Introducing a new convention: Lee Two Diamonds

[32519]

This hand comes from a club game. 2/21 tables bid slam in ♥ (6♠ can also make).

[hv=pc=n&w=saj86hajt964d2c72&e=skt972hq832dqjt4c&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=pp2d(%5Bsee%20note%201%5D)3cd(%5Bsee%20note%202%5D)4c(Pre-emptive%20raise)4h(%5Bsee%20note%203%5D)p5c(Void%20%5Bsee%20note%204%5D)p6hppp]266|200[/hv]

Notes on the bidding:

1. The 2♦ is a new convention: Lee 2♦, promising one of the following hand patterns -

a) A natural 6 or 7-card ♦ suit, 6-11 HCP

b) 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP

c) A big 4-4-4-1 hand, 16+ HCP

d) A big 5-5 holding in the minors, 14+ HCP

2. When North overcalled 3♣ East knew that West was either a) a natural ♦ pre-empt, or b) 6-4 in the majors. On both accounts East had good support for whichever hand pattern West had opened. So the X was obviously for takeout into whatever West held.

3. 4♥ was showing the 6-card suit

4. 5♣ showed a void in the suit inviting the slam if West's holding was doubleton ♣ and singleton ♦ in the minor suits. Reverse the minor suit holding and West would signoff in 5♥.

 

Now that you have bid the slam, you have to make it. Do you finesse for the ♥K or do you play to drop it?

[BillHiggin]

OMG! Do you think it is even close? It is not. The finesse is nearly twice as likely to work as the drop.

You might consider playing for the drop if you feel the entire field will be in slam AND you need a swing to move into the lead (i.e. swing by going against the odds).

[Lord Molyb]

A more interesting problem is how do you find the queen of spades?

[HighLow21]

It's tough to analyze without knowing what the opening lead was (and if it was a diamond, what was led at trick 2). But finesse is the better play regardless.

 

The finesse is 50-50 and the drop is 26%, even with the info given by the auction and whatever info is given by the opening lead.

 

Believe it or not, you're not certainly dead if it fails, unless they've already cashed a diamond honor. (North, holder of the hypothetical K♥, may not hold the diamond ace and may fail to lead a diamond. Not likely, but possible. He'd certainly be wary of leading away from a blank K♦ if he wasn't 100% certain West holds a singleton.)

 

Also, the point about matchpoints--you're either getting a shared top or a poor score (maybe some tables will sell out to 4♣, maybe you'll have company with 5♥ -1 or 5♥x -1), so you usually should take the best line for the contract.

 

Agreed about the Q♠ being more interesting.

[gszes]

to give you an idea of the importance of including the opening lead---If N leads the dia K or A

 

I would play for the heart finesse. I N fails to lead a dia I would credit s with one of those honors

 

and play for the drop of the heart K due to the bidding.

 

It would take a pretty savvy and daredevil N to fail to lead a dia with AK and stiff heart K since they

 

would have no idea if the A is with E or W. and failure to lead a dia may result in losing it (not a big

 

deal at imps but potentially huge at MP).

 

 

 

[Vampyr]

 

<interesting post>

 

 

I find it difficult to read your posts; is there a particular reason you double-space them?

[32519]

The lead was the ♦A.

One declarer in slam made 12 tricks, the other one went down 1.

Five other declarer's in 4♥ made 12 tricks.

Two declarer's in 5♣X went down 3 for minus 500.

[32519]

< Double post >

[HighLow21]

The lead was the ♦A.

One declarer in slam made 12 tricks, the other one went down 1.

Five other declarer's in 4♥ made 12 tricks.

Two declarer's in 5♣X went down 3 for minus 500.

Wow, 5 tricks lost in 5♣. So I take it spades are 2-2 and diamonds 4-4? Because declarer would have to lose 2 spades, 2 diamonds and a heart to go down 3.

 

If my inferences are correct, that means:

(1) In 5♣, the declarer failed to take a safety play in diamonds to avoid the loss of 2 tricks.

(2) North is probably 2-1-4-6, and I'm willing to bet that that singleton is the K♥.

 

No matter, dropping the singleton K♥ is still quite against the odds. If that's how the making slam was brought home, that declarer either misplayed the hand and got lucky, or was "swinging." (I suppose, if the hand was played in person, the "table action" might have suggested the blank K♥.)

