dake50

This is an insulting post. I asked for information about robot leads because I don't know much about them and thought they might help us to defend. I understand about listening to the auction etc, but agreements about leads might conceivably help us to know whether partner might be denying a stiff, etc, by his choice of lead. I posted this to the expert forum because I thought that expert players would be most knowledgeable about this. More than likely, the Granovetters should be considered experts and they've advanced this idea of robot leads. I was doubtful in the past about the Granovetter's Obvious Shift idea as well, but I learned then that this idea has a following and it's helped (I think) our partnership. I'm welcoming of criticism of robot leads and perhaps they are altogether bad, but I'd appreciate some leeway as to which forum I elect to post. *** Absolutely insulting to any reasoning mind were the comments I called out. Discuss why's and wherefore's but don't get into grade school quarreling. I'm glad you have the observational powers to recognize quarreling when it's so obvious. You even express the reason to discuss, not quarrel. Thanks for recognizing "This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game. You will never see anyone good saying things like..." was NO ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS - JUST QUARRELLING.

Ok, I see. We have new expert forum for people to defend ideas like robot leads. Awesome ! This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game. You will never see anyone good saying things like: "well, I would lead this and this but now let's see if bidding suggest otherwise". In fact if you were to defend such reasoning you will instantly be seen as someone not very good no matter where this reasoning leads you to in particular deal. *** So you won't lead K from KQJ1098 against 3NT? That's a preferred lead, high on any list of leads. I defend that reasoning. Don't impute a red-herring just for your inability to rationally discuss this topic.

How about reserving one/two bids for 'tell me more' with the rest of the scheme showing 'I got this'.

Do you mean another relay-for-pattern fails when an asking-bid structure finds these answers matter-of-course? S-ask? then A-ask?, eg.

Astounding! Reasoning backwards. No logic can convince me that I do not start my thinking in defense with what cards are in front of me. Secondarily, does the auction suggest a divergence from what I see? Try to give me an opening lead plan for every auction. 50 pages as someone said. Conversely, some exceptions to a standard for opening leads seems rational.

What a fine distinction. If S:QJ7 were S:K74 doesn't 6NT make? Now try to find that distinction in the auction.

I'll mess around. Start 3D.

What is left to reopen if this is direct action?

Spades are the boss suit. I surrender to that on this hand. Partner does not fit clubs, nor 5xHearts. Try 3H on our 3-4 fit? Very aggressive, but close.

First, I trust partner made a good decision to pass. Second, do I have enough stuff/shape to beg him to reconsider? NO. PASS.

Yes, FP. But 1st doubles to warn "just as I previously said, no extra". 2nd doubles to warn "two losers in their suit, I see no slam". Both with/without a FP agreed.

Oh, yeah, I really excel with 4424 shapes.

Is this a serious tournament? Or a club game for fun? Serious, too far a reach. Fun, I want to try 6C - keep my 'bid 120% of slams' reputation.

Can 2C be 17-19 that feared to GF jump? Or some big 2-suiter just wanting a fit? I wish 2C was at most a 15, now pass. If 2C might be strong, 3C but hoping I haven't overheated this auction with only a CK known to be useful.

No, given the requirement "Your system framework requires that 1C and 1D have to handle all 15+ and weak NTs ...", there are three options: 1) Big club style: 1C covers all 15+, 1D is a weak NT 2) Modified Polish style: 1C covers weak NT and all 18+, 1D is any 15-17 3) Other: you have a better solution Other is not a better solution to bidding systems in general, but for the requirement, a better solution than 1 or 2. Other is not the 'same', since there are other ways of handling the requirement. For example here is a poster who would have preferred not to tackle the requirement but did: *** So, I get it. 'Other' way to handle this 'same' problem: weak bal in 1C or 1D.

Part of the problem is that I stated "Your system framework requires that 1C and 1D have to handle all 15+ and weak NTs ..." Some posters who voted "other" took that to mean they are going to ignore that requirement, or in other terms ignore the question. While I do appreciate the alternatives suggested, it would be best to answer the question as given first. *** So you took your 'other' to mean the 'same'?

If the other table's auction was 2H p 2NT ??? Shouldn't this hand have chosen 3D? Now a free 4S over 4H suggests a suit that likes Kx support. So up we go.

My teammates are capable of this same auction. Stay sane and pass.

Got to 6H. They led a spade, won HK for a S-ruff. Whew! Dodged that set.

I have a further partition. Solid with a void starts differently. So after a namyat bid, partner knows all aces are useful. Also solid from semi-solid is usually distinguished. kgr, Was that composition to show nothing's perfect? Or to claim that misfits should be systemically planned for?

When does S-stop('s) show? 2NT showing S-stop.

Your NT ladder is constraining you. Put the hands that have one message: bal 10-13 into 1NT opener. Put your second NT: 15-17 into one minor. Put your third into the other minor. These strong NT's are expectably our hand. Save space. Whichever is the second NT, put some strong hand types otherwise opener's rebid is wasted.

Split shows count: A,Q=even; K,J=odd. Other suit critical count if this suit count cannot be relevant to partner.

1. North TIMID! 2. South TIMID! 7-suit 3. North TIMID! TIMID!

I can't offer you anything specific. I spent some time analyzing this (doing simuls and observing how the best players play). I feel quite strongly about it but I can't see how I could "prove" it. bluecalm *** Agree gnasher. My aspect is more generally when to diverge from a NT lead against this suit contract.