SteveMoe

Seeing ♦ shortness in the dummy, I am more inclined to lead the ♣7 - hoping partner can contribute the A or even better the AJ. If not, declarer will play diamonds themselves on the path to a short hand ruff. Partner's ♦ control should be in play. I do not think declarer will draw trumps first. I like the idea of attacking wher my assets can contribute...no guarantees. I hope partner can discern I want a ♠ return.

[hv=pc=n&e=sq76hkj62d5432ct7&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=1cp3nppp]133|200|2/1[/hv] Matchpoint Pairs Advanced player declaring. Intermediate LHO and Advanced Partner. You are on lead - what do you do? ... and why? Submitted as an extension to Lead Problem posted earlier. Will provide full hand later.

I agree with Chris that ♠s are likely 5-5. However I don't like starting ♦s. I have no dummy entries, except perhaps in ♥s. Therefore I will lead the ♥J at trick 2, hoping to induce a cover. If not I finesse (and hope the remaining Honor is doubleton). At this point the opponents have book: 1♦, 4♠, and 1♥. On the run of the ♠s I have to discard carefully - 2♣ and 2♦ from dummy. 1♣ and 2♥ are painful. That leaves us with 1♠, 2♥, 2♦ and 2♣. Starting ♦ first, opponents can win the first ♦ trick because the suit is blocked. Now they can cash ♠ and put declarer back in with a ♦. Now declarer needs a doubleton ♣Queen or a defensive error (we won't get) if we break the ♥ from hand. The run of the ♠ will cause us to choose between our chances in the round suits before we have enough information. This means they get 7 tricks before we do.

Isolating on West: K 10 8 K 8 5 for the purposes of this hand, 5=8. Playing the 8 halves the likelihood that West holds the 5. or Perhaps R judged that 3N was likely at the other table, and needing a swing, decided to take the anti-percentage a prior odds choice to finesse (4 cases to 6 cases).

Agree - seems when I have 4333 opposite a fitting 4432, NT and the major often make the same number of tricks. If trumps split 4-1 I might make more in NT. The extra vallue here is the inference that when I rebid 1♠ partner knows I am semi/unbalanced 4441, 5431, 5422, etc. (length in minor). The other advantage is we often get a ♠ lead vs. 1NT, adding a trick. A sim might be nice to see....

Well said. Seems the old way of bidding the VOID for an opening lead ruff would still hold some magic. Lead director please!

Since 3♣ is forcing, 3♦ sets a game force. 1♣ - 1♠ 3♣ - 3♦ 3♥ - 3♠ 3N - 4♣ is a slam try confirming prior control bids. With 6=x=4=y, responder rebids 4♠ over 3N with 5=x=5=y, responder rebids 4♦ over 3N. Imho, 1♣ - 1♠ 3♣ - 4♣ denies 3N as a suitable contract. Some would play this bid as Minorwood... some would say this expresses doubt about the 5-level. I like control bidding too much to sacrifice 4♦ for RKB in this auction.

I'd want to know more about the 2♣ opening bid and how the pair treats 2♦ (are 43/34=1=5 patterns allowed?). Assume 2♣ requires 6♣s. The raise would normally imply a maximum. However trusting partner, I would expect partner to have something like 2=3=4=4 or 2=3=5=3 or 2=2=5=4 and about 10 HCP. This means responder bid on 5 HCP. (Partner might be gambling on a 1=3=5=4 hand). Opponents likely have a 9 card ♥ fit (10 is possible). I don't like bidding to the 4 level on this hand. I will bid 3♠ and hope Opener is 3=3=1=6. (If opponents open 2♣ with 5 card ♣ suits and a major then 3=4=1=5 is possible (unless of course they put that shape into 2♦)).

Yes - that's true. Perhaps the right path is indeed x - 5/6♦ - 6♠ - Pass - ???? Sometimes Preempts work.

No assurances my ♦Q is working. I hate Qxx in suits partner has not bid. Rating this as 8.5-9 losers I will bid 3♣ and see what develops. I will bid one more time if opponents compete. If partner is on 18-19 Balanced I expecct him/her to bid 3N. If 11-14 balanced we're probably well placed.

Thin games mean play safely. East is the Danger Hand. The ♣ finesse risks putting East on lead. Not a good idea. We want the ♦A to be with West. I would finesse in trumps to guard against x=Qxx, then plan to play on ♦s to set up a spade ruff in dummy. The are some additional chances trying to ruff out the ♣K along the way but they are small.

An Aceless 4-loser still merits a raise to game opposite a 9-10 loser raise.

...and why should we think of anything but Pass?

True enough - but what about "restricted choice" for 5&8 by West??