 

Show us the full hands when you're ready :)

[32519]

Wow, 5 tricks lost in 5♣. So I take it spades are 2-2 and diamonds 4-4? Because declarer would have to lose 2 spades, 2 diamonds and a heart to go down 3.

 

If my inferences are correct, that means:

(1) In 5♣, the declarer failed to take a safety play in diamonds to avoid the loss of 2 tricks.

(2) North is probably 2-1-4-6, and I'm willing to bet that that singleton is the K♥.

 

No matter, dropping the singleton K♥ is still quite against the odds. If that's how the making slam was brought home, that declarer either misplayed the hand and got lucky, or was "swinging." (I suppose, if the hand was played in person, the "table action" might have suggested the blank K♥.)

 

Show us the full hands when you're ready :)

Well done, you got this spot on!

This was the full hand:

[hv=pc=n&s=sq4h75d9753ckq864&w=saj86hajt964d2c72&n=s53hkdak86cajt953&e=skt972hq832dqjt4c]399|300[/hv]

North led the ♦A and continued with the ♦K, trumped by declarer. Declarer next played a ♣, trumped in dummy. This was followed with the ♥Q. When the ♥K never appeared, declarer went up with the ♥A, crashing the ♥K singleton, making 12 when the ♠ suit split 2-2.

[johnu]

Well done, you got this spot on!

This was the full hand:

[hv=pc=n&s=sq4h75d9753ckq864&w=saj86hajt964d2c72&n=s53hkdak86cajt953&e=skt972hq832dqjt4c]399|300[/hv]

North led the ♦A and continued with the ♦K, trumped by declarer. Declarer next played a ♣, trumped in dummy. This was followed with the ♥Q. When the ♥K never appeared, declarer went up with the ♥A, crashing the ♥K singleton, making 12 when the ♠ suit split 2-2.

 

Obviously, playing for the singleton ♥K must be a 100% play. :rolleyes:

[johnu]

Deleted - Duplicate post

[HighLow21]

Well done, you got this spot on!

This was the full hand:

<see above>

<Edited a few times, after a lot of thought>

So it sounds like either declarer played hearts wrong or acted on a funny feeling and was right about the K♥. Maybe intuition based on the first 2 tricks got the better of declarer. (The diamond lead and continuation, assuming partner has signaled in diamonds on Trick 1, subtly suggests the hopes of another trick somewhere... and what could that be but the K♥?)

 

Note my point about diamonds if N/S play in 5♣. Declarer can draw trumps and eliminate the majors, later running the 9♦ to ensure the loss of only one trick. At matchpoints this is massive, because they will beat any pair that sells out to the heart game.

 

Only if a spade to the ace/jack is led at opening and the singleton diamond returned will this elimination/throw-in fail.

[Vampyr]

325,

 

It sounds as if someone bid this disgusting slam against you and made it. That's life sometimes.

[32519]

325,

 

It sounds as if someone bid this disgusting slam against you and made it. That's life sometimes.

:huh: Where do you play bridge? Since when is a slam bid and made, disgusting? Slams bid and made on distributional fits low in HCP are all part of the game. B-)

[madongjun]

finesse on ♥K and play to drop 0n ♠Q.

[Zelandakh]

It sounds as if someone bid this disgusting slam against you and made it. That's life sometimes.

Did you read the note about the opening bid? It is clear that 32519 was part of the pair bidding slam and probably West. Are you not convinced that this is the only good way to play a 2♦ opening yet?

[Vampyr]

Did you read the note about the opening bid? It is clear that 32519 was part of the pair bidding slam and probably West. Are you not convinced that this is the only good way to play a 2♦ opening yet?

 

Well... I did get to this awful slam, didn't I?

[32519]

Here is another hand from a club game incorporating my version of the Multi. The final contract was all over the place -

When N/S declared:

2/18 in 2NT

2/18 in 3♦

4/18 in 3NT

1/18 in 4NT

1/18 in 5♦

2/18 in 5♦X

1/18 in 6♦

When E/W declared:

2/18 in 3♠X

3/18 in 4♠X

All E/W made 9 tricks. According to the hand records, E/W can make 8 tricks in ♠, N/S can make 11 tricks in ♦.

