[cherdano]

Spoiler

Well done Jeffrey.

[lamford]

The full layout was:

---

As can be seen, only a diamond lead breaks up the pointed suit squeeze, so well done, Jeffrey.

At my table, events were more exciting. West led the jack of spades, forgetting that he was not playing Rusinow leads with this particular partner, and attempting to break up one of the squeezes rhm was trying to break up. I had the table presence of a gnat, and eschewed the squeeze and took the spade finesse in the ending! I thought it unlikely that an Irishman would false-card on opening lead against a grand ...

[ahydra]

Great hand, thanks Lamford for sharing.

ahydra

[nullve]

Didn't occur to me that North could bid this way with 3271. So

♠xxx ♥Ax ♦AQTxxxx ♣x

was possible, but not

♠xx ♥T9x ♦AQxxxx ♣AK?

Ok.

[rhm]

nullve, on 2018-April-13, 00:03, said:

Didn't occur to me that North could bid this way with 3271. So

♠xxx ♥Ax ♦AQTxxxx ♣x

was possible, but not

♠xx ♥T9x ♦AQxxxx ♣AK?

Ok.

Neither me.
Bidding 3♥ with 7 diamonds and 2 hearts when partner shows a strong hand with 5 hearts and maybe 4 spades is a bid I would not expect from an expert, stone age Acol notwithstanding.
This is particularly so when playing strong jump shifts.
Put this hand to a bidding panel when the bidding is at 2♠ and check how many votes you will get for 3♥ with the North hand.
I expect an almost unanimous vote for 3♦.
North promises 3 hearts and there is no way of shutting out diamonds when he has them.

The bidding is absurd for this construction

An acceptable sequence

1♦--1♥ (personally I would jump shift)
2♦--2♠
3♦--3♥
4♥--4NT
5♥-- 5NT
6♥--?

Rainer Herrmann

[jallerton]

I also think that 2-7 in the reds is an easy 3♦ bid, but we should all remember that not everyone has the same bidding ideas as our own. Some people are quite strict about raising to 2M with 3-card support. So maybe dummy thought that he had already denied 3-card heart support. At the table, I would be askinga regular partnership about inferences like this.

Another reason for leading a diamond from this holding is that declarer may have to choose between a simple finesse and a ruffing finesse, and it is harder for declarer if he has to make that decision at trick 1.

[rhm]

jallerton, on 2018-April-13, 01:31, said:

I also think that 2-7 in the reds is an easy 3♦ bid, but we should all remember that not everyone has the same bidding ideas as our own. Some people are quite strict about raising to 2M with 3-card support. So maybe dummy thought that he had already denied 3-card heart support. At the table, I would be askinga regular partnership about inferences like this.

Another reason for leading a diamond from this holding is that declarer may have to choose between a simple finesse and a ruffing finesse, and it is harder for declarer if he has to make that decision at trick 1.

Generally true, particularly if the contract would be 6♥.
But put yourself in the shoes of declarer in an expert game.
You are in 7♥ and someone leads against this bidding a diamond.
I would ask myself, would an expert do this holding nothing in diamonds against 7♥?
I think this would be very odd.
It does rather indicate that the finesse is working.

Rainer Herrmann

[cherdano]

nullve, on 2018-April-13, 00:03, said:

Didn't occur to me that North could bid this way with 3271. So

♠xxx ♥Ax ♦AQTxxxx ♣x

was possible, but not

♠xx ♥T9x ♦AQxxxx ♣AK?

Ok.

The main problem with your constructions is that it makes declarer's bidding rather ludicrous. On the actual hand, declarer could count 11 tricks, and his only losers are the 3rd and 4th round of spades. Your constructions give declarer 10 top tricks, and he has a second round loser in both cases. He would just ask for kings over 5H.

[cherdano]

lamford, on 2018-April-12, 20:02, said:

West led the jack of spades, forgetting that he was not playing Rusinow leads with this particular partner, and attempting to break up one of the squeezes rhm was trying to break up. I had the table presence of a gnat, and eschewed the squeeze and took the spade finesse in the ending! I thought it unlikely that an Irishman would false-card on opening lead against a grand ...

Did he really forget, or did he make a normal falsecard on lead against a slam?

[rhm]

cherdano, on 2018-April-12, 04:08, said:

Come on BBF, you can do better than this. Lamford wouldn't have posted it unless it was a really interesting problem! There is a lot you can infer about declarer's hand.

cherdano, on 2018-April-13, 01:45, said:

The main problem with your constructions is that it makes declarer's bidding rather ludicrous. On the actual hand, declarer could count 11 tricks, and his only losers are the 3rd and 4th round of spades. Your constructions give declarer 10 top tricks, and he has a second round loser in both cases. He would just ask for kings over 5H.

And the actual bidding is not ludicrous?
Sorry, but you seem to have your own ideas what "ludicrous" is and what not.

Rainer Herrmann

[FelicityR]

I recognise that I am not an expert, and thank you for posting an interesting hand, but in all reality could even a world class player work out at the table all the analysis posted here and find the right lead? There's lots of inferences from the auction, but it doesn't guarantee that declarer or dummy will have a specific hand, and that this or that lead would be killing.

I asked my son who is a better player than me to look at this hand and all the replies on the forum, and he said it is like 'Working out 17 moves in chess in your head in advance'. I asked him what he meant by that. He replied "Analysing the auction, constructing the possible hands, the play of the 13 tricks, working out any squeeze possibilities and then making the lead." "Nothing is set in concrete" as it is on a chess board" he added, "where you can see all the pieces."

I understand exactly what he means now. There is a guessing element involved too.

[lamford]

jallerton, on 2018-April-13, 01:31, said:

I also think that 2-7 in the reds is an easy 3♦ bid, but we should all remember that not everyone has the same bidding ideas as our own. Some people are quite strict about raising to 2M with 3-card support. So maybe dummy thought that he had already denied 3-card heart support. At the table, I would be askinga regular partnership about inferences like this.

Another reason for leading a diamond from this holding is that declarer may have to choose between a simple finesse and a ruffing finesse, and it is harder for declarer if he has to make that decision at trick 1.

Yes, I thought North was much more likely to be ♠xx ♥Axx ♦AQTxxx ♣xx when grand is huge (96% DD according to Bridge Analyser) and my partner agrees that 3D was a better bid on his actual hand. We do need to define more accurately when we raise with three-card support. My view is that we should do so with 1-3-5-4 but not with 2-3-6-2 and good diamonds for example. Good point in the last sentence.

[lamford]

cherdano, on 2018-April-13, 01:48, said:

Did he really forget, or did he make a normal falsecard on lead against a slam?

The Irish had five players. They were quite aware that only four of them played in any match, but West forgot which of the 5C2 combinations were playing which leads ... or so the Irish Blarney went.

[manudude03]

Who leads from Jx in an outside suit in a grand slam? I led a diamond (specifically an antisystemic 5) against 6♥ on this board hoping it would allow me to score my ♦K. Declarer went all in playing for spades 3-3 (not even playing for QJ onside or H9 in either hand).

[lamford]

manudude03, on 2018-April-13, 15:15, said:

Who leads from Jx in an outside suit in a grand slam?

Who leads from QJx against a grand in a suit which might lie KTx in dummy opposite A9x in South?

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth - Conan Doyle.