[Fluffy]

This week's problem I though was not very difficult, but so far only 5% of the players have managed to defeat the contract, so maybe it isn't that easy

You can try it here: http://www.bridgegod....php?probid=624

[Cyberyeti]

I don't think declarer plays this very well, you can't beat it if he plays it correctly, the actual diamond holding is more likely than 4-0 onside and you're an entry short to pick that up anyway, surely you should play for 2-2 and play the A first solving all issues on the lie of the cards.

[alok c]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-November-06, 09:05, said:

I don't think declarer plays this very well, you can't beat it if he plays it correctly, the actual diamond holding is more likely than 4-0 onside and you're an entry short to pick that up anyway, surely you should play for 2-2 and play the A first solving all issues on the lie of the cards.

That way the contract will always be defeated as you can't get 2nd entry to East till 4th ♦ is played to cash ♥ but you will lose 5th ♦ trick.Best way was West to play ♣ at trick 2 & take ♦ return by A & play another ♣(as the cards lie but unseen there is a chance of losing a trick to 3 carder ♦Q with South).

[rhm]

 Cyberyeti, on 2016-November-06, 09:05, said:

I don't think declarer plays this very well, you can't beat it if he plays it correctly, the actual diamond holding is more likely than 4-0 onside and you're an entry short to pick that up anyway, surely you should play for 2-2 and play the A first solving all issues on the lie of the cards.

Maybe the real issue is playing diamonds before clubs?

Rainer Herrmann

[Cyberyeti]

 alok c, on 2016-November-06, 10:11, said:

That way the contract will always be defeated as you can't get 2nd entry to East till 4th ♦ is played to cash ♥ but you will lose 5th ♦ trick.Best way was West to play ♣ at trick 2 & take ♦ return by A & play another ♣(as the cards lie but unseen there is a chance of losing a trick to 3 carder ♦Q with South).

I was intending to cash the A, then when the Q drops switch to clubs, you can equally cash AK and if they're 2-2 then switch to clubs, you need 5 diamond tricks, small to the K is horrible as I think it loses to all non 2-2 breaks.

[Kaitlyn S]

 Fluffy, on 2016-November-06, 08:38, said:

This week's problem I though was not very difficult, but so far only 5% of the players have managed to defeat the contract, so maybe it isn't that easy

You can try it here: http://www.bridgegod....php?probid=624

I was one of the 95%. When the C10 was lead, I thought declarer might have:
xx, AKx(x), Kxxx, KJT(x)
and was trying to steal the ninth trick.

Is there something wrong with my reasoning?

[Fluffy]

I don't see anything wrong.

[jexa_]

Is it only me that i would lead something else ?

[Fluffy]

I think other leads are unatractive because the bidding is invitational. If they had a stronger auction there would be a strong case for a club lead. On this hand a club lead gives declarer the 9th trick before he loses comunication with the diamond, so I didn't allow it for lack of interest.

[Kaitlyn S]

 Fluffy, on 2016-November-09, 15:07, said:

BridgeGod: my personal website with interactive problems and articles

I just noticed this. Hopefully you won't mind if I have questions about other hands

[Fluffy]

I love to talk about my website

[WesleyC]

I'm probably being overly critical here, but I struggled on this problem.

Fundamental to any defensive problem is a clear explanation of partner's first signal. On the hand I also couldn't see a explanation of the 3D bid.

Assuming natural signals, partner discouraged strongly at T1 despite almost certainly holding 4 hearts. When declarer opened clubs, partner is absolutely marked with strong spades. Playing declarer for something like [xx AKxx Kxxx KJT] where they need to sneak one trick, feels a lot more likely than the actual layout, where declarer (for no reason) severs communications at trick 2 by playing a small diamond up on an otherwise untouchable hand...

[Kaitlyn S]

Just curious - am I supposed to be playing these hands at IMPs or matchpoints? Your discussion said I was trying to beat -140, so I am assuming matchpoints. I went and tried a random deal from a practice set. Am I assuming matchpoints for all the problems?

[Fluffy]

Hands are scored in match points in the practice section against other players on same situation, but most of them have a clear total points goal. When overtricks matter it is usually stated that it is MPs scoring.

When I said here that the field was in -140, actually only people who came from BBF had that info. Goal was to do best a possible. I see it is confusing and I will refain from doing it in the future.

[Fluffy]

 WesleyC, on 2016-November-23, 10:11, said:

I'm probably being overly critical here, but I struggled on this problem.

Fundamental to any defensive problem is a clear explanation of partner's first signal. On the hand I also couldn't see a explanation of the 3D bid.

Assuming natural signals, partner discouraged strongly at T1 despite almost certainly holding 4 hearts. When declarer opened clubs, partner is absolutely marked with strong spades. Playing declarer for something like [xx AKxx Kxxx KJT] where they need to sneak one trick, feels a lot more likely than the actual layout, where declarer (for no reason) severs communications at trick 2 by playing a small diamond up on an otherwise untouchable hand...

The 1NT and 3 diamond bid are alerted, if you click on them on the bidding diagram, they will tell you the 1NT rebid range and teh 3♦ range.

After the bidding is over the box in the lower left corner will read "UDCA"