akhare

Pass and bid later. In any case, chances for game look pretty poor unless we have an exceptional fit in one of the majors...

I am late to the party, but it's a tossup between 5♠ and 6♠ for me. However, since the former bid doesn't solve my problem if they bid say 6♦, I might be inclined to swallow the pill now and bid 6♠.

#1: I might have tried playing A♠ first to try leading a ♣ towards the K♣. If that loses and another ♠ comes back, win in hand again, ruff ♦ on board, then ♥ dumping a ♦ if it's not covered. The plan is to score 6♠ in hand, 2♥, 1♦ and one ♦ ruff on board. #2: 4♦ for now...a direct 6♣ might goad opps into a phantom sack #3: 2N: Ununsual 2N showing the two lowest unbid suits

I am late to the party, but Q♦ looks like a text book lead. The question of course is what do you do next if it goes Q♦, small, small, small (w/ dummy having 2 small and no obvious switch in sight). Does declarer have KT9X and is trying to pull off a mini-Bath coup of sorts? I think any considerate partner would overtake w/ KXX and it's safe to rule that out. Edit: Remind me to not reply before rushing off to work :). If the above situation arises, you can simply cash in AD and hold declarer to one ♦ trick.

For reference, the corrected auction was: (1♦) - 1♥ - (1♠) - P - (2♦) - 2♠ - (X) - P - (2N) - P - (3N) - P It's interesting that opener didn't choose to pass 2♠-X, which leads me to believe that he must be very short in ♠ and must have excellent ♥ stoppers. Based on that information and partner's count, I am playing him for 0-4-6-3 / 1-4-6-2 or something along those lines. Since leading a ♥ into declarer's presumed KJXX (based on partner's count card) can't help and ♣s seem like a dead end, I would lead a small ♠ and hope that partner gets the message. Declarer will likely finesse the ♠ into partner's (presumed) K♠ and now a ♥ through will (hopefully) doom the contract.

Can you please repost the correct auction so that we can understand exactly who bid what?

Based on the reluctant 2N by RHO, I am guessing he has Kx(x) of ♥ w/ a non solid ♦ suit (shapes w/ 4♥ are improbable). Leading !Cs could be right, but ♥ is the suit of choice for me. Leading Q♥ could cost a trick if there's JXX in dummy. A♥ seems to the best lead since it provides the flexibility of switching to a ♣ if it proves to be wrong and caters to the KX holding as well. Of course, if dummy does have JXX, I will have to guess whether declarer has KXX or KX, but at least it's no worse than leading Q♥. Atul

Playing our FP system: #1: P - 1♣ ;14+ any - Artificial 11+ GF 1♠ - 1N ; min bal. hand - Relay 2♥ - 2♠ ; 4+ ♣ - Relay 3♣ - 3♦ ; 2-3-3-5 exactly - Relay 3♥ - 3♠ ; 4 controls - DCB start 4♣ - 4♦ ; ♣ control, either AK of ♥ or nothing - DCB 4♠ - 4N ; ♦ control; either AK of ♠ or nothing - DCB for Qs 5♠ - 7♣/7N ;Q of ♣, ♥, ♦, no Q♠ #2: There must be something special about the hand, but X (negative) seems normal.

Believe it or not, we would bid 1♥ in our system too (Dejeneur starting a invite+ relay). Note that 1♣ opening would have promised 4+♥ and 9-13 points in our system. In any case, starting off w/ a simple 1♥ response over a natural 1♣ opening seems pretty straightforward.

Partner is pretty broke and declarer is likely 5332 or 6322. The bad news is that declarer almost certainly has the A♣ and ♣ are breaking likely 3-3. The good news is that declarer doesn't know about the ♣ break yet and might defer taking a ♠ discard (in case he's 2-6-3-2). It looks like I need to somehow get pard in to lead ♠. Since leading the A♦ is likely to cost a trick anyway, I might as well make a play that has the potential of creating an entry into partner hand. So, play the Q♦ and hope that pard has the J♦... Atul

This is kind of tangential to the discussion, but I wonder how the body's naturally produced stimulants affect performance at the bridge table. In this case, the reference is specifically to endorphins and possibly adrenaline. To put things in perspective, I once won the district level NAOP champhionships literally right after running a marathon (no, I am not making this up -- I had someone fill in a couple of hands for me while I made it to the club). Of course, in this case one might argue that it can be attributed to other factors that might have affected the opponents (running == sweat -- I will leave the rest to imagination :P). On a related note, I have noticed that low blood sugar levels that result from strenuous long runs can cause you to make some bizarre decisions and play (as my partner will testify). Of course, it's always handy to have an excuse for some really stupid brain dead play :D...

