Kaitlyn S

I made the error of saying in another thread that I was reading books submitted for an award and someone can correctly deduce that this plethora of questions I've posted lately are about material in these award submissions. If I hadn't said anything about the award, I'd be happy to state the author (this is the second time I was asked, the first was about a different book), however, I'm pretty sure the author and publisher would be unhappy if I stated that the book was entered for the award in the event that it didn't win (unhappy enough that I wouldn't be assisting in the decision process in the future.) Having learned my lesson, next year I won't mention anything about an award.

At the time of this post, 14 opened and 2 passed, and 5 said playing 2/1 might affect an opening bid while 11 said it wouldn't. The recently released book advised you not to open this hand playing 2/1 because if your partner responded 2H, you will get too high. Since it's not at all a bad hand and easily meets the rule of 20+2, I thought that this was rather "chicken" advice, and just wanted to make sure others agreed.

HAND 3 HAS BEEN REPLACED! The old Hand 3 in this problem set was proven to be flawed. All the discussion prior to this point concerns the old Hand 3 which is still in the original post (marked as flawed) so that the reader of this thread isn't totally confused. I believe the new Hand 3 eliminated the flaws pointed out to me and hope that I didn't introduce any new ones!

Some student-level players get this wrong because they think sequence A is "double and correct", that is they relate it to the sequence 1D X P 1S P 2H. Once that it's pointed out that they would bid 2H over 1D (1S) anytime they had five hearts and invitational strength, they realize that sequence A can't be strong anymore (and by default is weaker than B.) I'm talking about in the USA.

I am no stranger to overbidding. True story from my younger days. I was sent to a small city about 100 miles from where I played regularly for work. Work was done and I called the local duplicate club and they offered me a partner. I recognized zero faces at the club and I thought nobody had ever heard of me since I'm far from an expert. A few hands into the game, I boldly bounced into 4H and went down 2 for -100 which was a top against 3D -110 the other way at all the other tables. (Of course, 3H would be better but part scores weren't for Kaitlyn!) An opponent looks at the score sheet and mutters "That's why they tell me to always double Kaitlyn Smith!"

After a few -1100's, you begin to realize the value of passing.

I'm not sure bidding 2NT and showing two suits is any braver than bidding 2D and showing one suit. After all, if it goes 1S 2D P P X, are you bidding 3C or sitting for it? If you pass, you might be playing 2Dx on a 5-1 when you have a 5-4 club fit. If you bid 3C, you let the responder know that opener has a reopening double when making his decision, rather than choosing blind over 2NT - not to mention that the opening lead comes through partner's major suit strength rather than up to it.

6C. I don't see partner bidding 7C when it's right after I bid 5S when I have 3 aces.

You got me, ahydra! Problem 3 officially is a bad problem; it does not serve its intended purpose. Hand 3 was changed as a result of ahydra's post. Intermediate. While I typically think of both intermediate and novice as a lower level than some of these problems might indicate, I'm going along with the labels used in the Bridge Movies where a beginner is expected to figure out non-obvious suit combinations.

I'd appreciate if this poll was answered by players that play 2/1, that either sometimes play SAYC or think they know standard bidding well, and don't think that their opening bids when playing 2/1 are influenced by sometimes playing a strong club system. [hv=pc=n&s=sa9754h6dqj85ca62]133|100[/hv] This is a hand under a quiz in a new book intended to teach 2/1 GF to players who play Standard. The heading of the quiz is "Opening Bids in 2 over 1." I'm doing a reality check because I disagree with the author. 1. Do you open this hand? 2. While you may make the same opening call with this hand whether you play 2/1 or standard bidding, is there a hand in which you would open in 2/1 and not in Standard (or vice versa)? A "No" response indicates that your opening bid would never be influenced by whether you were playing 2/1 or Standard.

My last two posts may appear to the casual reader to have the air of "How dare you question my solution? Take that!" but in reality nothing could be further from the truth. I am not an expert. When I play on BBO, I do not classify myself as an expert. There is a lot I don't know about the game and it is not at all unlikely that someone will find a flaw or even a serious gaffe in one of my analyses, and if that is true, I would appreciate it being pointed out. I say this simply because I don't want to discourage smerriman or Tramticket or anybody else from pointing out where my analysis is flawed if it indeed is. Several times in the past, players have correctly criticized my answers and I have corrected the solutions (or determined that my original problem was either bad or not appropriate for I/N players.) In short, I appreciate all the discussion, even that which is critical. Even if I am correct on problem 3, the respondents have pointed out that this problem has a possible alternative answer which is too difficult for an I/N player to determine isn't correct, and that if I wish to use this problem again for inexperienced players, I need to fix the problem so that a diamond void isn't a consideration (I think putting the HQ in dummy might solve the problem as either that's a dummy entry or partner has the HK making my analysis sound.)

