[VixTD]

I played this hand at a club last night with a rather erratic partner, and I wondered whether a play by East qualifies as a Grosvenor gambit:

---

North considered his hand too strong for a 12-14 NT. South, for some reason, thought the rebid promised 17-18 and jumped to slam.

East thought the double called for dummy's first-bid suit and lead a club. North won in hand and led ♠9. East thought for a while and inserted the ten.

This now gives North the option of finessing against West and making the contract, but the play seemed so bizarre he didn't go for it. If she just plays small North has no chance. Was East envisaging a layout in which it actually gains to play the ten, or was this (whether intentional or not) a Grosvenor coup, a suicidal play that fails to take in an opponent because it wasn't necessary?

[Cyberyeti]

Have I missed something, isn't the contract cold after the double, win with the 9♣, diamond to the Q and run the rest of the clubs and W is squeezed flat. Why play a spade removing your entry.

[ahydra]

Cyberyeti, on 2015-October-28, 08:43, said:

Have I missed something, isn't the contract cold after the double, win with the 9♣, diamond to the Q and run the rest of the clubs and W is squeezed flat. Why play a spade removing your entry.

Good spot, though if W ducks the diamond and then throws 2 small diamonds and a heart on the clubs, declarer would have to make a heck of a read to picture him with a now-stiff Ace (rather than AJ), and may be tempted to try spades 3-3 instead.

ahydra

[Cyberyeti]

ahydra, on 2015-October-28, 10:30, said:

Good spot, though if W ducks the diamond and then throws 2 small diamonds and a heart on the clubs, declarer would have to make a heck of a read to picture him with a now-stiff Ace (rather than AJ), and may be tempted to try spades 3-3 instead.

ahydra

This is true, depends if E gives anything away with his discards or carding

[ggwhiz]

I don't think so since on the chosen line of play it just suckered declarer into restoring equity. Here's one that I (almost) fell for.

---

I arrived in 3nt as south and got the ♠10 lead. Won the King, lost the diamond finesse and they cleared the spades.

I played the ♥J and if covered I have my nine but when it was ducked I flew with the Ace banking everything on the club finesse. East dropped the ♥K under my Ace!

♣J now and when it was ducked I flew Ace and led another heart, smelled a rat and took the Queen.

Just in for my 9 tricks instead of the 11 I was entitled to and if I stick in the ♥9 I'm going down 2! That's the kind of profit I think you have to show for a true Grosvenor.

[WellSpyder]

ggwhiz, on 2015-October-28, 10:45, said:

That's the kind of profit I think you have to show for a true Grosvenor.

Errm... are you in the class of people who enjoy semantic discussions or those who don't? I think the whole point of a Grosvenor coup (if it has one at all!) is that it doesn't show any profit. The net result is the same as if you had played normally because declarer will never play you for what you have since you would never have done what you did with that holding....

[gordontd]

ggwhiz, on 2015-October-28, 10:45, said:

I don't think so since on the chosen line of play it just suckered declarer into restoring equity.

That seems like a nice definition of a Grosvenor.

[phil_20686]

WellSpyder, on 2015-October-28, 11:30, said:

Errm... are you in the class of people who enjoy semantic discussions or those who don't? I think the whole point of a Grosvenor coup (if it has one at all!) is that it doesn't show any profit. The net result is the same as if you had played normally because declarer will never play you for what you have since you would never have done what you did with that holding....

Do be a true Grosvenor it must offer the declarer a chance of a profit, but one that he can only take advantage of if he played irrationally. Some people also use it when declarer makes fewer tricks than he would have due to the irrational play, but I always think that just makes it a falsecard.

THe OP counts as it is irrational for someone with Tx not to protect against their partner having Jxxx, however, its pretty arguable here since if you only play the J or T from J or JT then you do give up something, so you have to sometimes play the J or T from JTx (x) to protect holding J or T singleton, and this makes it a safe falsecard, since even if you do think its fake it could just be from JTx or JTxx.

I think that ggwhiz's example is not a grosvenor because the defender stands to benefit if you guess wrong. In a true Grosvenor the defender can only do the same or worse.

[VixTD]

WellSpyder, on 2015-October-28, 11:30, said:

I think the whole point of a Grosvenor coup (if it has one at all!) is that it doesn't show any profit. The net result is the same as if you had played normally because declarer will never play you for what you have since you would never have done what you did with that holding....

Yes, although some argue it is supposed to gain in the long run by rattling the opponents into making further errors on later hands.

Cyberyeti, on 2015-October-28, 08:43, said:

Have I missed something, isn't the contract cold after the double, win with the 9♣, diamond to the Q and run the rest of the clubs and W is squeezed flat. Why play a spade removing your entry.

My miserable understanding of triple squeezes is that they're only worth pursuing if there's a very good chance the three guards are in one hand, otherwise you risk going down when playing for a more likely layout would have worked. I placed the red-suit honours with West, but not necessarily spade length. I'm not saying your line doesn't keep all options open, but it's a bit beyond me and I didn't think of a squeeze at the time. (I also think you have to cash the ♥A early.)

If I did play like that I might encourage partner's wild bidding, which wouldn't be beneficial in the long-run.

[nige1]

deleted

[Vampyr]

phil_20686, on 2015-October-28, 12:19, said:

I think that ggwhiz's example is not a grosvenor because the defender stands to benefit if you guess wrong. In a true Grosvenor the defender can only do the same or worse.

This has never been my understanding.

Edit: oh, you mean if it doesn't work. Yes, I agree. A Grosvenor play lets a no-play contract through, but it still goes down because declarer envisions a different layout of the cards.

[Fluffy]

---

Say you lead ♦10 against a suit contract in spades. Declarer ducks for partner's queen and partner switches.

When declarer next leads ♦J you must play ♦9 to give declarer a losing option

[jodepp]

Is this a Grosvenor coup? Yes, and even though the line chosen by declarer wasn't optimal I'm reminded of an old golfers' saying:

"You're not a true golfer until you hit your first tree."

You're also not a bridge player unless you've been Grosvenored at least twice