponents’ 3NT contract.  Declarer having played the hand with little deception, I realized that we needed to take the next four tricks with only the diamond suit offering any chance.  The diamond suit lie:

	Dummy ♠ ♥ ♦ Txxx ♣
Me ♠ ♥ ♦ A8x ♣

What card do you lead?

I played the ♦8, just in case the suit around the table were:

	Dummy ♠ ♥ ♦ Txxx ♣
Me ♠ ♥ ♦ A8x ♣		Partner ♠ ♥ ♦ KJ7x ♣
	Declarer ♠ ♥ ♦ Q9 ♣

If that were the layout, the ♦8 would be won by partner’s king and would fell declarer’s nine.  Then a small diamond return from partner would be topped by declarer’s queen and then my ace.  Finally, my ♦x would be led through dummy’s Tx to partner’s J7 for our third and fourth tricks in that suit.

Interestingly, the same four tricks would result if partner were on lead rather than me.  Partner would start with the ♦K, upon which my hand would unblock the ♦8.  A small diamond next from partner replicates the ending when I was on lead.

The diamond suit was not exactly as I had hoped — the ♦7 and ♦9 were interchanged — so that even beginning with the ♦x would have run the suit, but the welcomed news is that we had four diamond tricks and earned a game swing when my teammate played the hand more deceptively and the need for the diamond underlead at the other table was not so clear as at mine.

My partner on this hand, Steve Rzewski of South Dennis, MA, told me that he once before held the same suit holding and did not then find the lead of the king.  He had been waiting 15 years for a second chance, and then found that it was my hand that was on lead and not his.  Setting the contract was a consolation prize.

Even if Steve rued not having the opportunity to rectify his mistake of 15 years ago on that hand, he shined in declarer play on the second reported hand from the Swiss,  a hand that was creatively bid and well-declared:

North ♠ KQJxx ♥ AKQTx ♦ x ♣ AT

South ♠ xx ♥ xx ♦ KJxxx ♣ QJxx

Third seat opened 1♦ before my hand as North.  I chose to bid 2♦ (Michaels).  Steve advanced to 2♥, and my 4♦! follow up refused to let him off the hook.  He closed the bidding with a 4♥ call.

West led a heart, won in dummy.  The ♠K was led from dummy and West won the ♠A and played a second trump.  Steve drew a third round and found the hearts split 3-3, East with the jack.  Two more rounds of spades disclosed that West began with a doubleton and East with Txxx.

Steve realized that a fourth round of spades would likely be unproductive.  With West likely to have all the remaining high cards for the defense, East could, upon winning the ♠T, continue a diamond to jack and queen for the defense’s third trick.  Now if West continues the ♦A, the ruff could be taken in dummy, but with dummy being locked, a club would be lost at the end for the set.

Instead Steve abandoned (temporarily) the spade suit and led a diamond himself.  The ♦J lost to the queen (defense’s second trick), but West had no good exit:

• a small diamond would be ducked to his king (spade pitch from dummy) and a successful club finesse taken.  Now dummy would be all good cards except for the Trick 13 loss of a small spade: declarer would take five hearts, two spades, one diamond and two clubs, losing only one early trick in each pointed suit and a spade at the end.
• the ♦A would be allowed to win the third trick for the defense, with a spade being pitched from dummy.  Either a diamond or a club next would allow declarer to cash the ♦K for yet another spade pitch and take a winning club finesse for the contract..
• at the table, West led a small club, won by the ♣T in dummy.  A spade was given up (the defense’s third trick), but dummy can win any return and is down to only good cards: he lost only two spades and a diamond.

Even the good decisions went bad …

July 1st, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  2 Comments 

I thought I did well on this hand … until I saw the matchpoints.

West ♠ A3 ♥ T2 ♦ J742 ♣ Q9532

East ♠ K76 ♥ AKJ3 ♦ A98 ♣ T86

My 15-17 1NT opening as East concluded the bidding.

