oldman5757

I'm sure this has been covered before, but at least on a quick search I couldn't find. What are recommended 2/1 books? In particular is the 2/1 book by Rodwell/Grant recommended? :(

stretch to invite at IMPs. 3♥

very good problem. A pragmatic 3NT has some appeal, but the hand is just too good for that, so I agree with X, followed by 3NT over 3♠. What to do over 4♠ is the issue, and I agree with 5♥. 4NT would be RKCB for ♠, and 5 ♦ really should show 5+. If 4♠ was making, chances are reasonable that 5♥ is also, and 5♥ keeps slam in the picture if P thinks he has a perfecto. Who knows. :(

Sure, did it late in a Swiss in exactly the situation you describe. Doubled 5♥ before they bid 6♥. Operation successful, we got the swing, but patient died as we lost anyway, we were too far behind. ;)

I started to put the hand in the B/I forum, but here's why I didn't. ♥ A and a ♥ and duck a ♦ to RHO works fine if trumps are 3-2, or if the ♥ K is stiff. If not, it doesn't work. A good LHO will win 3rd round of trumps and make you ruff a ♣ in hand, leaving you with one trump. Now you can't draw the last trump because RHO will run clubs when you duck a ♦. Or, if you don't draw the last trump, when you give up a ♦, another ♣ puts you in the same boat. So, duck the ♦ first. RHO wins, and you're almost gin if RHO returns a ♦. But if RHO returns a ♣, which is what happened, you can pitch a spade, but you have to decide whether trumps are 4-1 or 3-2. if they're 3-2 you can ruff in either hand and play A and a ♥. If they're 4-1, ruff in dummy and force out the K. Either way, if you're wrong, you go down. I decided LHO had 4 ♥, so I ruffed low in dummy, and led the ♥ J to LHO who gave P a ♠ ruff. Now I think ♥ A and a ♥ at any point is better because RHO with 1-2-2-8 is maybe just a little bit more likely than 1-1-3-8.

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s9865hj105da10975ck&s=sak74haq764dk83c4]133|200|Scoring: IMP P,P,4♣,Dbl P,4♦,P, 4♥ all pass[/hv] LHO leads 10 ♣, RHO wins the ♣ A and returns the ♠ deuce. What's your plan? :)

even frisky P's should be somewhat disciplined R v. W. must bid 4♠

The notion seems to be that leading the ♣ 10 is more likely to keep communication open with P than leading the Q. Maybe your partners get in to return your suit when the other three hands have accounted for 37+ hcp, but mine don't. I'm convinced our best bet is to try to set up clubs with the ♠ K as a possible entry to run them. The best argument against leading the ♣ Q is that there hasn't been a transfer or stayman auction, thus suggesting there might be club length in dummy. If that length happens to be exactly Jxx, with declarer holding exactly Kx, then leading the Q will be spectacularly wrong, but it won't be any dumber or wronger than leading the 10 when dummy hits with a stiff J (plus likely diamond length) or Jx. BTW, if our ♠ K is an entry then we probably have to HOPE declarer ducks with ♣ KJx; we cash the A, put him in and wait for our ♠ trick.

Leading a ♣ seems clear to me at IMPs, and I'd lead the Q. There's little chance that P will get in to return anything, so it seems more likely that your ♠ K is your only entry to beat declarer. Leading the ♥ Q seems unlikely to get us to 5 tricks before declarer gets to 9. If P can't get in, then leading the ♣ Q is a big winner if dummy hits with Jx and declarer has Kxx -- and it's an equally big loser if dummy shows up with Jxx and declarer with Kx. You pays your money and takes your chances. If declarer holds KJx, Q or 10 doesn't matter, as P will have to get in and return a club. If P holds the J, your suit is running if either of you get in, as long as P has another ♣ to return. Most other holdings it doesn't matter which club you lead. Anyway, leading the Q is cooler. Anyone can lead the 10. :) At MPs, ♥ Q is clearly the safe lead, probably denying declarer a club overtrick. If you want to go tops or bottoms, lead the club of your choice. :)

[hv=d=e&v=e&s=sk7hqj108d4caq10976]133|100|Scoring: IMP 2NT, P*, 3NT, AP[/hv] * this hand was posted elsewhere in a bidding problem, but I am reposting as a lead problem. You thought about bidding 3 ♣ but didn't. Now, what do you lead against 3NT and why? Do you make a different lead if the game is MP? :blink:

Agree. Hard to find a weak 2 for W that doesn't include the ♦ A. B)

A 14-16 NT works very well in Precision, so that 1♦ - 1M - 1NT is limited to 13 hcp. Likewise, 1♣ - 1♦ - 1NT shows 17-18 HCP. IMHO, weak NT's are much better at IMPs than at MPs. The reason is that the weak NT tends to bury 4-4 major fits. Not a big deal at IMPs but can be very costly at MPs. I actually think the best reason to play weak NT's is that they're so much fun to play! :D

