[kenberg]

Playing a GNOT qualifier yesterday, lho was in 3NT, partner led a fourth best club, dummy had a small singleton, I held KT87. The spots are such that the lead could have been, and was, from five. My K held the trick. There are issues of both communication and unblocking.

The amusement: I can't unblock, or at least i don't think so. I tried the 8, declarer started with Q9x and played the 9 to partner's Jack, and then his ace and another. The ten would have been no better, and might have been worse if partner played me instead of declarer for the 9,

Agreements: Consider the general situation. Defending 3NT. Partner leads a spot, dummy has a stiff, you rise and hold the trick, you started with four cards. Quite often it seems you do not want to return your original fourth best. but also quite often partner needs to know if you started with three or four. I guess in the example hand, a fourth best 7 would have produced the same result as my 8.

Any thoughts?

PS, Partner also had the spade ace so all's well that ends well for yesterday's venture. And the opponent's fit was in diamonds, for anyone wondering why they were not in a major suit game.

[aguahombre]

One thought to the Australians: The GNOT is our Grand National Open Teams. You might consider renaming your Spring event.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-26, 07:23, said:

One thought to the Australians: The GNOT is our Grand National Open Teams. You might consider renaming your Spring event.

Or we might consider renaming ours.

[billw55]

Personally, I find stories where the blockage could be avoided, but wasn't, to be more amusing.

[aguahombre]

billw55, on 2012-October-26, 08:46, said:

Personally, I find stories where the blockage could be avoided, but wasn't, to be more amusing.

More amusing than Mike Lawrence' Bridge Lesson on P43 of the September ACBL Bulletin?

The article was devoted to blockages and the one which struck me as interesting was:

AK432

8765

I quote:

"Assume there are no outside entries to dummy. This suit is blocked, no matter what South does. If South needs five tricks, he is out of luck. If South can do with four tricks, he has to hope that clubs are 2-2 and let the defenders have an early trick."

Maybe someone could think of a possible flaw in that presentation

[Phil]

Groan....

[JLOGIC]

You just return low (your normal count spot) so partner knows what is happening in the hand. With T87 you do not need to unblock, if declarer has Q9 you are blocked anyways (if he puts in the 9 which he usually won't since you might have AKxx, it takes a very thoughtful declarer to realize the 9 is even a legitimate play). But what if declarer has Q6x? Now if you return the 8 and it goes Q, you need your partner to return low back to you to unblock the suit. He will have an easy time if you returned the right card, but if you return the 8 it will look like declarer has QTxx in which case he should stop playing the suit, hoping you get in to lead through declarer again. True, he might think something is weird when declarer pops Q with QTx, but it's possible and it shoudl be more likely than you falsecarding him for no reason.

Also, if declarer does have Q9 and does choose to pop queen, partner will need to lead low back to you to unblock to suit. If you return the 8, partner will think declarer has QT98 and will duck, keeping communication for you to get in and lead one through.

[JLOGIC]

If you had, for example, K986 now you wold need to unblock in case partner had AJ7xx. You should have an agreement with your partner whether you lead back the 9 or the 8 in that kind of situation. That is simply something your partner must be aware of the possibility for, but he still always has a problem when it goes 8/9 back whether to duck and play you for 9x/8x and an entry where you can lead through again, or just play you for 986. He will have to try to work that out based on the rest of the hand, the bidding, etc.

However, if LHO played the 7 under your king on the first round, you would just lead back the 6, since you can not unblock anyways with 986 once the 7 is played so you should give the correct count card.

KT86 you would need to unblock if LHO didnt play the 7, guarding against AJ7xx with partner. There is some case if you are playing against a good player who considers you a good player to leading back the 6 anyways assuming they will always go up queen since you would "never" block yourself by leading the 6 back with KT86, and in doing so you avoid creating a problem for partner, but personally I would always just unblock I'm sure. Notice why KT86 is different than KT87 though.

[kenberg]

Right. I decided to stick w the actual holding but I am interested in thinking through the general situation of four in my hand, stiff in dummy.The general advice, "partner has to be aware of the position", seems optimal. On the actual hand there were much reds availabe to declarer, and partner had the ace of spades with KQx on the table. He will be continuing clubs come hell or hurricane Sandy. But it seems that there could be a matter of which club he continues, so it seems that with KT86 I maybe better play the 8 rather than the ten, since I don't want a spot back to my non-existent 9.And I don't want to block by playing the 6.

Yep, partner has to be aware of the position seems right. Among other things, I can keep it at hand for the post mortem.

[JLOGIC]

Yeah it's always a tough spot for partner when you have to unblock and not make your "correct" count play, he just has to work it out, there is no way around it. It is a good idea to have an agreement about whether you play the highest or 2nd highest in that spot so that partner will know on the other one that it is a normal play and not an unblock play.

[nigel_k]

aguahombre, on 2012-October-26, 07:23, said:

One thought to the Australians: The GNOT is our Grand National Open Teams. You might consider renaming your Spring event.

blackshoe, on 2012-October-26, 07:29, said:

Or we might consider renaming ours.

Regardless of who uses the term 'GNOT', I think the Australians should definitely rename their Spring National Open Teams so it is no longer an acronym.

[aguahombre]

nigel_k, on 2012-October-27, 15:13, said:

Regardless of who uses the term 'GNOT', I think the Australians should definitely rename their Spring National Open Teams so it is no longer an acronym.

That is what I was trying to say. At least someone gets it without the need for an emoticon.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-October-26, 07:29, said:

Or we might consider renaming ours.

I thought we did. It's just called Grand National Teams (GNT).

[nigel_k]

GNT is a pretty good name, at least until they come up with a tournament name that has the acronym VODKAROCKS. It's the antithesis of the one in Australia mentioned earlier.