That looks automnatic for 5♦ to me, and slightly over 50% for 6♦ if you bid it (though you'll down more than 1 if it fails). 2 spade ruffs, 3 hearts, 5 diamonds, 1 club in 5♦, finesse the club for the 12th trick in 6. What am I missing? Whoops, I guess I gave pard a too ideal hand. How about this one? In any case, I think that slam is too optimistic IMO. J AKJX KQJX AJXX

Why are we thinking about slam here? We have a maximum of 8 controls (maybe 9 given a stiff K♠), but w/ only 4 trumps to take care of a weak ♠ suit, slam seems mighty optimistic. Give pard: X AKQX KQXX AQXX and even 5♦ doesn't seem that rosy on a trump lead and continuation. I would just settle for 5♦ and hope it makes. Atul

1♣ -- this hand has much more going for it than a quacky 12/13 HCP hand w/ scattered values. I suppose pard might bid 1N, but unless he's exactly 3-3-5-2, we will have a good 2♣ contract. Even if we don't land in a 8 card ♣ fit, 2♣ might play pretty well...

Pass -- someone said that good MP bridge is seldom good bridge, but bidding anything else w/ this hand is pure crap shoot...

It (reverse) works pretty well against NT IMO. In a nutshell, following low-high in the first suit led by declarer, says that you would like partner to continue the opening lead suit. Of course, common sense should hold sway over any convention and there are situations where it's more important to give correct count in declarer's suit than worry about the echo. I haven't noticed any ethical issues arising from the use of the convention, but I mostly play online and the reason behind tempo breaks are anybody's guess...

Yes, Todd and I play the Dejeneur FP system which indeed uses 1♣=hearts and 1♦=spades. I whole heartedly agree w/ your comments about the top players lambasting (and effectively stonewalling against other "complex and artificial" methods) while using their clout to making sure that their pet treatments go untouched. There was a lengthy thread about this a little while back (regarding Moscito and the ACBL). That thread raised some hope, but the smart money bet is that the ACBL won't approve defences such systems at any level any time soon (not while we have these world champions at the helm stoking their vested interests). Atul

4♥ w/ a undiscussed pard, but probably 4♣ in this case. After all, you want to discuss the hand in detail later w/ pard and the former bid is too mundane... :unsure: Atul

Whoops, I had the hands mixed up -- guess responder will bid 4♦ or might just sit out 3N on the "don't worry about the unbid suits theory"... Atul

Well, as Free noted, we use a different counting system. That's why I said "usually" (we also require 3 controls for a positive 1♣ GF response) instead of giving the long winded explanation, which would detract from the question at hand. Whoops, I had the hands mixed up -- guess responder will bid 4♦ or might just sit out 3N on the "don't worry about the unbid suits theory"... Atul

Edit: Note different HCP eval In our system (FP): P ;(14+ points; any shape) 1♠ ;8-10 usually w/ 2+ controls; balanced hand 1N ;relay 2♥ ;either 4-4 in minors or any 5332 w/ ♣ 3♦ ;relay break; unsure of final contract opposite minimum hand 3♥ ;showing max hand w/ ♥ stopper and ♦ support 4♦ ;no ♠ stopper Evaluation system: We use A=4.5; K=3;Q=1.5;J=0.75;T=0.25. In addition, the 1♣ GF requires 3+ controls.

Chalk up 5♣ for me -- if it doesn't work out too well, pard will understand. There's all the more reason to make the bid at teams, because your counterpart is likely to make the same bid as well. Atul

Preempts work -- 3♠ is fine, but the 4 lovely bullets and stiff ♣ might have goaded me to bid 4♠ (bracing myself in case the hammer falls, of course :P ). Atul

1♠ followed by 3♦. X is a terrible bid IMO (unless your pard can sort it out when you bid some number of ♠ after your partner bids some number of ♥). Atul

Author of T-REX!!! Can we get him to post some details of the system please -- the only description I have found so far is "If you are (un)lucky, you will encounter a pair playing T-Rex". Is is a FP system BTW? Atul