Jinksy

^ This. P had AKJxx of ♦s, declarer had 9 (or maybe 10) top tricks on any other lead. The reason I thought the sim might conceivably favour a D is in the chapter on leading from very weak hands, the theme seems to be 'lead from a shorter major, the worse your hand is'. If you don't have a short major, that becomes hard advice to follow.

It's not that obvious how to do this when you log on? Given how common this sort of thing is, maybe they should put a prominent note on the login page?

A non-jump bid by a passed hand at the three level, above P's opened suit, sure. It sounds better than expecting us to play us for a hand with Hs too good to X, too poor to defend, strong enough to bid now and too weak to open. (and yeah, I'd have started with 1♦ on this one)

Thanks both. Right you are, Eagles.

3♦ sounds like a fit-showing bid to me.

Or just click redeal?

I'll try to do it next time it comes up, and report the results here if I remember :P

You can block people on this forum? How?

Maybe, but I've not seen a sim done on this type of hand, so I can believe it would favour the lead it actually needed.

[hv=pc=n&s=sjt54hjt872dq94c4&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=1np3nppp]133|200[/hv] IMPs. Your lead.

I think we'd bid the same way (P/4N) if you switch the SA to an x, no?

With most of my partners I play Leb on unless both of us are passed hands.

I won't have access to it tip Monday by when I'll probably have forgotten, but if you remind me thereafter I'll fish it out.

I will try to keep this in mind and consciously use the strategy. It still sounds a little artificial to me - I don't honestly think I'm quick-witted enough to always realise that I'm getting into a dispute before I've got into one. Also, this feels like it's dodged the point slightly. Suppose you think that someone's being belligerent about a point that isn't laws or ethics - or that simply in the manner they used to make their legal/ethical claim, they already went seriously overboard. Again, you'd like to tell them as much with some legal force behind you, rather than having to resort to sitting there and sucking it up then perhaps reporting it to a TD later. Thinking about it, what if it happens the other way around? If someone is clearly violating the laws (e.g. the defence talking to each other, a dummy telling declarer how to play the hand, both of which I've seen repeatedly), what's the advice then? Typically I'll tell them to stop in my best effort at being both polite firm (which probably doesn't come across that way, since I don't have any natural authority), and typically they'll get defensive and unpleasant (especially since the people who do such stuff have often been aggressive beforehand). What's the advice in such situations? Neither calling a TD either immediately and with no warning or giving a warning then calling one after the inevitable defensiveness are likely to keep things amicable - and here again, if they do step over the line in the meantime, I'd like to be able to call them out on it.

This feels mean-spirited. The only person whose character I've criticised is the woman in this thread's - in the other thread on this forum I explicitly said I didn't believe they'd acted with any malice, and other than the 'bunnies', I've never referred to anyone else from this club on BBF. Do you really find 'bunnies' worse than 'LOLs'?

I still find myself at a loss as to what I'd say - or rather have said - if I called the director. Suppose you'd been in the OP situation. The woman involved hasn't sworn or insulted you, or done any such thing that would fit into an easy tick box of 'non-best behaviour', but as a sentient human she's left you feeling extremely put out. You call the director. He arrives at your table (let's pretend he teleports there instantly, so we don't have to hypothesise what would happen in the interim as a result of you doing so*), and the woman at least partially settles down as self-preservation kicks in in the presence of someone who can figuratively harm her. You have no evidence of how she was behaving, nor even any specific claims you can make about e.g. phrases she used, items she threw. Naturally she'll deny any nebulous claims of being aggressive. What do you say to the TD? * Separately, let's not assume this and look at it separately, since this is a very human part of bridge that the laws as I've heard them seem to ignore. Let's say the TD is taking a while to get there. What do you do to fill the time? Do you try to inform the woman that you're about to report her for bad behaviour? If so, do you attempt to describe why? Or do you refuse to talk to her until the TD arrives? Or do you have some other conversational strategy to pass the time? (if these questions sound rhetorical, btw, they're not supposed to be! I would love a good one-size-fits-all approach here)