Warning: this discusses the OLD flawed hand 3! Presumably North didn't bid 4NT on the new Hand 3 because it could be taken as quantitative. I stated that the opponents were playing Standard American. I used to say SAYC but in an early problem set, one of the experts complained about me using that term, suggesting that I say "natural system with 15-17 notrumps" instead. Of course, by Standard American, I still mean SAYC even though I was chastised for saying it. (In the Main Bridge Club, many if not most American players and many Chinese players suggest playing SAYC with an unknown partner.) SAYC is described in this booklet. ACBL SAYC booklet You will note that regular Blackwood is used, not RKCB. The assumption that the opponents don't play RKCB isn't ridiculous unless they have specifically agreed to use it.

Warning! This discussion is pretty advanced and may be beyond some I/N players. Warning! This discussed the OLD flawed Hand 3. If an I/N player gave this reason for playing the king, I would give him full credit, for it shows that he was thinking about the hand. That being said, let's examine this scenario. Declarer has solid trumps and no diamonds, and yet few enough losers that he can make the hand if I let him win the SQ, but if I cover the SQ, he will go down. If declarer has at least three clubs to the queen, he can force an entry to dummy by playing a club to the ♣K and later trumping a club. This will give him a club trick, a club ruff, and three diamond winners, and the two spade tricks given to him with the opening lead, and he can hardly have less than six hearts on this auction. (If he has five hearts, he either has ♥AKQJx where the heart ten is an entry anyway or partner has ♥Jxxx and declarer has a trump loser.) If he doesn't have the ♣Q, partner led the ♠10 and not the ♣Q so declarer must have the ♣J. If declarer had the ♣J 10, he can force a dummy entry by finessing clubs (partner could hardly avoid leading the ♣A on this auction if he had it, knowing that losers are going on diamonds.) If partner holds clubs headed by the Q 10 and four small diamonds and no heart winners on an auction that suggests that declarer is going to draw trump and run diamonds, shouldn't partner prefer the more aggressive club lead to a passive ♠10 lead? The reason I would give an I/N player full credit for that answer is that he might not be playing with a partner that would know that this auction called for an aggressive lead. An expert who isn't playing with a client or a weak significant other should be able to make the inference I described. Maybe declarer has a singleton or doubleton ♣Q and can't force a ruffing entry? A singleton ♣Q would give partner ♣JT98xx, a pretty certain club lead. A doubleton ♣Q would give partner ♣JTxxx unless declarer's second card were the jack or ten. So, in order for the cover to win, declarer has to have S-AJx, H-AKQxxxxx (no jack or the ♥10 is a dummy entry), D- void C-QJ or C-Q10, giving partner specifically a singleton jack or queen of hearts. You can't give declarer four spades and seven hearts because declarer's spades are all good after you cover (partner's 9 drops under the J if he has it.) However, if this is declarer's hand, he drops partner's singleton trump jack and the ♥10 becomes his dummy entry. Fun hand - it appears to work as a defensive problem for experts also, although that was unintentional. That being said, see 2 posts from this one.

