Re: Deep Finesse gets this right

Steve Willner wrote:
> But it's harder when you can't see all the cards....
> 
>   Dealer East
>   NS Vul
>   IMP Pairs
> 
>           North
>           K75
>           AK62
>           76432
>           3
>   West               East
>   JT62               -
>   QT97               J4
>   QT                 AKJ8
>   764                AQJ9852
>           South
>           AQ9843
>           853
>           95
>           KT
>   West   North  East   South
>                 1C!    1S
>   Pass!  2S     3C     Pass
>   Pass   3H     Pass   3S
>   Dbl    All Pass
> 
> 1C was strong and artificial; West's pass showed any bad hand (less than
> a decent 5-count).  NS have no two-suited methods over the strong club;
> their bidding was natural.
> 
> Q1. What do you think of the bidding, especially by EW?

As NS, I would probably overcall 2S and N _might_ bid 3S.
This might not be a success if EW rest in 4C.

The EW bidding is fine up to the final double which is unnatractive
especially at this form of scoring. E might bid 4C but might fear
pu****ng NS into a making game.

> West led C-4 (count leads).  East played C-A and three rounds of
> diamonds, declarer ruffing with S-9 and West discarding H-7 (low
> encourages).  Declarer drew three rounds of trumps ending in dummy and
> ruffed a diamond; the only additional trick for the defense was West's
> high trump.

The defence of attacking diamonds with long diamonds visible on table
and with several entries looks bad. It is likely to lose any defensive
heart tricks as happened.
The bidding makes S likely to hold 6 spades: if E has 2 spade tricks
this contract is dead no matter what we do (1C, 2D and 2S).
If he has only one, we need to attack hearts. This is quite safe because
if declarer has the QH then he has 5S, 3H and 1C.
If he doesn't have 1C then he needs to set up the diamonds for a trick and
attacking the entries (in H) looks good.

> 
> Deep Finesse says the double-dummy result is 8 tricks.  As far as I can
> tell, the defense achieves this only by switching to hearts before
> playing the third round of diamonds.
> 
> Q2. Can defenders beat the contract without a peek?  How?  Assign the
> blame, if you will.

I think the above thoughts are easily findable at the table.
East's defence looks misdirected.

Blame
10% to W - double was bad; he is lucky in that it shouldn't cost
         and unlucky that it did.
90% to E - the defence is indefensible.

Douglas,
Tasmania