Another lead problem...

[inquiry]

I would lead a spade. Probably shows my inexperience at bridge, but I tend to lead my partners suit without a good reason to lead something else, especially when i have four card support.

 

As for the question that probably should not be here...(bidding it differently), if I had 3♥ available as a fnj would i use it? With AT9xx the answer is no, I would not use it. The 3♦ cue bid as a mixed raise, seems perfect, i have support and I have good defense (two bullets for goodness sake), tell partner ABOUT that, not that i have five hearts to the ACE (fit jumps and nonfit jumps usually in suits iwth honors other than the ACE).

[kenrexford]

So many things to say, so little time.

 

1. The very first comment, the first sentence, was that I suppose that I would lead a heart. Hence, the OP was answered.

 

2. The follow up was to suggest that this lead problem is not so much a lead problem as a bidding problem. Many "lead problems" are actually bidding problems. In fact, most are, but not from this angle. On this hand, a bid made at a specific point that would be different would solve the lead problem. Hence, the answer is "Guess heart, but..."

 

3. I don't give a rats ass what percentage of top 100 people would do in a specific situation. However, when a noted authority advocates a position, to characterize that position (immediately without provocation and then later redundantly) as mentally handicapped is arrogant and ignorant. I'd really like to see if you would poll 100 experts, including Segal and Robson, to find out what percentage of these 100 experts would characterize Robson and Segal as menally handicapped.

 

4. This last point is perhaps the most important. Just because you start a post does not mean that all folks posting replies are necessarily conversing with you alone. The rest of us do not sit around offering words of wisdom to you specifically, as the guest speaker of the post, carrying on a conversation as if we were all in an auditorium and you on the podium. Rather, with an interesting problem (it was) to discuss amongst ourselves (you are at least invited), we chit chat thoughts inspired by the OP, and replies thereto, and such. When a lead problem could have been solved by a bidding decision, that interesting (to some) idea becomes a topic of discussion (as noted by several other similar comments following mine). If you feel that your little party has been ruined, then that is truly a shame. The humorous thing is that you yourself ruined the party. You could have commented, at your first comment, that "that would have worked, but we unfortunately did not have that agreement," ending this issue. Instead, you attacked the idea as ridiculous, thereby spinning the debate off onto a different course yourself. I mean, I actually enjoy seeing the old jlall, and perhaps have a few others to thank for that (having read through the tornado posts a few days ago). Justin Lall on meds is so less interesting.

[Guest Jlall]

4. This last point is perhaps the most important. Just because you start a post does not mean that all folks posting replies are necessarily conversing with you alone. The rest of us do not sit around offering words of wisdom to you specifically, as the guest speaker of the post, carrying on a conversation as if we were all in an auditorium and you on the podium. Rather, with an interesting problem (it was) to discuss amongst ourselves (you are at least invited), we chit chat thoughts inspired by the OP, and replies thereto, and such. When a lead problem could have been solved by a bidding decision, that interesting (to some) idea becomes a topic of discussion (as noted by several other similar comments following mine).

No, you are wrong. You are supposed to discuss things relevant to the OP. If you do not, it is considered a hijack. Threads can be hijacked (as this one has), but it is rude to do so. If you want to discuss fit non jumps in this auction, you can start a thread about it. That way, my eyes don't have to start bleeding reading it. If you want to try to hijack a thread thats fine, but don't expect OPs to be happy with you about it. It is a rude thing to do, and takes away from the discussion of the actual problem. Whether or not you agree with it, your posts are similar to spam in the sense that they take away from the topic and start a new topic that is completely unrelated to the initial discussion.

 

It is not "interesting" when your pet methods can solve a problem. Do you realize that in bridge there is always a method that can solve a problem? Problems are problems because of the context. Do you want people hijacking your bidding problems saying "I would have opened a strong club, and then relayed out, so I would never have been faced with this situation? You do this ALWAYS, and I am just tired of it.

 

The humorous thing is that you yourself ruined the party. You could have commented, at your first comment, that "that would have worked, but we unfortunately did not have that agreement," ending this issue.

 

Yes and no. You really ruined the party, but you're right it would have been better to ignore you. Obviously I was pointing out that your post was stupid as usual, because as usual we do not play your methods. Obviously I added in the mentally handicapped bit to show that 1) I think it is a stupid agreement and 2) I think that your post(s) are generally retarded. I know you knew that I was making a slight on you and fit non jumps, and that you did not actually take my post literally. My post was effectively the same as the "we don't have this agreement" post with the addition of "it is a stupid agreement to have." We both knew this.

 

Obviously I could have avoided adding the latter part, and could have said what you said, but I pretty much just hate you and most people on this forum now, and I just don't care anymore, and my hatred for you is simply overwhelming me to take shots at you. But don't pretend that my post was not effectively a less tactful version of what you posted that I "should have" said.

 

I should not have to tell you that I don't play your methods, especially when this post had nothing to do with bidding. In fact, I am sure you knew I did not play fit non jumps on this hand, but just decided to post it anyways because you can't help yourself.

 

Justin Lall on meds is so less interesting.