Answers: 1. [hv=pc=n&n=s973hqjt5dq64cakj&e=skqt5h63dj752c742&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1hp2hp4hppp]266|200[/hv] Partner leads the ♠2. Dummy plays the ♠3. Your play? Hint: Do you know the standard play in this situation? Answer: When there are no high cards in the dummy to matter, you play third hand high, but the lowest of touching cards. Play the queen. Partner won't necessarily know that you have the king, but you do deny the jack. If you play the king, you will deny the queen. Playing the ten can't help and could hurt if declarer has the jack. This is standard. 2. [hv=pc=n&n=sj93hkqj5dqjt4ck7&e=skq65h73d965caq53&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1hp2hp4hppp]266|200[/hv] Partner leads the ♠2. Dummy plays the ♠3. Your play? Hint: If partner gets in, what do you want him to do? What's the best way to accomplish that? Answer: The "normal" play would be the ♠Q. However, when partner gets in, you really want partner to lead a club. Fool partner into thinking that there is no future in spades; play the king and make partner think declarer has the ♠AQ. Partner, when in with a red card, will lead a club because a spade lead looks futile. You'll cash your two club tricks and your "impossible" ♠Q to set the contract one trick. The recommended play is the ♠K, a falsecard intended to fool partner into doing the right thing. 3. [hv=pc=n&n=sq52hq53dakqjt6c3&e=sk643h62d74ca8742&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp2dp3np6hppp]266|200[/hv] You ask what 3NT shows and North says "undiscussed." Partner leads the ♠10. Dummy plays the ♠Q. Your play? Hint: Will partner know what to do if he gets the lead? Answer: First, let's look at the suit in isolation to see what the normal play is. First, you have the king, dummy played the queen, and partner led the ten. Where are the other cards that matter? Who has the ace? Partner can't have it because we don't underlead aces in suit contracts. Declarer has the ♠A. Who has the jack? Partner can't have it because we lead top of two touching honors and would lead the jack from ♠J 10. Declarer has the jack. Who has the nine? The unsupported ♠10 is too valuable of a card to waste (see example below.) ...........Q 5 2 10 8 7............K 6 4 3 ...........A J 9 If partner leads the ♠10, it goes ♠Q from dummy and whether you play the ♠K or not, declarer gets three tricks (if you don't play it, declarer simply finesses against it.) ...........Q 5 2 10 9 7............K 6 4 3 ...........A J 8 Here the ♠10 is backed up by the ♠9. Covering the queen with the king will create a trick for partner's ♠9. Partner should have the ♠9 (or a doubleton) for the lead of the ♠10. So, the above situation shows you where all the cards from the ace down to the nine should be based on partner's lead. If partner has a doubleton, there's nothing you can do. However, if partner has the ♠9, covering the ♠Q with the ♠K holds declarer to two spade tricks, while playing low lets declarer finesse the ♠J later for three tricks. In a vacuum, you should cover the ♠Q with the ♠K. However, this is not a vacuum. Declarer can take six diamond tricks and if declarer doesn't have a trump loser, will take all the tricks (6 diamonds, 5 hearts, 2 spades.) If declarer has two trump losers, you set 6H. The critical case is when declarer has one trump loser. Partner will win an early trump trick. At this point, declarer will have a second spade winner whether you played the ♠K or not, and declarer will have the rest of the tricks when he gets the lead back. You would really like partner to lead a club to your ace. How do you do that? Go back to trick one. You know what declarer's problem is if he has one. You know that partner will be wondering what to lead when in with his trump trick. If you let dummy's ♠Q win, you give declarer three spade tricks instead of two, but that is irrelevant because declarer has tons of diamonds to discard spades on anyway. The upside of not covering the ♠Q is that partner will think there is no future in spades. The only possible trick (other than an unlikely diamond ruff) is in clubs, and partner will lead a club to your ace. If you cover the ♠Q with the ♠K, partner will win his trump trick and may hope for you to have the ♠J rather than the ♣A. That would lead to a very bad result. So, while playing the king is best when the spade suit is taken in isolation, playing low at trick 1 is recommended for this hand. OLD PROBLEM 3 (note: this problem doesn't work as ahydra pointed out) 3. [hv=pc=n&n=sq52ht7dakqjj65ck3&e=sk643h65d843ca742&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1hp3dp3hp4hp6hppp]266|200[/hv] Partner leads the ♠10. Dummy plays the ♠Q. Your play? Hint: Will partner know what to do if he gets the lead? Answer: First, let's look at the suit in isolation to see what the normal play is. First, you have the king, dummy played the queen, and partner led the ten. Where are the other cards that matter? Who has the ace? Partner can't have it because we don't underlead aces in suit contracts. Declarer has the ♠A. Who has the jack? Partner can't have it because we lead top of two touching honors and would lead the jack from ♠J 10. Declarer has the jack. Who has the nine? The unsupported ♠10 is too valuable of a card to waste (see example below.) ...........Q 5 2 10 8 7............K 6 4 3 ...........A J 9 If partner leads the ♠10, it goes ♠Q from dummy and whether you play the ♠K or not, declarer gets three tricks (if you don't play it, declarer simply finesses against it.) ...........Q 5 2 10 9 7............K 6 4 3 ...........A J 8 Here the ♠10 is backed up by the ♠9. Covering the queen with the king will create a trick for partner's ♠9. Partner should have the ♠9 (or a doubleton) for the lead of the ♠10. So, the above situation shows you where all the cards from the ace down to the nine should be based on partner's lead. If partner has a doubleton, there's nothing you can do. However, if partner has the ♠9, covering the ♠Q with the ♠K holds declarer to two spade tricks, while playing low lets declarer finesse the ♠J later for three tricks. In a vacuum, you should cover the ♠Q with the ♠K. However, this is not a vacuum. Declarer can take six diamond tricks and if declarer doesn't have a trump loser, will take all the tricks. If declarer has two trump losers, you set 6H. The critical case is when declarer has one trump loser. Partner will win an early trump trick. At this point, declarer will have a second spade winner whether you played the ♠K or not, and declarer will have the rest of the tricks when he gets the lead back. You would really like partner to lead a club to your ace. How do you do that? Go back to trick one. You know what declarer's problem is if he has one. You know that partner will be wondering what to lead when in with his trump trick. If you let dummy's ♠Q win, you give declarer three spade tricks instead of two, but that is irrelevant because declarer has tons of diamonds to discard spades on anyway. The upside of not covering the ♠Q is that partner will think there is no future in spades. The only possible trick (other than an unlikely diamond ruff) is in clubs, and partner will lead a club to your ace. If you cover the ♠Q with the ♠K, partner will win his trump trick and may hope for you to have the ♠J rather than the ♣A. That would lead to a very bad result. So, while playing the king is best when the spade suit is taken in isolation, playing low at trick 1 is recommended for this hand.

