MickyB

I'm not sure why I'm even asking this, given that you've now initiated several "discussions" on policy and have ignored what the majority have to say, however - Q1) Why do people who have won a match get such priority? I can't think of any logical reason for this. Q2) Do people who have beaten JEC when not representing the forums also get priority? Just to clarify, since there has been some confusion about this in the past, this isn't my way of volunteering to play in the next match.

Agree with pass then 2S. Your suit isn't good enough to think about suppressing a five-card major on the first round, can't see any alternative to 2S on the second round.

Isn't 3N cold on that layout? Edit: Ignore that, I've seen it now :P

Sure, I was just giving an example where mixed leads work best based on the cards played to trick 1. Slawinski's work concludes that mixed leads are superior to count leads, and the flaws in his methodology that I have noticed are no more biased towards one method than the other. Of course, the question of which method is more helpful to declarer is not dealt with, but I would expect this to go in favour of mixed leads as well. My experience of playing both methods is that count leads are good, but mixed leads are probably better.

If you know the layout is 1 or 2, you switch. If you know the layout is 3 or 4, you continue if declarer plays a small card, but switch if he plays an honour.

Yes 8 from Q83. "Low from two, middle from three, 2nd and 4th from length" was how I explained it when I played it. Vs NT, Meckwell play Rusinow from 4+cards, standard from 2 or 3 cards. I've played this for a while in one partnership, I've no strong feelings on it. I believe the Poles lead low from doubleton vs NT too, this seems pretty bad to me, as previously discussed you want the low card to be encouraging.

You've ignored the disadvantages IMO. First, leads from doubleton honours/9x are now more tricky - better that, when you lead the jack from Jx [or perhaps stiff jack?], partner think you have JT not QJ. I think this is generally considered to require rules for when you switch back to standard vs suit contracts. Secondly, the nine is now reserved for showing T9, whereas before it was free for other purposes. Not a big loss, admittedly, unless you are a fan of leading 9 from H98. You can lead the 8 from that but then it conflicts with 98xx or similar. I think Rusinow is good vs NT, I'm less sure vs suits.

I disagree. It feels like that at first, but once you've played it you get used to processing the information you have been given. Usually it is easiest to start by imagining the holdings headed by an honour. The advantages are - Sometimes we can work out partner's count or attitude, in which case the lead tells us the other. Often, this "mixed" signal solves a problem that neither count nor attitude alone would. For an example of the latter, we have AJTx and there is xxx on the dummy. We are unsure if partner has three or four cards, and we are unsure whether he has an honour or not. We wish to continue the suit if there is a trick there to set up. If partner shows an honour, that doesn't help us. Declarer could have Kxx or Kx. If partner shows an odd number, that doesn't help us. Declarer could have Kxx or KQx. Playing Fantunes style, the lead is consistent with either KQx and Kx, or Kxx and KQ.

Odd/even count: Odd from odd, even from even. Lowest correct card led. If we have no cards of the correct parity, we lead the highest pip. Odd/even Fantunes: Odd = odd without an honour or even with an honour. Even shows the opposite. Otherwise as above.

If you are keen to know more about this, Systems in Defence is worth reading, however it is pretty heavy stuff and the statistical analysis is flawed. http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~forster/bridge/development/slawinski/

I like count-based leads vs suits, but I'm not sure 3rd from even is the best way to do it. Compared with high from even the main difference is when leading from four-card holdings. Clearly leading top or second from four makes it easier to read as an even number. I think this is more useful than leading third, which will often leave partner clueless about the location of the low pip. A variation on 3rd+low that I've seen is - low from odd, third from even with an honour, top from even without an honour. Seems sensible but I've not tried it, and have no plans to as I am happy with 'odd/even count' and 'odd/even fantunes-style' which I play in my two main partnerships.

3D denies four hearts, 3H now from partner doesn't show four cards.

You seem to hold AT8xxxx in very high regard. It is a bad seven-card suit - think about how many tricks it'll provide declaring as opposed to defending opposite some likely holdings, and compare that with QJT9xxx. Partner is more likely to make the right decision in the auction if he imagines AQJTxx opposite than if he imagines AQJTxxx. Opening 3H on this hand is just volunteering the magic 200 if it's a part-score board or 500+ vs game if they can catch us. Suggesting partner might get the defence wrong is circular. I try to play with people who know how to bid my style of preempts.

FYP

I think opening defining 1red as unbalanced is good. I do not think the transfer responses to 1red should be limited. Balanced hands ask, unbalanced hands describe.

♦ is auto. If we systemically lead 2nd from Txxx then it gets interesting IMO

If partner stretches to bid a suit in competition, a misfitting 16-count is clearly worse than a balanced 16-count. Admittedly a balanced 16-count is the worst hand opposite a takeout double. "Nothing unshown" was an overbid, but opening a 16+ 1C on a balanced 16-count clearly doesn't violate DavidC's principle, "balanced hands show strength".

Could you explain how DavidC's blog supports your opinion? My reading of it produced the opposite conclusion, i.e. that 16-17 NTs are precisely the hands that are well placed having opened a strong club, knowing that they have left nothing unshown.

Raising to 3D with 4 diamonds and a stiff can be considered LAWful. 16 total trumps => one of 2S and 3D makes, the other is one off. They are more likely to make a mistake over 3D and often there will be an extra trump for one side or the other. I'll join those leading a spade.

Spades+diamonds IMO

Ok, so based on your assumptions - Passing will average 25% when we miss our 4-4 fit and 50% when we don't. Bidding will average 50% when we find our 4-4 fit. I've not calculated the probability of a 4-4 major fit existing when we have one four-card major, but let's use 2/7 as our figure because it makes the numbers easy, it won't be far off IMO. This would mean that we'd need to score 40% on the boards where we bid Stayman and played in 2NT. That means that we'd have to make 8+ tricks 80% of the time [lol], before you even take into account information leakage. Obviously there are massive flaws to this model, I'm just trying to show that your argument doesn't stack up. If you are so scared of playing 1N with a 4-4 major fit I'd look at Matchpoint Precision, Romex or similar.

Also, some will reach the three-level on the 4-4 major fit [1m:1M, 3M:P, 1M:3M preemptive, 1M:2M and oppo protect etc], giving another way for 1NT to win matchpoints.

Done. Now what?

Good stuff, but I strongly disagree with doubling after 1H-P-2H holding a balanced 9-count. Partner is still there.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj4hqjt32daqcaqj8&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1h1sp1n]133|200[/hv] Edit: IMPs, sorry.