[hv=pc=n&s=sh93djt76543cq943&w=sqt9643hkqj6dcat6&n=sak85ha542daqckj7&e=sj72ht87dk982c852&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p2d(%5Bsee%20note%201%5D)2n3d(%5Bsee%20note%202%5D)p3sdppp]399|300[/hv]

Notes on the bidding:

1. West's 2♦ was Multi, but promising one of the following hand patterns -

(a) 6 or 7-card ♦ suit, 6-11 HCP

(b) 6-4 in the majors, 10-15 HCP

© Big 4-4-4-1 hand, 16+ HCP

(d) Big 2-suiter in the minors, 14+ HCP

2. When North overcalled 2NT, East figured that West either held a) a natural ♦ suit, or b) 6-4 in the majors. 3♦ was pre-emptive for 3 suits knowing of a) a 10-card fit in ♦, or b) a 9-card fit in either ♥ or ♠.

[Zelandakh]

You need to tell us what the 2NT bid meant. Am also interested what West was expected to do with 16 and 4414, which is certainly a possibility. I am not quite sure what you are wanting to demonstrate this hand other than that one sometimes gets good scores when playing against beginners.

[Antrax]

If S is the kind of player to always cover an honor with an honor, playing the Q and rising A only loses to Kx(x) offside.

[32519]

I am not quite sure what you are wanting to demonstrate this hand other than that one sometimes gets good scores when playing against beginners.

Zel, in my BBO profile, I have set my skill level at “intermediate.” At best I can label myself “advanced.” By far the majority of club players would also regard themselves as “intermediate.” We all have a passion for the game. It’s addictive. Week after week we keep on returning to the table for our “weekly fix.” If we can’t get our “weekly fix” for whatever reason, we start getting withdrawal symptoms. Here we have a room full of intermediates all drawing up their own set of agreements in an attempt to gain the upper hand. Just like you, I get “a kick” out of experimenting with new ideas. The only place I have to test some of these crazy ideas is against this room full of intermediates. All of them will be offended if you label them beginners. The seriousness with which you hear them arguing and fighting with each other over a bad result gives you an indication of how seriously they take the game and the desire to win. I also want to win, even if it is just a club game. As long as I am getting good results from some of these crazy ideas I will keep on playing them. These forums have plenty of posters who (almost) without fail, love to ridicule these crazy ideas. The latest ridiculing can be seen in this thread on big 2-suiters. The truth be said, from much of all this ridiculing, new possibilities come to mind, or things are pointed out which I never thought of in the first place.

No matter how good or bad Misiry is, the fact is it does not fit in with the rest of my system. After being dealt some of these big 2-suiters, I have only recently started developing some sort of partnership agreement on how to bid them that fits in with the rest of my system, and that requires minimal memory load.

 

What am I wanting to demonstrate? This forum is about interesting hands where all sorts of things happened at the table, sometimes good, sometimes bad. I added a hand to the forum where the contracts were all over the place. Maybe I just got lucky?

[manudude03]

We don't ridicule for the sake of ridiculing you, we are just doing this game a service. On BBO, an intermediate is simply someone who has played for at least 1 year, trust me, there are plenty of beginners who have played for longer, the true test is against the bigger fish.

[Zelandakh]

Zel, in my BBO profile, I have set my skill level at “intermediate.”

I am also intermediate. Imho at least 80% of players should be. One of the things I have consistently argued for is that the intermediate range be broken into two to make it more useful and to make it less appealing for high intermediates to bump themselves up to Advanced/Expert to differentiate themselves from the rest. In this case, North apparently missed an ace with their initial count and then decided that doubling the next time around showed that. Meanwhile South went to bed with a 7 card suit. Perhaps N-S forgot to agree some defence when E-W pre-alerted them and North then got confused. The whole thing would have been moot had South shown a pulse as dealer.

 

Crazy ideas are fine by me and I try not to reject anything without giving it a little thought. Sometimes even bad ideas lead on to good ones. Therefore I do still contribute to your system threads. I also have no problems with conventions that are good against intermediates but do not work so well against experts. The (both minors) 2NT opener in my own system probably falls into this category.

 

On a theoretical level, what I would suggest to you is to rearrange your system so that the stronger options within the multi 2♦ opening are rarer. Presumably you have a sequence for 6-4 majors and 16+ somewhere and it may be possible simply to switch this with your 10-15. There would still be some issues after that but I think it would be an improvement.