This doesn't surprise me, but I think it's a shame. It heavily penalises players new or unused to organised play for not having a good sense of what their rights are and how much - socially as well as legally speaking - one can realistically insist on them. (Obviously if they did have such rights they still wouldn't know them, but frequent offenders might, and so might tread more carefully, in case someone else is listening)

I agree with this, but to me the small S seems like a standout after P's X. Surely you're expecting either the AD, in which case it prob doesn't matter much what you lead, or the KS for it? I also think against club lols, there's a small chance they've bid like this with nine trumps missing the Q as well, in which case the A can still cost if the K's in dummy (I wouldn't expect them to draw inferences about the location of the QS from the lead).

You're right. You need to lead a small S or H honour at trick one to get it 2 off.

And would that ever be considered sufficient to overrule such a penalty?

This was the full hand: [hv=pc=n&s=sqjt753hj85d5ck96&w=sa9haq73dj98cat74&n=s8642hk62dat763cq&e=skht94dkq42cj8532&d=n&v=b&b=13&a=pp2sd4sdppp]399|300[/hv] Leading the AS at any stage cost the defence two tricks (which means the contract is making exactly), since the K was the only entry for him to lead a H through declarer's J, setting up two H tricks before declarer set up a D to discard one.

X pens, 4N two places, as per P_Marlowe. I've doubled a lot of weak NTs on a lot of shapely hands, and never seen the opps actually compete above the 3 level yet, so I'll worry about this when it actually causes a problem.

As near as I can remember it, here's a blow-by-blow account something that left a bad taste in my mouth the other week (heavily editorialised, but the sensation of all this is sort of the point): I lead to trick one, declarer calls for a card from dummy, and partner follows. Declarer puts a card from her hand on the table briefly, and flicks it over (IIRC dummy had won with the A), all others flick theirs over. She calls for a card from dummy, which dummy plays accordingly. I still have my card face up on the table, and say that I'd like to see her first card properly before anything happens at trick 2. She tuts, flicks it face up, dummy flicks hers face up, then within a second they put them both face down again. I insist that I want time to absorb all the cards, she gives another note of complaint and turns them back face up. While I'm still thinking about them (feeling somewhat distracted already by having to fight so hard for this), she asks sharply if that's enough, and I give up, not really feeling content, turning my card over. Dummy's second card doesn't move, my partner and declarer play a card each (IIRC declarer's a discard), I discard too. Declarer continues the second suit, and halfway through the trick I realise I've revoked. The director is called, and to no-one's shock, we're penalised by a trick (quite an expensive MP trick, though presumably that's legally irrelevant). I felt really pissed off about this afterwards (not by the director, since I'd said nothing at the time), thinking that my revoke was a direct result of their pushiness (I will say they weren't belligerent - just pushy), but figured that after I turned my card over I lost any right to link the two. But with time to look back, I wonder - in many circumstances we have strict laws protecting people from being pressured into 'voluntarily' relinquishing their rights. Does bridge have anything similar that would apply here (or in similar cases if not this exact one)?

I regret to inform you that that is the best bridge put-down I've ever heard, and you almost certainly haven't decreased the chances that I'll use it at some point :P

What does the policy state? I'd find it hard to describe on the spot exactly what I was objecting to (assuming they don't keep it up when the TD arrives), other than some hand-wavy claim about aggressiveness which, with multiple angry players at the table, will surely be hard for the director to take a firm position on? Incidentally, the same woman, later in the session, picked a fight with an experienced club director (not active in that session). Whatever the contest was, at some point I saw her, him, and the active TD talking heatedly. Non-active TD started contradicting her, and she pointedly said 'Actually you'll find I'm not talking to you at the moment' - at which point he walked off in disgust. In retrospect I wish I'd gone over to talk to him, but it was the end of the session and I didn't really think of it at the time.