Jinksy

[hv=pc=n&s=s84hat9853da7caq2&n=sakjt6hq64dkq8ct4]133|200[/hv] Teams of 8, no-one vul. First question: would you prefer to be in or out of this slam? Second question: would it affect your answer if I said you were in the last set of a 4-set game, that at half time you'd been trailing heavily on course for a 20-0 VP loss? Third question: on the lead of the 3S, what do you think is the best line to make?

You hold Q5 A862 KJT75 K6 Against reasonable club opponents playing weak and 4 NV, P deals and passes, N opens, and the bidding (unobstructed to the end) goes 1D 1S 2C 2H 3C 5C Do you X? Either way, what do you lead?

Dumb question. Can't see how to delete this thread

I should clarify that I've read Logical Bridge Play, much of Killing Defence and Kelsey's squeeze books, some of the Rodwell Files (and a few others by Reese and Kelsey), and quite like all 3, but they're not in my top tier of books I've really gained from, since they're not so focused as the titles I mentioned above (also Kelsey's bidding gets quite annoying in KD - I basically need someone to annotate the book for me so I know what to expect from declarer's hand). I'll have a look at Kantar's stuff, anyway. Ta all - chuck any further recommendaitons you can think of my way.

Ah, yeah. I should stop looking at these things at 2am :unsure:

[hv=pc=n&s=sat62hat5dj876c87&w=sk83hkqdaq943cqt3&n=sqh9764d52cak9642&e=sj9754hj832dktcj5]399|300[/hv] I played this hand in 2S by W the other day, and went one off. Deep Finesse says you can make, but every time I think I've figured out the line I notice something I've missed. Have a nagging feeling that it's going to be something embarassingly straight forward, but such is life. No cheating just because it's DD, though...

I'll lead a H. C doesn't look like it's running away, conceivably P has KQ or similar, but mainly just trying to avoid giving anything away. D might save declarer having to pick up Qx. Can believe that small C through dummy's K would be right, but P's not going to be friendly to me if it goes wrong.

I know there's a forum for single reviews, but I was curious about an overview, since I've been a bit dissatisfied with my book-learning recently - what books do people feel like they profited the most from reading (instructional, not bridge fiction) and why? My currents faves fwiw (and in case it helps you recommend stuff for me specifically): Klinger, Guide to Better Card Play (very basic, but I got huge amounts from the density of the problems) Lederman, A Bridge to Simple Squeezes (again basic, but no other book on squeezes made me feel comfortable that I'd just got the basic concept before moving on to more sophisticated stuff) Mollo, Card Play Technique (fun to read, not as many problems as I'd have liked as a result, but concepts explained well) Mollo, Case for the Defence (not actually sure why I got along with this better than other problem books - possibly because the problems were simple enough that I felt like I might have a real chance of getting them at the table once I'd been through it a couple of times. Most of the problem books I read now feel too far removed from the kind of thinking I'd be able to do in a timed game) Kelsey, Improve Your Opening Leads (I really liked the isolation of a small part of the game. Helped me feel like I could actually get to grips with the subject) Martens, Opening Lead (ditto, + nice density of problems. Martens' other books look too advanced for me, but after reading Kelsey's I felt like I could deal with this one) Lawrence, How to Read Your Opponents' Cards (again focused on some very specific situations, such that I felt reasonably comfortable that I could really get to grips with them) Bird, Famous Bidding Decisions (not sure that Bird is good enough at gauging the confidence he should have in his opinion well enough for this to be superbly instructional - as when he confidently claims that Rodwell made an obviously wrong decision for eg - but lots of problems on the challenges of mostly high level bidding judgement) I guess the common theme is that I increasingly like books that isolate some small aspect of the game and focus intently on it, while giving you a lot of tests to stop and challenge yourself.

Here's a hand that just provoked a strong disagreement between me and a BBO partner. Both of us thought the call was completely obvious - naturally neither of us agreed which way it was obvious :P Playing Standard American, three weak twos, 0 system discussion. 1st in all vul, IMP scoring. What's your call - and why? How do you rate the alternatives? AJT972 K5 QJ4 63

Sort of. We were playing a combination of Turbo and minorwood, so bidding four of the agreed minor just shows an even number. There's room in his hand for that to be zero, so if he had bid that I'd have to untangle it either by trying to get him to deny cues in the side suits or bid 5C directly, expecting him to raise with both. (I should add to all this in case it's relevant that - as you might have guessed - 3C and D bids would have shown Hs and Ss respectively) On current system if you have a C fit you have to admit to it, regardless of honours. Since we play a weak NT, our auctions are more geared towards bidding the right game/rightsiding to the less defined and equal or stronger hand/getting out at a low level than toward slam bidding (also since I want to play the same system with various partners I can only make it so complicated). Yeah. On current agreement it would just deny a H control, basically forcing P to bypass 5C if he had one (or bid 4N if he had the QC). Interesting... so on the hand in the post below, you'd sign off in 3N as a sort of second minimum, after which presumably 4C or D by me would be natural (not necessarily showing extra C length?), forcing and demanding (some sort of) cues with a fit?

