Posted 2011-February-27, 17:31
I'm west above and continued a heart. Thanks for all the responses. Much to think about!
1N is 11-13, 1D is precision, 4+. This is the 15th board we've ever played against opps, who don't speak english well and have trouble explaining their agreements. Getting info about how frequently opener would raise with 3 spades is impossible; getting info re: carding was tough.
To whoever said I should duck the diamond. I worried this may encourage declarer to finesse the D9 now, which would be bad for the cause.
As to when a heart can win: I'm worried that declarer ends up w 2 spades, 3 hearts, 2 diamonds, and 2 clubs when pard has CQ10 and spade J92 or something. If I switch to the SK for count, there are layouts where the card I get will be false by necessity, and I'll continue and blow up the spade suit.
Mostly, I thought that there would have been some sort of smoke signal if it was urgent that I shift to a spade now, and the D4 could never be such a thing, since it's never count in diamonds here with so many board entries. Of course, the moral of the story is that we need to tighten up our carding agreements, Never having discussed when smith was off (also, to whoever asked, we play low encourages), I assumed pard had a reason for suggesting a passive defense (the DK, perhaps, or the CQ10 and no spade cards), even though it's clear he doesn't have heart cards. He may want me to kill the HA so that he can lead a heart through when he gets in. [Incidentally, I'm curious if at MP it's more reasonable to have smith on in situations like this.]
I think the "a spade can never hurt" idea has merit, but there are layouts where it makes things very easy for declarer.
Thanks again, this discussion has been helpful.
"I think maybe so and so was caught cheating but maybe I don't have the names right". Sure, and I think maybe your mother .... Oh yeah, that was someone else maybe. -- kenberg
"...we live off being battle-scarred veterans who manage to hate our opponents slightly more than we hate each other. -- Hamman, re: Wolff