MrAce Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 [hv=pc=n&s=sat43h7654da86c94&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1cp1hp2cp3cp3nppp]133|200[/hv] 3♣ was GF, expert opponents. IMP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 Top heart spot. I am bemused at 3♣ gf: I don't doubt the description but am having trouble understanding how that is playable...do they use 2♦ as some form of punt? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that I have talked myself out of the winning, mundane, low spade lead, giving declarer his 8th trick but not his 9th. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 I can understand Mike's reluctance to lead a spade, but I have no such reluctance (rightly or wrongly). I lead the "mundane" low spade. I am also intrigued at the 3♣ game forcing. I don't recall ever seeing that. What was your opponent's general approach (system)? On this auction, I play 2♦ as extended new minor forcing. Perhaps they play it as extended new minor less than forcing. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jinksy Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 I'm choosing between high and low D - if a S was setting this, P might have found a 1-level overcall. Probably going with AD to avoid blocking the suit/catch doubleton honour/give myself an outside chance of a killing switch if P discourages and I haven't already blown the defence. The GF 3♣ worries me since if their lower bids would have been artificial, it seems like there might be negative inferences available that we're not informed of. I'm assuming they had an invite of some kind available if they wanted it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 I'm going to make the stupid lead of the A♠, on Bird/Anthias grounds... lol. As to 3♣ being game-forcing, there is school of thought that does this. With an invite you bid 3rd/4th suit and follow-up with support. The meta rule is: "New suit followed by support of opener's 1st suit at the 3-level is GF." It has some advantages, namely simplifying GF auctions. I've been thinking about this switch for a while, but never got around to write down a formal text on it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecalm Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 Interesting problem!Results of simulation with the following contraints:-W is 12-15hcp with 4-5 hearts, 3+clubs without 5-4/55majors-E is 11-15hcp, without 3 hearts, without 4spades, without 5diamonds and without 6-4 shape in minors Winning lead:spade: 329 (low is 329, A is 324)heart: 165diamond: 323 (Ace, low is 204)club: 118 So I lead a spade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilKing Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 FWIW I play 3♣ as GF here. This is how it works for me: 2♦ = puppet to 2♥ (opener bids 2♥ by default, breaks show outliers)2♥ = invitational2♠ - GF with ♦ values/suit2NT = bat GF3♣ = nat GF after 2♦-2♥: 2♠ = GF with spade values/suit2NT = inv3♣ = inv3♦ = inv 4-6 There is various other exotica, but that is the gist of it. Back to the problem - I lead the diamond ace. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 -E is 11-15hcp, without 3 hearts, without 4spades, without 5diamonds and without 6-4 shape in minorsSo he could be 3244? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecalm Posted March 18, 2014 Report Share Posted March 18, 2014 So he could be 3244? No, I forgot to mention 5+ clubs but put that in constraints as the very first thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted March 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 I can understand Mike's reluctance to lead a spade, but I have no such reluctance (rightly or wrongly). I lead the "mundane" low spade. I am also intrigued at the 3♣ game forcing. I don't recall ever seeing that. What was your opponent's general approach (system)? On this auction, I play 2♦ as extended new minor forcing. Perhaps they play it as extended new minor less than forcing. :) Eastern Scientific Richard Pavlicek (Sr) snd Rich Pavlicek (Jr) is your opponents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 [hv=pc=n&s=sat43h7654da86c94&d=e&v=b&b=10&a=1cp1hp2cp3cp3nppp]133|200|IMP3♣ was GF, expert opponents. [/hv] IMO ♠A = 11, ♠x = 10, ♦A = 9, ♦x = 8, ♥7 = 7, ♣9 = 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 Small S. Nothing else appeals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trinidad Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 In my opinion this is between a small spade and a top heart. Declarer often has 3=1=3=6 and then a heart might be needed. But I will go with a spade. I am seriously considering leading the ♠10, and I wish I had the guts for it, but I will go with the conventional 3 or 4. Rik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGF_Flame Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 for MikeHhttp://www.rpbridge.net/7g19.htm#13 rebid by responder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 