Fu Bo shared this deal with me. This deal happened in the open pair qualify of the 15th Would Bridge Series. She asked me could you find out the defense even if you saw 4 hands. Interactive hand analysis was interesting and played an important role in improving bridge technique. Although double-dummy analysis always stood on a God view, it was essential in a post-mortem analysis.
This was first time to show a interactive hand analysis here. I'd appreciate if you could share any interesting double-dummy with me.
How to defend 4♠?
In this case, defenders should prevent declarer from ruffing ♣ or from winning 3♢. How to cut the connection between table and hand became a serious problem. Timing and speed were the crucial point.
1. Leading ♣
A slow step, losing an upper hand. Declarer could win with the ♣A and sent out small ♣. Even if the defender shift to trump, the declarer was a step ahead. (a) Returning small trump, won by North, ruffing a small ♣ and finessing ♡K. Although he had to guess between ♢3-3 and alive ♡K, we supposed the play was right.
2. Leading ♢
Eliminating an entry in ♢. If the declarer draw the trump, East ducked and won on the second trick, then shifted ♣. There was no direct entry to return North to draw trumps. If he tried to jump ♡K or send, defender would win and continue to ♢.
3. Leading ♡
The contract was brought home in a second.
4. Leading ♠
This was the most complicated case. Did a routine exist? I had been trouble that if leading small trump and West won with the ♡A when declare jumped the ♡K, even if returning ♣K, the declarer could solve the entry problem by ducking the first round ♣ for a long period. There was a question I hadn't gotten down, the importance of control. In this case, the defender couldn't allow North to return back easily. So the solution was ducking, let North win with ♡K first. And then defender still had the control in trump to prevent declarer's discard ♣ on ♢ and ♡ to return North directly for drawing trumps all.
PS: Deep finesse is a good tool to verify whether your idea is correct or not.
This was first time to show a interactive hand analysis here. I'd appreciate if you could share any interesting double-dummy with me.
In this case, defenders should prevent declarer from ruffing ♣ or from winning 3♢. How to cut the connection between table and hand became a serious problem. Timing and speed were the crucial point.
1. Leading ♣
A slow step, losing an upper hand. Declarer could win with the ♣A and sent out small ♣. Even if the defender shift to trump, the declarer was a step ahead. (a) Returning small trump, won by North, ruffing a small ♣ and finessing ♡K. Although he had to guess between ♢3-3 and alive ♡K, we supposed the play was right.
2. Leading ♢
Eliminating an entry in ♢. If the declarer draw the trump, East ducked and won on the second trick, then shifted ♣. There was no direct entry to return North to draw trumps. If he tried to jump ♡K or send, defender would win and continue to ♢.
3. Leading ♡
The contract was brought home in a second.
4. Leading ♠
This was the most complicated case. Did a routine exist? I had been trouble that if leading small trump and West won with the ♡A when declare jumped the ♡K, even if returning ♣K, the declarer could solve the entry problem by ducking the first round ♣ for a long period. There was a question I hadn't gotten down, the importance of control. In this case, the defender couldn't allow North to return back easily. So the solution was ducking, let North win with ♡K first. And then defender still had the control in trump to prevent declarer's discard ♣ on ♢ and ♡ to return North directly for drawing trumps all.
PS: Deep finesse is a good tool to verify whether your idea is correct or not.
Comments
Post a Comment