 

On fitting a simple 2-suiter method into your system without 2NT available, have you considered the (surely) simplest version of this, namely:

 

3♣ = 3♦ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♣

3♦ = 3♥ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♦ + a major

3♥ = strong with both majors

3♠ = 3♠ preempt

 

or:

 

3♣ = 3♦ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♣

3♦ = 3♥ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♦ + a major

3♥ = 3♠ preempt or strong with both majors

3♠ = Gambling 3NT opening

 

That gives a structure that is logical and very easy to remember. What is given up is the 3♣ preempt. For me that, combined with the other known disadvantages of transfer preempts, is more important than the gain on these 2-suited hands but YMMV. One advantage you would get from this base is that you can take the "big" minor 2-suiters out of the 2♦ opening. Perhaps you could even use that theme to tweak the 2♦ opening to include a big balanced hand and therefore free up the 2NT opening for 2-suited purposes and play something like:

 

2NT = 3♣ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♥

3♣ = 3♦ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♣ + a pointy suit

3♦ = strong 2-suiter with ♦ + ♠

3♥ = 3♥ preempt

3♠ = 3♠ preempt

 

or

 

2NT = 3♣ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♥

3♣ = 3♦ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♣ + a pointy suit

3♦ = 3♥ preempt or strong 2-suiter with ♦ + ♠

3♥ = Gambling 3NT opening

3♠ = 3♠ preempt

 

Whatever you do end up doing, you can make the follow-ups as simple or complex as you like. Starting simple and building up over time is a reasonable approach - just recognise the limitations of a simple approach and make sure the structure is logical and consistent. At the end of the day there is no harm in playing a weak system that is fun. Otherwise Bacon Torpedo would never have been invented. I know many players love EHAA for this reason too. I doubt many of those playing it think EHAA is the best system around but that does not mean it is not fu to play and it can certainly be effective too. No doubt your system can be effective some times too; and if it is fun for you then it is just the right system for you, regardless of any shortcomings or system holes it might have.

[32519]

I also have no problems with conventions that are good against intermediates but do not work so well against experts. The (both minors) 2NT opener in my own system probably falls into this category.

fromageGB was the one who pointed out the shortcomings of transfer pre-empts. Misiry and this proposal of yours make use of 3 transfer pre-empts, all susceptible to the shortcomings pointed out by fromageGB.

 

Because of the low frequency of occurrence of big 2-suiters I reject both methods outright. Not only do they not fit in with the rest of my system, all I will be doing by adopting either is giving the opponents more options to enter the auction at low risk to themselves. 99.98% of these types of openings will be a weak single suiter i.e. a big 6-5 holding has a 0.02% probability of occurrence. A big 6-6 2-suiter has a 0.01% probability of occurrence. Effectively my method only has the shortcomings of transfer pre-empts on 1 bid, my 3♦ bid as a transfer to ♥. My 3♥ bid guarantees a big 2-suiter in ♠/m. Even if the opponents X 3♥ showing the suit, or bid 4♥, I can still outbid them in 4♠. If they choose to sacrifice my side still gets the plus score. The other downside of my method is that I lose a natural 3♦ pre-empt, but I don’t lose it altogether as it ends up in my version of the Multi.

 

On a theoretical level, what I would suggest to you is to rearrange your system so that the stronger options within the multi 2♦ opening are rarer. Presumably you have a sequence for 6-4 majors and 16+ somewhere and it may be possible simply to switch this with your 10-15. There would still be some issues after that but I think it would be an improvement.

This is exactly what I have done. My version of the Multi has 3 strong/semi-strong options all with a relatively low frequency of occurrence. Read this post by mikeh. A natural 2♦ bid has a bigger nuisance value than many are willing to admit. Therefore I don't want to lose it. The overall frequency of occurrence of my 2♦ bid is 3.74%. Of that number, 2.64% is a natural ♦ suit. The other 3 options within my 2♦ bid which are rarer all have proper follow up sequences.

 

When I show the big 5-5 hand in the minors, the opponents easily outbid me in 3 of either major. However because I am showing a hand with proper values they won't bid the easy game versus players who show a weak hand in the minors (as your system does). Additionally, partner is now placed in a much better situation to bump the auction up to 4m. The opponents can still bid 4M but because I have shown real values, hopefully I can take them down and our side gets the plus score.