South led the ♠4 to North’s Q.  With the spades being attacked, I conceded the club suit as DOA and ducked the first trick.  The ♠9 was continued by North (a recent winner of a NABC+ event) and I won perforce in dummy, as South followed suit with the ♠2.  I played a diamond to my nine, hoping to force a quack and establish an extra diamond trick.  The ♦T won this trick and spades were continued, North following with the ♠8.  I led a diamond to my ace, seeing the ♦Q from North.  Next I cashed the ♥A and led a small heart to the T in dummy, losing to North’s Q.  North exited with a heart.  When I cashed my third round heart winner, South showed out.  I hooked the ♣9, losing to North’s king.  North cashed a long heart and another club but then had to lead a club to dummy’s queen at Trick 13.  I had won one club, two spades, three hearts, and one diamond for +90.  This result seemed pretty good to me, but scored only 2.5 out of 16 mps.  My best guess was that too many defenders failed to hold off on a first, early round of clubs and declarer was able to set up clubs?  Or maybe the ♥T led from dummy was not covered?  Not sure, as whole hand was this:

Dealer: N Vul: NS	North ♠ Q98 ♥ Q8765 ♦ Q3 ♣ AK7
West ♠ A3 ♥ T2 ♦ J742 ♣ Q9532		East ♠ K76 ♥ AKJ3 ♦ A98 ♣ T86
	South ♠ JT542 ♥ 94 ♦ KT65 ♣ J4

Three No Luck

July 1st, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

Returned from a recent tournament with tales of woe:  too many 3NT contracts bid by our opponents (and few others) that either could not be beaten or were not beaten.

Dealer: E Vul: Both	North ♠ Q75 ♥ QT9653 ♦ A32 ♣ A
West ♠ 932 ♥ AJ7 ♦ 954 ♣ KT96		East ♠ AK84 ♥ 2 ♦ KQ ♣ Q87432
	South ♠ JT6 ♥ K84 ♦ JT876 ♣ J5

I won’t profess to understand the EW auction.  I assume the 1♦ response was somehow the product of the opponents playing inverted minors and West not wanting to respond 1NT with two unstopped suits … but then since there was no alert, I am not sure.  Why East would choose to rebid 2♣ rather than 1♠ is another mystery to me.  West’s 2NT rebid seems like a substantial overbid to me.  But there I was as North on lead against 3NT.  Would you find the diamond lead to set the contract?  I did not and led a pedestrian heart and -600 and 1.5 mps out of 16 was my side’s result.

From the same session:

Dealer: E Vul: None	North ♠ A4 ♥ T82 ♦ Q8743 ♣ AK4
West ♠ K875 ♥ J4 ♦ A92 ♣ T763		East ♠ QT6 ♥ AKQ5 ♦ KJT65 ♣ J
	South ♠ J932 ♥ 9763 ♦ — ♣ Q9852

This time I, as North, led the ♣K.  Seeing encouragement from partner, I continued two more rounds of clubs, setting up declarer’s ♣T.  Declarer took a few diamond finesses against me, using both the Trick 4 club entry and the ♥J entry and emerged with his contract.  -400 this time was worth 0.5 mps to my side.

From the companion session to the two-session event, so that I am sitting East:

Dealer: N Vul: Both	North ♠ A863 ♥ Q94 ♦ 74 ♣ KJ86
West ♠ JT42 ♥ AKJT ♦ J86 ♣ 95		East ♠ K7 ♥ 6532 ♦ K95 ♣ T742
	South ♠ Q95 ♥ 87 ♦ AQT32 ♣ AQ3

Partner led a high heart and continued the suit for two more rounds.  Declarer finessed the ♦T, losing to partner’s jack, lost a third heart, but could soon claim the remainder when a second diamond finesse and a 3-3 split in that suit yielded four diamond tricks.  Here, -600 was 1 mp out of 16.

In that same session, our opponents also bid to 4♥ on this layout:

Dealer: E Vul: NS	North ♠ 765 ♥ Q75 ♦ AK ♣ A9743
West ♠ 943 ♥ A98 ♦ 9632 ♣ K82		East ♠ KQJ82 ♥ 32 ♦ Q7 ♣ QJT7
	South ♠ AT ♥ KJT64 ♦ JT854 ♣ 6

There wasn’t much to the play.  Once my ♦Q fell on second round, declarer had four hearts, five diamonds, and two black aces.  -650 was 3 mps.

Tops galore, but still no score

June 11th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

I can’t recall a game with so many really special tops that counted to less than 55%.  Had we only defended to our ability on some hands …

1.  Folks support all sorts of uses for a 2♦ opening bid.  And each of the other uses has its favorable moments.  But I still prefer the old standby of a weak two.