I don't know what is expert treatment here, but I play 3♦ by P would ask for a ♦ stopper, while 3♠ by P shows a ♠ stopper and asks for a ♦ stopper. Since I don't have one, I think I must bid 4♥. If P has only 5 (likely) he can judge whether to play there or bid 5♣ with a fit. It's true that a 4-3 ♠ fit could play better than 5-2 ♥ fit, but it's certainly possible that P has only 3. :(

Neat question. I learned the game at summer camp in summer of 65, and began playing seriously in college that fall. In the old days you got paper slips for master points, and I know my wife threw out an entire box of them during one move! Oh, well. Someone mentioned Dave Treadwell, who is now 96 and still playing. He kicked my butt many times when I lived in that area! My big bridge problem has been living mostly in rural areas (though there were exceptions) where it was just too far to go to play, so I've had long gaps where I haven't played at all. Playing more now. I am just not very comfortable with online bridge. It doesn't seem quite real to me, even though I know it is, and my computer skills aren't as good as I'd like them to be. Trying to do better, tho. :(

if it's IMPs, I just go ahead and invite and take my chances. At MPs, I wouldn't pass 2♦, but I might pass 2♠. :(

[hv=d=s&v=e&n=sqj984hdkj542ca62&s=sak10h106daq96cq1073]133|200|Scoring: IMP 1NT (2♣*) 2♥** (pass) *=one suited hand **=transfer[/hv] S now bids 2♠. Surprisingly or not, there is no further bidding by E-W. After this start, what's the best way to reach the good slam in ♦, instead of the not so good one in ♠? :)

This very bad hand has gotten even worse. The way to show that is to pass, and then keep passing. 3♣ should show a much better hand than this, and would be virtually game forcing. :)

I'd genuinely appreciate some enlightenment. Absent some detailed discussion, I'd bid this hand like maggieb. What exactly does 5NT show on this auction? What do we do with a more or less balanced biggish hand which contains something like KQ10♣, and we'd like P to bid slam with a max? This one's got me confused, so thanks for any help. B)

yes no. too good a chance for a minor suit slam. bid 4♠ and P should work it out. having decided (wrongly, IMO) in the previous round of bidding that I wasn't good enough for a slam try, about all I can do now is bid 4NT. To me this is just natural and competitive, showing some cards. If I wanted to show shape, I should have done it the round before. also, once p bids 3NT, we are in a forcing pass situation. B)

Other tables probably won't get the spade "indicator," and the normal lead against what seems like a normal 4♥ contract is the ♦Q. It still could be the best lead anyway. If I want to swing the board, I lead a club. Now if P has either ♥A or ♣A, we'll get a ruff. Maybe we can build a ♠ trick and a ♦ as well. I'd probably lead the ♦Q because clubs may be breaking badly for declarer so passive may work as well as agressive, and probably won't cost us a trick. :(

I agree that steps are really bad. Playing controls over 2♣ is, I suppose, not an expert method, but I think it's a pretty solid method for intermediates, and is much better than playing some of the other more haphazard methods of responding to 2♣. If you decide to play controls, however, you can't open just any old big hand 2♣. You bid 2♣ when you want to know about controls in P's hand and/or you are prepared to handle partner's control-showing response. This means that you open some hands 2♣ that others won't (which can be good), and you open some hands at the one level or with a somewhat off-shape 2NT (maybe not so good). I suggest two variations on the control showing scheme above: (1.) 2NT shows three kings or an AK in the same suit, and (2.) 3♣ shows 4 or more controls. :rolleyes:

I will leave it to the theorists to slug it out. Out in the world I'd bid 4♦ and owe P a trump. It wouldn't occur to me to bid 3♣ as I play that it's a (more or less) real suit. To bid 2♥ would occur to me, but I see no reason to bid it when I can define my hand within a very narrow range with 4♦. P should have no difficulty in knowing how to proceed. Even if we end up in 4-3 ♠ fit, worse things have happened. As others have noted, showing strong 3-card support is always tricky. :D

The 2♣ call is perfectly normal. I don't know why P doesn't bid out his pattern. 4♥ is a lazy call, IMHO. :D

3♣ for me. There's no good reason why P should be scraping up a 1 ♠ response over 1♥ on a bad 4HCP or something. I'm more worried about getting p/o in 2♣ with a game on than I am about getting too high on a misfit. :D

FWIW, 5NT is probably the right call over either 4♥ or 5♥. At my table I was the doubler with AKQJxxxx, _, Kxx, xx. My LHO bid 5♥, and my P judged to bid 6 ♣. I had a super easy 7♠ call. P must have good ♣ and the A of ♦. Very likely would have done the same over 5NT. At the other table, the person with my hand also doubled the opening 2♥ call, but his LHO bid only 4♥. Doubler's P then bid only 4NT. I guess my counterpart didn't know how to take it, and just went to 6♠. Fearing a ♥ loser, I suppose, his P passed. Doesn't prove anything, but I just thought it was interesting that, in this case, the lower level of interference worked better than the higher level. :P