[pescetom]

MP.

---

N (your intermediate partner) leads ♦Q; declarer covers with ♦A discarding ♣6 from hand, then leads ♠9 towards his hand.
Do you now play the 6 or the Q, and why?

[Gilithin]

Q from Q96 into Dummy's long suit is something of a strange lead. Combine that with East's 2♣, rather than 1NT or a Support X, and I will give 3 to 1 odds that this was not the auction that really happened at the table. If the queen is necessary, to draw Dummy's trumps, then it is a Grosvenor Coup.

[smerriman]

What was 2♥? It doesn't appear to be 4sf given East's strange jump to 4♠..

[Cyberyeti]

2♥ is not labelled as 4SF - is it really natural ?

It feels quite likely declarer has ♥Axxx so I retain the Q to overruff the 4th heart

[pescetom]

Gilithin, on 2021-October-08, 14:34, said:

Q from Q96 into Dummy's long suit is something of a strange lead. Combine that with East's 2♣, rather than 1NT or a Support X, and I will give 3 to 1 odds that this was not the auction that really happened at the table. If the queen is necessary, to draw Dummy's trumps, then it is a Grosvenor Coup.

The auction is taken from a real table and fairly typical of the tournament. Some East opened 1♣ or rebid 1NT. Support X is not yet widespread in Italy. The choice of Q from Q96 is strange, most of his peers chose 6.

[pescetom]

smerriman, on 2021-October-08, 14:40, said:

What was 2♥? It doesn't appear to be 4sf given East's strange jump to 4♠..

It's a natural 1 round force for this pair.

[smerriman]

My guess: South plays the queen, declarer figures this is from QJx and with the club ace likely onside, ends up finessing in trumps for a cold bottom?

Would still play low myself.

[mycroft]

I'm agreeing with most that thinks that, barring a 2♦ bid from me over 2♣, I should probably call the director rather than play a card. It's odd to the point of concerning.

"Most led the 6" - Okay, let's assume that. What hand could possibly come to the conclusion that leading any other suit is worse than Q96 of dummy's first bid (whatever card he chooses to play from that)? He's got round cards, at least, and 3? spades, and ♦Q96... I think that's a 15-card hand. Okay, declarer is 6-4 or 7-4 (or maybe 7-3 and he had to fake a bid, because he's just re-invented 4SF) and either my queen is being eaten, or partner has the K(x). If it's the stiff, I'd better play low. If it's not, I don't think it matters.

Those that bid 1♣ or 1NT don't have this problem - a diamond is normal.

Maybe he's one of those who thinks 13 points is a double in any auction? Well, I can see 21, so that means declarer has 6 or 7 of the finest. Forcing means shape then - again, 7-4? 5-5? If it's long spades, I guess it doesn't matter. If it's 5-5, then partner's got 3 spades, and almost certainly at least one honour, as he's only got 6 HCP in the minors. Still not sure whether it matters.

Cyberyeti's idea that declarer is ♥Axxx - why did declarer play a spade instead of the ♥K T2, then? K, A, ruff, spade (or diamond) back, ruff seems to be the way to do it. But again, that means for partner to have a double, he's got to be ? Qxxx Q96 Axxxx and I'm back to "if that ? is the K or A, I'd better play low; if it's not, it doesn't matter".

But I'm back to "put my hand down, make sure the backs of my cards are the same colour." That, or "look behind me, see if the walls are mirrored all the way down".

[nige1]

PesceTom 'MP. N (your intermediate partner) leads ♦Q; declarer covers with ♦A discarding ♣6 from hand, then leads ♠9 towards his hand. Do you now play the 6 or the Q, and why?
++++++++++++++++++
In layouts like this, a danger of South playing low is that North might play ♠AK and another ♠, "to prevent ruffs".

---

[Cyberyeti]

To Nigel, I know your construction is unfinished, but I can't imagine N doubling with <4 hearts and a minimum opener, is 74?? possible for W where the Q♠ crashes the K or removes the guess where partner has stiff A ?

[LBengtsson]

I have thought this out several times. I have no idea what is going on - with the bidding or the play? with a doubleton honour it is usual to play honour card instead of small. declarer has what??? ♠KJxxxx ♥Qxxx ♦-- ♣xxx so I am going to play small and put declarer on a guess? I am guessing myself lol!

[Gilithin]

LBengtsson, on 2021-October-09, 04:48, said:

I have thought this out several times. I have no idea what is going on - with the bidding or the play? with a doubleton honour it is usual to play honour card instead of small. declarer has what??? ♠KJxxxx ♥Qxxx ♦-- ♣xxx so I am going to play small and put declarer on a guess? I am guessing myself lol!

Think about it - this is a forum question, not a random hand. For this to have made it here, North has ♠AKx and West heart length. We play the queen and draw 3 rounds of trumps, thus preventing ♥ ruffs. The trouble is that declarer should in this case just have started with the ruffs rather than drawing trumps. It's just a Grosvenor. I "know" this is the layout because there is a thread on the hand; in reality I am with Winston in playing low.

[pescetom]

Here is a more logical auction from another table, which will probably clarify things further.

---

For those who would have played 6 if it wasn't a forum question, the question "why" remains (cyberyeti gave one logical answer).

Full hand tomorrow, thanks.

[steve2005]

second play low-there is NO reason to play Queen

[nige1]

steve2005, on 2021-October-09, 19:04, said:

second play low - there is NO reason to play Queen

"2nd-hand lo" is one of John Matheson's favourite mantras but see Gilithin's construction

IMO, the argument for playing the ♠Q is stronger, if the scoring method is imps rather than MPs

This post has been edited by nige1: 2021-October-10, 16:58

[Winstonm]

nige1, on 2021-October-09, 23:35, said:

"2nd-hand lo" is one of John Matheson's favourite mantras but see Gilithin's construction

Actually, I think the better question would be: is there any construction consistent with the bidding where it would be wrong to play the queen.

[johnu]

Winstonm, on 2021-October-10, 12:14, said:

Actually, I think the better question would be: is there any construction consistent with the bidding where it would be wrong to play the queen.

Previously noted, but if declarer has ♥Axxx and needs to ruff 2 hearts in dummy, you need to keep the queen to overruff dummy on the 4th round of hearts.

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2021-October-10, 12:14, said:

Actually, I think the better question would be: is there any construction consistent with the bidding where it would be wrong to play the queen.

Yes, when your Q crashes partner's K or removes a guess when partner has A or Ax.

[Winstonm]

Cyberyeti, on 2021-October-10, 16:22, said:

Yes, when your Q crashes partner's K or removes a guess when partner has A or Ax.

I don't think those holdings are consistent with the bidding. Maybe Ax but you haven't lost much as declarer has KJxxxx and is unlikely to misguess.

[Cyberyeti]

Winstonm, on 2021-October-10, 21:48, said:

I don't think those holdings are consistent with the bidding. Maybe Ax but you haven't lost much as declarer has KJxxxx and is unlikely to misguess.

I think KJxxxxx/Qxxx is at least as consistent with the bidding as what was actually held, bidding game with a 5-5 7 count opposite a weak NT seams barking, and also demands in the original auction a take out double on a minimum opening bid with only 3 hearts.