North ♠ 432 ♥ J ♦ KQ9875 ♣ QJ8

South ♠ A7 ♥ A87432 ♦ AJT3 ♣ A

Here I think partner might have considered just jumping to 6♦ directly (we do not play feature, but Ogust, and so the ♥K find would be tough, and perhaps the direct jump might avoid a damaging lead), but he chose to first bid 2♥, and then over my 2NT jump to 6♦.  Better yet might be 4♣ as a special keycard call after a preempt — which could allow for a grand if opener has both high diamond honors and the ♥K, but we do not play that.  Grand is still pretty good opposite both high diamond honors and, as here, a stiff heart … which is harder to find.  No matter.  Received a spade lead won in dummy, and began to set up hearts right away using all of those great high diamonds (solid through the seven!).  When hearts were 4-2, I got to pitch both losing spades on hearts and then ruff dummy’s other spade in hand.  +940 for 9.5 out of 10, which seems higher than it should be.

10.  After this auction:

what do you lead from ♠QT96532, ♥A3, ♦Q7, ♣K7?  Partner Len Aberbach found the ♠2.  I ruffed that, returned a diamond from A-fifth to his queen (declarer erred by playing small diamond from KTxx; dummy held ♣AQ and so that return from my hand was not a consideration), ruffed a second spade, cashed the ♦A and we still had ♥A to come for +500 and a supertop.

15.  I held ♠AKJ864 ♥AT ♦KQT4, ♣Q.  That is four losers and four quick tricks, enough for a 2♣ opening by my standards.  Pard responded 2♠, artificial and showing an ace and a king somewhere.  I bid 3♠, pard bid 4♣, I bid 4♦, and pard bid 5♣.

What now?

Partner’s A and his K are probably in clubs and opposite a six card or longer suit, my stiff ♣Q is sufficient support.  However, a heart lead is probable and is problematic.  I think my 6♣ call is too aggressive, but I was thinking that partner might deliver a seventh club and/or a spade or two to help me draw trumps without loss and make eleven black tricks to go along with ♥A won on opening lead.

I have since rethought that optimistic approach but at the table, the opening lead was not a heart but was a trump.

North ♠ AKJ864 ♥ AT ♦ KQT4 ♣ Q

South ♠ — ♥ J865 ♦ 532 ♣ AKJ763

Now I made 6♣ – and I would have gone down on a heart lead — for an unshared top by winning ♣Q, cashing one high spade and ruffing a spade, drawing trump (they were 3-3), losing ♦K to A, winning red suit return and playing high spade (they were 4-2) and ruffing another spade to set up the suit, with other red suit entry to reach my hand: that is two top red cards, six clubs, two top spades and two long spades for twelve tricks.

16.  Partner proved that his ability to offer me a ruff was not limited to Board 10.  After the opponents’ auction of 1♣-1♠-2♠-4♠, Len was on lead with ♠83 ♥A96432 ♦AT7 ♣T8.  He led the ♥A, seeing this dummy:

West ♠ KQ92 ♥ QT8 ♦ QJ9 ♣ KJ5
	South ♠ 83 ♥ A96432 ♦ AT7 ♣ T8

Even though I played the lowest heart, the five, he continued with a high heart.  I ruffed the second heart, led to his ♦A, ruffed a third heart and cashed the ♦K as declarer claimed the rest for down two and another unshared top for my side.  Without this defense, declarer had five spades, two hearts and three clubs, making game by losing only the three missing top red cards.

18.  Opponents bid to 3NT via 1♣-1♥-3NT.  Typically that should show 16-18 HCP, shortness in hearts and running diamonds.  That looks possible from my hand of ♠52 ♥A53 ♦95432 ♣K84.  Even though declarer said they do not have any special agreements about the auction they conducted, I decided to play for that type of hand by leading the ♥A.  This captured declarer’s stiff ♥K (why she bid this way as opposed to opening 1♦ and jump shifting to 2♠ or opening 2NT is not my concern, I guess).  But another unshared, albeit lucky, top resulted when a heart continuation led to partner cashing the next four tricks.