My fault! I should have listed the lead conventions that partner insisted on, which are (vs. suits): Ace from AKx, fourth best, low from three small. I've added these to the OP.

Use the new Problem 3.

thread posted twice, sorry :(

Hi - these problems should be very easy for experienced players but an I/N player needs to think when playing to trick one. If you get these wrong, don't feel too bad as long as you understand the rationale for the answers. I'll provide the answers later but I'll put a hint as a spoiler. Try to solve the problem without the spoiler. Also, let me know if you would be interested in seeing more of these from time to time. Assume that your opponents are playing Standard American (a natural system with 15-17 1NT openings and 5-card majors), IMPS, and nobody is vulnerable. Your agreed lead conventions against suits are: Ace from AKx, fourth best, low from three small. You are East on all these deals. In each case, your partner led the indicated spade. Problem 1 is to make sure you understand standard defensive technique. You may have to think on problems 2 and 3. 1. [hv=pc=n&n=s973hqjt5dq64cakj&e=skqt5h63dj752c742&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1cp1hp2hp4hppp]266|200[/hv] Partner leads the ♠2. Dummy plays the ♠3. Your play? 2. [hv=pc=n&n=sj93hkqj5dqjt4ck7&e=skq65h73d965caq53&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1hp2hp4hppp]266|200[/hv] Partner leads the ♠2. Dummy plays the ♠3. Your play? 3 [hv=pc=n&n=sq52hq53dakqjt6c3&e=sk643h62d74ca8742&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1hp2dp3np6hppp]266|200[/hv] You ask what 3NT shows and North says "undiscussed." Partner leads the ♠10. Dummy plays the ♠Q. Your play? OLD PROBLEM 3: This problem has been shown to be flawed. I am leaving it here only because the discussion doesn't make sense with the new hand. All the discussion before the big green post "HAND 3 HAS BEEN REPLACED" refers to the following hand. 3. [hv=pc=n&n=sq52ht7dakqjj65ck3&e=sk643h65d843ca742&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=1dp1hp3dp3hp4hp6hppp]266|200[/hv] Partner leads the ♠10. Dummy plays the ♠Q. Your play?

Defense problem set 1 available. Defense problem set 1

Well I'll be damned! I put it in, and must have not hit Insert Diagram (funny, if I had 13 choices, that would have worked too :D ) OP to be edited

You've agreed to fourth best leads. The opponents bid 1NT (15-17) raised to game. Your choice? [hv=pc=n&s=st85h952dkq72caq3&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1np3nppp]133|200[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&s=sakq6hk74d865ca32&n=s9532haj63daq3c75&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1cp1hp1sp4sppp]266|200[/hv] West leads the CK. Plan your play. Then compare the following two plays and tell me which is superior.

Yep! My fault - I gave Winston credit when Cyber posted the line first.

Thanks to the few that answered. I had assumed that king from ace-king and also from king-queen went out of fashion many years go but apparently I am wrong. The author who wrote the book which made me ask this question likes to lead unsupported aces far more frequently than i do, so I guess for someone who does that, king from AK and from KQ might make sense, although maybe Rusinow makes more sense (but probably not for his target audience.)

If S-Jx or S-Jxx is on the board, why wouldn't you play the SA if you have it? RP's example where you don't play the ace has the queen on the table. With the jack on the table, I think the play of the ace is indicated. After all, the diamonds are still dangerous (and if third hand is looking at D-AQJxx on the board and three small in his hand, he might hop SA even if the SQ is in dummy at matchpoints.) I agree with the author that you want to make an attacking lead, for the auction indicates that declarer is likely to draw trump and play diamonds, and you'd better have your black suits ready to roll if and when your side gets in. I think a trump is definitely wrong based on the auction and your hand (although I suppose it's possible to create a hand where a trump lead is best.) My question was really whether the CA would be better than a spade - although I included other leads because people might want to lead something else.