In article <tvevlj$1detl$
[email protected]>,
Kenny McCormack <
[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul N <[email protected]> wrote:
...
I does de tellin' in dis team, said the chieftain fiercely. "You have
de ace next time or you's target practice for de young bowmen!"
Your lead draws the: 3, 6, and 9.
What do you play at trick 2 - and why?
Er, you lead a diamond to the ace which your partner presumably has, thereby >>getting the contract down?
You're on the right track, but I think that's only about 1/3 of the answer. >You need to dig deeper. For example, what if declarer is void in diamonds?
I figure enough time has gone by on this one - I can now give the answer to
the puzzle.
The point is this: From the tabletalk, you can be pretty sure that declarer does not have the ace of diamonds - and, therefore, that partner has it. (*)
But, declarer may be void in diamonds. So, to cater to both possibilities,
you need to switch specifically to the QUEEN of diamonds, because if he is void, you want to trap dummy's king. If declarer's diamond holding is
anything other than void, he is down at trick 2, so you don't really care
if your QUEEN play sets anything up for him.
(*) But, note, and this is the truly interesting part of this thread, what
if declarer *does* turn up with the ace of diamonds? Then, you need to
call the director and make the case that the tabletalk was unethical. And
you better hope you prevail. I wonder how often this will work out in your favor in practice. It's not a sure thing. For one thing, opps could just
deny that they said anything at all.
Some final notes:
1) In the actual hand, declarer *was* void in diamonds, but it was critical
to the defense to expose that fact early in the play. It was also critical
to neutralize dummy's king.
2) One of the characteristics of the Monastery bridge books is that they are a little fast-and-loose about the legal/ethical/rulings aspect of the game.
This hand seems to be a good example of this characteristic.
3) All things considered, it was probably unwise of declarer to duck the first trick.
--
After Using Gender Slur Against AOC, GOP Rep. Yoyo Won't Apologize 'For Loving God'.
That's so sweet...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)