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠ 52 ♥ A53 ♦ 95432 ♣ K84
West ♠ A976 ♥ K ♦ AKQ7 ♣ AJ52		East ♠ KQJT ♥ 9642 ♦ JT8 ♣ 93
	South ♠ 843 ♥ QJT87 ♦ 6 ♣ QT76

Defensive play by Judi Radin in USBF women’s trials

June 9th, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  No Comments 

	Radin ♠ Q872 ♥ AJT83 ♦ KT7 ♣ Q
Dummy ♠ J9643 ♥ K5 ♦ J53 ♣ T72

Holding this hand:  ♠Q872, ♥AJT83, ♦KT7, ♣Q, Radin heard opponents bid to 3NT.  On opening lead, she, having heard declarer announce a big hand (2♣ opener) and a long club suit, led the ♥J and saw this dummy and Trick 1 and 2 play:  Trick 1 won with dummy’s ♥K (don’t know their carding, but I believe that third hand played ♥9, which looks like upside down attitude, and declarer played ♥2).  At Trick 2, declarer passed ♣7 to Radin’s stiff ♣Q.  What now?

Possibly reading the ♣7 play as an avoidance play to keep West from leading through declarer’s ♥Q, Radin switched to a small spade.  Look what happened:

• West’s ♠T forced the ♠A.
• Declarer took one high club in hand and then led a club to dummy’s ♣T.
• Declarer took losing diamond finesse.
• Radin cashed ♠Q, then led a spade to her partner’s ♠K.  That is one club, one diamond, and two spades, book for the defense.
• West returned a heart and Radin cashed four tricks in that suit.  Down four!  Nice swing to Moss playing against Sprung.

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠ A ♥ Q42 ♦ AQ2 ♣ AKJ983
West ♠ KT5 ♥ 976 ♦ 9864 ♣ 654		East ♠ Q872 ♥ AJT83 ♦ KT7 ♣ Q
	South ♠ J9643 ♥ K5 ♦ J53 ♣ T72

Playoff disappointment

June 2nd, 2011  ~  Jeff Lehman  ~  2 Comments 

Playing against a tough local team head-to-head for the right to advance to the semifinals of a top bracket regional KO, our score comparison reveals that the two teams have tied at 47 IMPs apiece after 24 boards.  The conditions of contest call for a four board playoff.

On the first board I hold ♠Jx ♥K98xxx ♦Ax ♣T9x and hear 2♠ opened to my left, takeout double by partner, and 4♠ to my right.  I decide to bid 5♥.  5♥X becomes the final contract.

North ♠ K ♥ ATxxx ♦ Kxx ♣ QJxx

South ♠ Jx ♥ K98xxx ♦ Ax ♣ T9x

Is -300 (RHO wins the ♠A, cashes the ♣KA and gives his partner a club ruff) a good result or a poor result?  Hearts are 1-1 and so 4♠ can be defeated if we find our diamond ruff, but that might not be easy.  I later learn that our teammates played 4♠, perhaps with no interference, and scored up +420.  We jump to a 4 IMP lead.

The second board is a routine major suit game, no swing.

The third board at my table involves a part score battle, where I am declaring 3♥ on a trump suit of 98x in dummy opposite my KJxxxx.  I play the opening bidder before me for Ax of hearts.  He has Qx of hearts instead.  Fortunately, elimination play leads to an endplay and I make +140.  At the other table, where perhaps there was no opening bid before my hand, trumps are guessed correctly but a score of +140 is also recorded.

And so we enter the last board with a 4 IMP lead.  A vulnerable 3NT awaits.

North ♠ Kxx ♥ K9x ♦ KT98x ♣ Kx

South ♠ AJ98 ♥ T8xx ♦ AQ ♣ Jxx

My side’s auction, with announcements that club length could be as short as two and diamond length as short as three and that 1NT can be hiding a four-card major or two, is pretty much constrained by the system agreements my partner and I have adopted.  And my partner’s certainty that game will be reached at the other table.

I receive a lead of the ♠2 and pause to consider.  The opening lead has given me a third spade trick, but since I have only three top tricks in diamonds, that leaves me considerably short of the nine tricks I need for contract.  I entertain the following thoughts before playing small from dummy and seeing my RHO play the ♠T:

• If I overtake the second round of diamonds, I will be assured of four diamond tricks and retain the ♠K as entry.  Although this line also maintains a small chance of achieving five diamond tricks, should the ♦J be so kind as to drop in two rounds, I feel that I need a better chance at five diamond tricks and so I reject this line.
• If I take repeated heart finesses, I can possibly take advantage of my side owning the ♥T, 9, and 8 intermediates.  Should one heart “quack” be onside, I can take two heart tricks.  Should I have five diamond tricks, the two hearts and three spades will give me nine tricks in all.  And meanwhile the ♣K is safe from immediate attack even if both ♥ quacks are offside.  A pretty fair plan.
• I can retain the avoidance benefits (losing the lead to the hand over the ♣K) of taking a finesse of an intermediate heart, without committing to a later additional heart finesse.  Any suit returned by my RHO will help me – this is assuming that I have first unblocked the two high diamonds in my hand.

