Normality check

[whereagles]

Matchpoints, none vuln, adv opps. You hold:

 

♠ Jxx

♥ Kxxx

♦ 1098x

♣ xx

 

LHO RHO

2♠ 2NT

3♣ 3♦

3♠ 3NT

 

2♠ = weak, can be 5 cards on a regular basis

2NT = asks suit quality

3♣ = at most one top honor in spades, says nothing about length

3♦ = asks hcp range

3♠ = max

 

No need to comment the bidding methods. And no, neither me nor Ken were involved ;)

 

Your lead?

[gnasher]

I don't think there's anything abnormal about either red-suit lead. I'd lead a diamond, because I think a heart is more likely to cost an overtrick than to gain anything.

 

There's less reason than usual to prefer a major-suit lead, because RHO wouldn't have introduced hearts even if he'd had them. You also can't infer much from partner's failure to double 3♦ - he almost certainly doesn't have good enough pips.

Edited April 24, 2009 by gnasher

[petergreat]

I chose a heart, because partner doesn't need as many key cards to set up the suit.

[whereagles]

You also can't infer much from partner's failure to double 3♦

Pard only had the chance to double 3♣, not 3♦.

[Fluffy]

East looks like strong without fit planing to make 3NT on his own. He might also have heavy fit like AQx, but out spade golding makes it unlikelly.

 

IMO the only 2 possible leads are ♠J (active) and ♦10 (passive). I like ♠J best. I am not combfortable because it puts all the eggs in one basket, but its worth a try.

[Free]

♦T, although there's much to say for a ♠.

[Neobas]

♦T, Kxxx(x) is never a comfy lead. ♠(J) seems too aggressive to me...

[whereagles]

Thanks all.

 

The poll was, in fact, to check on a laws issue. Before the lead, opening leader's partner asked questions about the 3♦ bid, after which a diamond was led. It seems like a diamond is, however, the most normal lead, so I'll just leave it at it.

 

The diamond sets it 2 tricks. After a heart lead, it will probably make.

[gnasher]

The test is whether a heart lead is a logical alternative. It is, so from the sound of it you should adjust the score.

[whereagles]

Hum.. it's around 75 vs 25% for the diamond lead. Isn't it supposed to count as an LA only if it's something like 70 vs 30?

[gnasher]

A logical alternative action is one that, among the class of players

in question and using the methods of the partnership, would be given

serious consideration by a significant proportion of such players, of whom

it is judged some might select it.

I believe that interpretation of the words "significant" and "some" varies. In the ACBL, for example:

where the word “some” is used it should suggest to the tournament director and a committee more than one, and the word “significant” should suggest to the tournament director and a committee more than a minor proportion (e.g. 2/100) but less than a major proportion (e.g. 40/100).

Whereas in the EBU:

What is a “significant proportion”? The Laws do not specify a figure, but the

TD should assume that it means at least one player in five.

...

Again the Laws do not specify a figure for “some”, and the TD should assume

that it means more than just an isolated exception.

Edited April 26, 2009 by gnasher

[whereagles]

Thanks. I'm still quite undecided. Asked the question at a laws forum. Maybe they can also help.

 

And yeah, directing isn't my cup of tea. I do it only because there's no one else to do it at the local club :blink:

[hanp]

Definitely adjust, not close.

[cherdanno]

Thanks all.

 

The poll was, in fact, to check on a laws issue. Before the lead, opening leader's partner asked questions about the 3♦ bid, after which a diamond was led. It seems like a diamond is, however, the most normal lead, so I'll just leave it at it.

 

The diamond sets it 2 tricks. After a heart lead, it will probably make.

You should try every trick in your bag to try to explain them that questions by opening leader's partner before the lead are unethical. Especially questions about a specific bid.

It's a 100% clear-cut procedural penalty, but of course that might be counter-productive in your educational efforts.

[whereagles]

yeah, procedural penalty is clear. My problem is more whether to adjust :)

 

But thanks.

[jdonn]

So in the last week we have had an insanity-check thread for Ken and a normality-check thread for whereagles? What's next, an elderly-check for Justin?

[hanp]

A humility check for Josh?

[mtvesuvius]

A Paranoia Check for Winston?

 

or a God Check for Jimmy?

 

oops... I may be turning the interesting bridge hands forum into the water cooler... :)

[jdonn]

A humility check for Josh?

Good one, I definitely asked for it.

[Phil]

A humility check for Josh?

Good one, I definitely asked for it.

You pass.