 

I suppose I cannot complain since I have called you retarded and stupid several million times recently, but it's interesting that this is the 4th time in a few days that someone has said something about me and meds. Is that all the rage, or are people lacking variety? I promise to spice up my insults with some different things if you do also, deal?

[Guest Jlall]

Guess I should ask btw, who is Segal? lol

 

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2007/11/16-22/train_wreck-782867.jpg

[kenrexford]

I'm mentally retarded to the extent that I play 3♥ as a fit bid.  You boys seem to save a lot of bids for hands that might have preempted but didn't.

True, better to have 8 bids that raise partner and 2 bids that don't....

I'm not sure how this reply goes very far.

 

I mean, take transfers. It would sound rather silly to object that, after a transfer to hearts, we have 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, and 3♥ all to show heart support of some variety and nothing to show anything else.

 

So, sure. A person might want 8 bids that raise partner and two bids that don't.

 

Oh! And, I'd lead a heart.

[xcurt]

Trying to return this thread to bridge...

 

I'm leading hearts.

 

Those folks talking about negative inferences from partner not doubling are being silly. We have our sides aces so from from partner's perspective the opponents may have 9 runners on the go and be waiting to come over the top. If he doubled he has QJT8x, xx, KJ9x, xx or so....

[kenrexford]

I'd say that the club Ace seems to be the standout lead.

 

The opponents are expecting a spade lead, and they surely have this suit stopped well. This screams of a hand where diamonds are running, probably for seven tricks. Add to that two spade tricks, and they have nine rippers.

 

So, it seems that I need to find an atacking lead, to get our fifth trick in before theirs.

 

I could try the heart first, but whichever Ace I start with may be fatal. For instance, the opponents might have only Kx-KQx in clubs-hearts. If I guess wrong, then I might establish their tricks before ours. They could have a slow 9 tricks, after all.

 

The reason why I see a top club as standout, assuming all of this, is that I am very concerned that a heart lead, if successful, will get us a terrible score anyway. Most of the field will be bidding 3♥ with this hand. If partner has good hearts for me, the opponents will not bid 3NT at these other tables. In fact, we will probably be declaring 4♠ and making. So, as we are playing inferior methods, I have to assume the best, that being that partner does not have good hearts with me. Therefore, I'll assume some club length, either something like KJxx or Q-high with dummy's King doubleton subject to attack.

[gnasher]

This is an excellent way to hang partner. He overcalled at the one level and your RHO bid 2N behind you when you have no spade honor. Most posters seem to think this shows two spade stoppers, which would imply 2 spade losers.

 

Seriously I don't understand how you can drive to game vulnerable when you are getting a poor split (as in, if partner has AKJxx you have a loser for sure, AQxxx is probably 2 losers, etc), and they have opened and bid 2N. Sure LHO could be on a psyche or semi-psyche, and probably is, but partner can bid game if you can make it over your 3D bid. What hands are you worried about missing game opposite?

I hope I can respond to this without being considered to have aided and abetted a hijacker.

 

I don't accept that RHO has promised two spade stops. He has to be able to bid descriptively with Kxx Kxx AJx xxxx (an intentionally extreme example). Something he is quite likely to have is a partial diamond fit, which makes 4♠ more attractive, because our hands will fit better.

 

Other reasons for bidding 4♠ are that it may talk LHO, who appears to be short in spades, into an indiscretion, and it will save me from having to find a lead against 3NT. (Though these points argue for 4♠ rather than 4♦.)

 

Having said all that, in the cold light of day driving to game does seem a bit excessive. Maybe the answer is that I'd bid 3♦ most of the time and 4♠ with some beer inside me.

 

Having bid 3♦ I'd lead a spade, because partner bid them when he didn't, apparently, have much of a hand. A heart lead seems both speculative and dangerous to partnership confidence.

Edited May 31, 2008 by gnasher

[Guest Jlall]

I don't accept that RHO has promised two spade stops. He has to be able to bid descriptively with Kxx Kxx AJx xxxx (an intentionally extreme example).

I agree btw, I don't understand those who say RHO should have 2 spade stops.

[Finch]

I was going to lead a heart, until I read gnasher's post pointing out that partner's 1S overcall was obviously very light, which means he should have a decent suit.

 

I lead a spade. The risk is that dummy has 7 diamonds and the AQ of spades (or a slower double spade stop and a heart stop), but a heart lead has pretty much the same type risk.

 

Partner was never going to double 3NT, how could he possibly know that we have 2 aces? Yes, we've shown high cards, but slow stuff is unlikely to be helpful.

 

p.s. count me in with the mentally retarted people who play 3H as a fnj here as a passed hand.

[OleBerg]

p.s. count me in with the mentally retarted people who play 3H as a fnj here as a passed hand.

Me 2.

[jtfanclub]

I agree btw, I don't understand those who say RHO should have 2 spade stops.

I don't think RHO should have two spade stops.

 

I think LHO had two ways of checking to see if RHO had two spade stops, and didn't. So that implies to me that either he's confident of 9 tricks after a spade lead, or that he's got some stuff in spades of his own. Or maybe they're just overconfident. I dunno.