for MikeHhttp://www.rpbridge.net/7g19.htm#13 rebid by responderI was having a memory lapse when I posted originally: in fact, in a partnership I played in the late 1990's we had an entire structure built around using 2♦ as a punt, with an artificial 2N, and a gf 3♣ raise :P A vague memory must have existed since I did refer to the 2♦ punt as the explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted March 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 [hv=pc=n&s=sat43h7654da86c94&w=s872hakqj9dq4cjt2&n=skj5ht832dk753c83&e=sq96hdjt92cakq765]399|300[/hv] This is the whole hand. I led top ♥ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnasher Posted March 19, 2014 Report Share Posted March 19, 2014 No, I forgot to mention 5+ clubs but put that in constraints as the very first thing.But he could be 3235? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WGF_Flame Posted March 20, 2014 Report Share Posted March 20, 2014 i lead spade.as I see it there are 2 options here:1. they have 9 tricks in their 2 suits, in this case spade is better then heart, althogh diamond A is slightly better2. partner has 1 trick in their suit, in such case if I lead spade I have the best chance to take 3 spades 1 diamond and 1 in partner hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wank Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 i won't comment as to what i would lead - it's not tricky to get hands right having seen all 4 of them but in general i very rarely lead passively when opps have a 6 card suit which looks like running based on my holding. xx of clubs over is about as bad a holding as it's possible to get. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted March 21, 2014 Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 If you give partner those ♥KJ heart won't look so passive anymore :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted March 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2014 i won't comment as to what i would lead - it's not tricky to get hands right having seen all 4 of them but in general i very rarely lead passively when opps have a 6 card suit which looks like running based on my holding. xx of clubs over is about as bad a holding as it's possible to get. Some people led way too agressive if you look at replies (♠A and ♠ T leadshttp://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 28, 2014 Report Share Posted March 28, 2014 Some people led way too agressive if you look at replies (♠A and ♠ T leadshttp://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gifThose leads are inspired by the fact that this question was asked. An attacking lead seems normal to me since I expect opps having a running ♣ suit, and a small ♠ is the normal thing to do. Bringing in 4 ♠ + ♦A defeats the contract, hoping for 4 ♦ tricks + ♠A is an alternative but looks less appealing to me. Starting passively with a ♥ or ♣ is probably never right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gszes Posted April 2, 2014 Report Share Posted April 2, 2014 If you have seen what a "stopper" looks like in most ofthese forum problems a lead of a low spade looks betterand better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted April 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2014 Those leads are inspired by the fact that this question was asked. An attacking lead seems normal to me since I expect opps having a running ♣ suit, and a small ♠ is the normal thing to do. Bringing in 4 ♠ + ♦A defeats the contract, hoping for 4 ♦ tricks + ♠A is an alternative but looks less appealing to me. Starting passively with a ♥ or ♣ is probably never right. I think you and i have different views about "aggressive leads" or in your terms "attacking leads" To me there are 3 kinds of leads; -Normal lead-Passive lead-Aggressive lead Aggressive leads are unusual leads for me, such as leading from AQx (A and then Q or starting with Q) in NT is an aggressive lead for me, You do that when you are scared that opponents are likely to make enough tricks in their contract unless we take our tricks first. In this context small lead from ATxx is a normal lead, high ♥ lead is passive and ♦ A lead would be aggressive (or ♠ A) If you have seen what a "stopper" looks like in most ofthese forum problems a lead of a low spade looks betterand better. You have a good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted April 28, 2014 Report Share Posted April 28, 2014 Thinking about this problem again, I really like Phil King's ♦A lead. There are essentially two ways to beat this:Cash 5 tricksPartner has a club stopper, and we can set up four tricks for us.♦A seems to give us the best possible shot at the first possibility, and it's hard to construct losing layouts for the second possibility.I bet bluecalm's simulation would look differently if he specified 6+clubs for opener (which is much closer to the truth of course). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.