In further considering this latter line, I am struck that a spade return is not nearly as helpful as returns of the other three suits.  Can I strip RHO of spades before finessing the ♥9?  Reading my LHO’s lead as evidencing four spades, I decide to play a second round of spades before giving up the lead.  I think it is better to play a spade before unblocking diamonds than after, because playing spades early masks the fact that diamonds are blocked and that entries to dummy are so important.  Perhaps it is unnecessarily risky to play for LHO to have the ♠Q in stripping spades, but I do play the ♠8 from my hand (not the ♠9, because I do not want to coax a cover that would take an entry from dummy).  When the eight is not covered and wins, I feel pretty good.  As planned, I now cash the ♦AQ and then finesse the ♥9, losing to RHO’s ♥Q.

Alas, RHO returns a spade!  So, spades were 3-3 and not 4-2 as I had thought.  Worse, I have now blocked the spade suit and have no entry to the ♠A in my hand.

I win with dummy’s ♠K and cash a third round of diamonds, as each opponent follows suit and I gratefully cash two more diamonds.   I pitch two hearts and the ♠A on the three long diamonds (OK, not really true, see the confession at the end of this blog entry).  The opponents remain with four hearts and four clubs between them, as I reach this four card end position (having won three spades and five diamonds and having lost only the ♥Q so far):

North ♠ — ♥ Kx ♦ — ♣ Kx

South ♠ — ♥ T ♦ — ♣ Jxx

What to do?

I believe that I have excellent chances to make by playing a small club from dummy (much better than my chances by playing a heart):

• If RHO holds ♣A stiff, he must win and lead a heart to give dummy the ninth trick.
• If RHO holds ♣Q stiff, he can win but must then lead a heart to give dummy a ninth trick.
• If RHO holds ♣AQ doubleton, he must win the ♣Q and eventually lead a heart to give dummy the ninth trick.
• If RHO owns  ♣AQx, he must win this trick and eventually give me a club for a ninth trick, or else lead a heart to his partner who must give dummy a ninth trick with a heart.
• If RHO owns ♣Qx, he must rise with the ♣Q (and he is an excellent defender, quite unlikely to fall for the duck) and return a club to his partner’s ace.  Then his partner, my LHO, must lead a heart and either find RHO with ♥AJ remaining or hope for me to misguess the heart suit if the ♥AJ are split.  (Although, now that I think about it, if LHO leads the ♥J at Trick 12, pinning my stiff ♥T, the ♥7 becomes a possible Trick 13 winner.)
• If RHO owns the ♣Ax, he will duck.  When I lose my ♣J to LHO’s ♣Q, LHO must return a heart and not a club and I reach a position for a possible heart guess similar to the position in the bullet above.

At the table, RHO plays a small club, my jack loses to the ♣Q of LHO, and a heart is returned.  I fly with the ♥K and am defeated by a trick.

Dealer: Vul:	North ♠ Kxx ♥ K9x ♦ KT98x ♣ Kx
West ♠ Qxx ♥ Jxx ♦ xxx ♣ QTxx		East ♠ Txx ♥ AQ7 ♦ Jxx ♣ Axxx
	South ♠ AJ98 ♥ T8xx ♦ AQ ♣ Jxx

At the other table, a different auction leads to 3NT being played from the other side.  I understand that declarer played for split heart quacks and won nine tricks.  We lose the playoff and the opportunity to advance to the semifinals.

… OK about that confession:  I have no excuse for this play, but, in the interest of honest reporting, I admit that I pitched three hearts on the last three diamonds, thus retaining the useless ♠A while discarding the potentially useful ♥T.  I have, however, convinced myself that even if I had retained the ♥T, I would have gone wrong in the end position by rejecting one form of restricted choice (that RHO’s winning the ♥9 finesse with the ♥Q suggests that he does not own the ♥J) and favoring another form of restricted choice to play the ♥K at Trick 12.  The form of restricted choice I would favor is that LHO might have been less likely to have led a spade from Qxx if he held a similar holding in hearts; that, instead, the spade lead would be relatively more attractive had LHO owned the ♥A.  I would feel better had I discarded the ♠A to begin with and been able to omit this paragraph of confession.