[jdonn]

Guess I should ask btw, who is Segal? lol

 

http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/famecrawler/2007/11/16-22/train_wreck-782867.jpg

Now this was funny.

 

I forgot to say what I lead! I guess a spade, I don't have the balls to be wrong with a heart and my hearts aren't THAT good.

 

Clayton is wrong, I used to piss off KMB regularly by not leading his suit at times like this.

[Finch]

I agree btw, I don't understand those who say RHO should have 2 spade stops.

I don't think RHO should have two spade stops.

 

I think LHO had two ways of checking to see if RHO had two spade stops, and didn't. So that implies to me that either he's confident of 9 tricks after a spade lead, or that he's got some stuff in spades of his own. Or maybe they're just overconfident. I dunno.

I think LHO's got long solid(ish) diamonds and is hoping to run 9 tricks.

Looking at say x Kxx AKQxxx Jxx it just seems to bid 3NT and see if it makes.

[jdonn]

I'm mentally retarded to the extent that I play 3♥ as a fit bid.  You boys seem to save a lot of bids for hands that might have preempted but didn't.

True, better to have 8 bids that raise partner and 2 bids that don't....

I'm not sure how this reply goes very far.

 

I mean, take transfers. It would sound rather silly to object that, after a transfer to hearts, we have 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, and 3♥ all to show heart support of some variety and nothing to show anything else.

 

So, sure. A person might want 8 bids that raise partner and two bids that don't.

 

Oh! And, I'd lead a heart.

I can't blast you as roundly as someone else did since it's not my fight. So thank you as always for your totally profound and in-context example of how a hand already confined to a very tight range of shape and strength opposite a potential yarbrough is in the exact same situation as a hand on a very wide range of strength and no range of shape opposite a hand that has promised some minimum of values.

[han]

Now I also dare to say that I'm mentally retarded as well. Shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. Nt sure that it is best to play 3H as fit non jump, I only know that that's how I play it with Arend.

 

I would also lead a spade. Tough decision. I think that those who don't lead a spade only because they fear partner's reaction should grow up.

[Finch]

I think that those who don't lead a spade only because they fear partner's reaction should grow up.

One of my regular partners says people lead partner's suit too often, and if they do it because they are frightened of the post mortem they need a new partner.

 

p.s. he led a spade when given the problem. Eventually.

[han]

Yeah ok, maybe it is partner that needs to grow up. :)

 

I remember reading somewhere that the top computer programs are very good at opening leads and that they lead partner's suit less often than humans. Not sure if it was posted on these forums or I read it somewhere else, I remember it as being trustworthy but as so often I don't remember the source. Like my mother telling me I shouldn't eat yogurt with my fruit.

[Guest Jlall]

I led a spade, thought it was very close between a spade and heart. On a heart lead you take 6, on a spade lead they take 9.

[kenrexford]

The whole deal?

[OleBerg]

I'm mentally retarded to the extent that I play 3♥ as a fit bid.  You boys seem to save a lot of bids for hands that might have preempted but didn't.

True, better to have 8 bids that raise partner and 2 bids that don't....

I'm not sure how this reply goes very far.

 

I mean, take transfers. It would sound rather silly to object that, after a transfer to hearts, we have 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, and 3♥ all to show heart support of some variety and nothing to show anything else.

 

So, sure. A person might want 8 bids that raise partner and two bids that don't.

 

Oh! And, I'd lead a heart.

I can't blast you as roundly as someone else did since it's not my fight. So thank you as always for your totally profound and in-context example of how a hand already confined to a very tight range of shape and strength opposite a potential yarbrough is in the exact same situation as a hand on a very wide range of strength and no range of shape opposite a hand that has promised some minimum of values.

Hi jdonn,

 

I hope my sarcasm-detector is fine-tuned, as it gives quite a reading in your post.

 

Allthough I agree with you and jlall, that Kens posts sometimes lack substance and diverge from the original topic, I believe you're handling the situation all wrong.

 

Instead of being bothered by his posts, take comfort in what you can learn from them.

 

Sometimes, just sometimes, he actually has a point.

 

Like in the post you quote. His point is, that according to context, your priorities (for how many bids you would want to show suppport) may vary. Thats why he gave two examples from different contexts.

 

Anyway, even if you believe him to be wrong almost all the time, you can still learn from him. By proving him wrong, you are forced to formulate, in an easy to understand fashion, why you yourself are right. By doing this, you learn something yourself, and other readers, as well as Ken, might learn somthing too.

 

And if not to learn, why post in these forums?

[gnasher]

Come on Justin, tell us what the full hand was, so that Ken can say "I told you so" and I can try to backtrack on my previous backtracking. Or not, depending on how many spades we make.

[JLOGIC]

Come on Justin, tell us what the full hand was, so that Ken can say "I told you so" and I can try to backtrack on my previous backtracking. Or not, depending on how many spades we make.

 

Don't remember :( I'm surprised that I chose a spade, I have always been a big heart leader in this type of spot. Frances made some good points for a spade lead though.

 

LOLTARDSIMO.

[Zelandakh]

4 years and 5 months - that must be some kind of record for a reply on BBF. How do you find these old threads Justin?!!

[twoshy]

Such gold mines of entertainment too :D