Looks like we're reading "Winning Notrump Leads" by Bird & Anthias. Lots of sim hands document the major suit bias for the 1N-3N auction. ♠A lead works when holding supporting honor. Suspect ♥9 would be the winner on this hand, but likely not by much. Good point that partner's pass reduces bias toward Major Suit lead from shortness. However our HCP suggest partner had nothing to say even with a 6-card major. No hand in the book is a close match, but the authors generalize: "When comparing two major suit leads (or minor suit leads), it is usually better to lead from two low or three low rather than low from 4 cards headed by one or two honors. Leads from a major suit doubleton fare surprisingly well because partner is likely ot hold at least 5 cards opposite." Some useful expectations tables: West Suit Length: 1--------2--------3-------4-------5-------6 East Length ♥/♠: 5.4-----4.7-----4.0-----3.3-----2.6-----2.0 East Length ♣/♦: 3.8-----3.3-----2.9-----2.4-----2.0-----1.6

On the surface, finessing the 10 seems right. I'm paying off to East who would discard to a bare ♣10. Not sure that is as likely as 2 discards from ♣753. Also the 5&8 are equals, so there is likely a restricted choice argument that the ♣8 halves the chance the 5 is with West. Full disclosure - I did not see this hand played.

Our unit invested in the auto dealer well before we chose to use auto scoring. The auto dealer enables hand records for every game - something that has become an expectation of the novice and the grandmaster alike. We began posting the press reports and hand records to the club's website so everyone could see their hand-by-hand results and their awards. When we did switch to auto scoring, we found he director's work load reduced somewhat, but the plus for the players was the additional hand information and presentation of results pair by pair enabled by the application - making the press report even more useful. Dealer first. Scoring when size beckons help.

Larry Cohen has published a series of articles on his website at: http://www.larryco.com/BridgeArticles/ and also at Bridgewinners.com at: http://bridgewinners.com/#author/larry-cohen Larry is lobbying fo a simple version of 2/1 that all bridge players should learn instead of SAYC.

1♥ - 2♣ 3♥ - 3♠ 4♣ - 4♦ 5N - 6♣ would be what I expect. Slam is a good proposition as mentioned above.

1) Double - Extras opposite a strong partner. Partner should expect a doubleton ♣ from me. 2) West has too much playing strength to bid 3N imho...I would rebid 4♣ instead. East should understand that partner likel has a void so passing is an option... 3) ♣10 - hoping to develop a trick in partner's length or get 2♥ tricks on my own later... 4) 3N - as long a I'm playing with a partner who can envision me with a hand like this...

Any 2-loser hand with 3-4 Quick tricks would not open 5 of a minor. With 11 tricks in hand, folks will make some forcing opening bid then jump to what thye think they can make. Some will open a highly distributional hand at the 1 level (trusting that opponents will intervene or partner will respond) and jump to game. Disciplined preempts will not have enough defense to set 4 of a major if partner can contribute one defensive trick and will not have a second suit that could play for game opposite a fitting partner. They will have enough length and intermediates in the suit to be within 1, 2 or 3 tricks of the game (unfav, equal, fav vulnerability). It is possible a 5 minor opening will happen on a 10 trick hand, but not with as many as 4 quick tricks (strong hands with 10 winners open 2♣). Even 3 defensive tricks is too much as their 4M game goes down if pard can contribute one defensive trick. Most players have defaults that 3N, 4M and 5m are to play. 5M however is the special case that commonly asks for a missing A or K in M for partner to bid 6M. Some might find this old fashioned and play the 1-2-3 loser preempt here too. Choices!

After the double of 4NT, were I East, I would be bidding 5 or 6♦ - I need to get in your way. Now how can North-South recover? Double implies a desire to penalize. While I think your sequence is reasonable if East takes no action, South might choose to bid 5♠ or pass the double for penalties. After all NS haven't got a known fit yet. Some think passing 4N then pulling shows extras (and North has extras) but East will again bid some number of ♦s. Are you ready to control bid 7♦ on the North hand? The primes in North make me think that control bidding early is smarter...5♦ will get south to cooperate. Now when East bid 6♦ South can bid 6♠ and North can bid 7 holding the black Ace South doesn't know about.

2♥ planning to pass partner's 2♠ rebid. Redouble should show 18-19. I will bid 4♠ over any positive move by partner.

Perhaps just a simple 5♦ as control-showing and suggesting a good hand with good ♥s and a tolerance for ♠s. Partner might control bid 6♣ next... then it doesn't seem so much like a gamble. There might be extensions for Unusual/Unusual but none I play here. Even though 4N takes away RKB, control biddin gis still available.

The 2-way structure I prefer uses yrennalF 2♥/♠ responses for weak and invitational 5=4/5 hands and allows 1♦-1♠-1N-2♥ to be game forcing. I prefer the 2♦ call to be Slam Inv+ and not promise a 5 card+ holding in responder's major. Similarly I play the Major suit reverse as game forcing but not slammish (1♣-1♥-1N-♠). Since we Invite slam with ♦, the ♣ trigger followed by 2N is a game force (see Ken Rexford's post).