I was playing with a glacially slow partner, so at the table I didn't have much time to think through specific hands he might hold. I was basically just following the heuristic that a 4-4 fit is normally an extra trick, esp holding hard values and with 30 points we rate to take about 11 tricks on HCPs alone. Added the 'I should have signed off in 3N' option to the poll, anyway. Also this was against Tom Slater and Alice Kaye's team with two inexperienced players on mine, so I had a feeling of an imminent crushing unless we managed to generate a swing. I think the final contract was marginally odds on - partner put down what Alice generously described as 'a nasty pile of crap', admittedly with an extra C: Jxx Jxx KQ Axxxx So it was basically on the finesse with some chance of a squeeze on a non-H lead.

He hasn't denied a spade control. 3S after 3H would be still seeking a fit, showing 4 (or 5) diamonds.

To clarify, he has 1KC (ie the A or K of trumps), not both.

You hold this hand: AKx Ax Axxx QJTx P opens a weak NT 2nd in (11-14, since you’re NV, but shouldn’t be too junky in that position. Shape is systemically any 5422 or 4441 in the range). With the methods you’ve agreed, the auction proceeds as follows: 2S* 2N** 3H*** 4D**** * Range finder ** Lower end *** showing 4Cs, slam-hunting **** cue (KDs) agreeing Cs, also showing either trump A or K Time’s basically up – any cue by you will obviously solicit 5C by P (4N by either of you would show the trump Q), so you seem to have reached decision time: 1) Sign off in 5Cs 2) Punt 6Cs Options that didn’t occur to me at the time: 3) cuebid to rightside the contract, since you don’t necessarily want the lead coming toward your hard honours and pass 5C 4) as above, but having rightsided, raise to 6Cs 5) bid 4N, showing the trump Q but implausibly denying a first or second round control in either major to torture P into making the final decision. Which do you prefer?

3S had no agreed meaning. S had clearly forgotten the system.

Not sure why the descriptions I put in aren't highlighting. P's range for the NT was 11-14.

[hv=pc=n&e=s9542ht8dj6532ck3&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=pp1n2dp3sp3nppp]133|200|Eventually described as single suited major[/hv] (ETA description not appearing properly - P's NT is 11-14) As my team was self-destructing at Brighton, this hand came up (IMPs scoring). W's NT can systemically be any 5422 or 4441 in the range. When I asked S for an explanation of the 2D bid, he became quite flustered, and couldn't remember (despite the fact that they'd been discussing it about 30 seconds before, unfortunately, while I'd been focussed on recording the previous score - he was quite elderly). After a fair bit of thought he bid 3S, and N pulled fairly sharpish to 3N. She then said to me that 2D had shown a single-suited major hand. What would you lead (ETA and why)?

I've never bought the concept of 'theoretically sound' bidding. There are far too many variables, and I'm not even sure what it implies testing for.

It is. My big issue with their continuations is you either have to have umpteen conventions or (/and in their case, as far as I can see from Neil's stuff) you often have to jump around opposite a P with 0+ points. I don't mind bidding high on fits when the opps might own the hand, but doing so when I'm fairly confident *we* do seems pointless. Sure... that's a prominent factor. It's one of a few though, so I don't just want 'simplest system' or 'most complex system below the threshold of too complicated' as my decision algorithm.

So I'm just seeking a show of hands/explanation of preferences here. If you were to play 1C openings as 14+ natural distributional/15+ balanced (unlimited either way), what basic continuations would you pick?

That makes life easier if you bypass 1D, but it seems to put a lot of pressure on the 1C 1D sequences - you have a wider range on both of the bids than you would do after a similar Precision sequence, and still very little information about distribution. I don't think you'll be able to get to 2M reliably, for eg. Also it means opener can't afford to sign off over a negative with any kind of extras at all, which means you're surely going to end up overbidding on many hands where you have a little more and partner shows up with nothing (on a really bad day a misfitting nothing). In any case, if we're both fiddling with the same type of (rare!) system at the same time, maybe we should collaborate? I'll PM you.

Thanks, that looks interesting. The main downside apart from susceptibility to competition over the first three responses looks like it would be missing 4-4 major fits when responder is balanced 0-9. I don't really have a strong sense of how big a loss that is. Presumably significantly worse at MPs than IMPs?

Thanks. Do you know of any online docs that describe the Moscito-style positive/semi-positive continuations?

Ah, I'm not. I thought you meant you were also playing a Fantunesy system - 2C is just a natural intermediateish opening bid. What's the multi over 1C? 1C P 2D as similar hand-types to a normal multi-2D?

Related to the topic here, I was wondering if anyone had heard of systems where eg 1C 1D is *either* Hs or some other hand type. It seems like it could take a lot of pressure off the other bids, but will obviously put you in a difficult spot if LHO now enters the auction (and maybe makes more hassle for the continuations than it's worth? - seems like it would inevitably lead to missing a few 2H contracts). Has anyone tried any form of this? What were your experiences?