[pclayton]

A few over the last 24 hours:

1.

Scoring: XIMP

---

RHO opens 3♦, you double, LHO passes, pard bids 5♠

2.

Scoring: XIMP

---

You and pard pass throughout. 1N - 2♥ - 2♠ - 4♣ - 4♠ - 6♠. What's you lead? By the way, the opponents are intermediates at best and LHO took great pains to bid 6♠. 4♣ was key card gerber.

3.

Scoring: XIMP

---

Opps reach 6♠ after a Jacoby sequence: 1♠ - 2N - 3♦ - 4♣ - 4N - 5♥ - 6♠.

What's your lead? Deepending on your lead, the middle game is kind of interesting too, but hold off on that.

[ohioply]

1. either 6s or 6d depending on the partner...
2. small spade -- want to see the dummy
3. spade

[Echognome]

1. 6♠, I'm not so interested in grand as there are still bad breaks to deal with.
2. ♣A (lead As against slams, even if it gets ruffed, that's only one immediately discard.
3. This one is tougher as the hand that showed the diamond shortness took control. Normally this is a singleton and I want to lead the ♦A before it goes away, but if it's a void I look silly. Since nothing else looks particularly attractive, I will risk looking silly.

[mikeh]

1. 6♠. I'm not at all sure I would have doubled with this (actually, I am sure that I wouldn't have: put me down for 3♥) but I am glad I did. Tough to figure out what partner intends: but I don't think I can pass... and if he holds something like Axxxxx void xx AKxxx, I'd expect 5♠ to be a popular choice... I reject 6♦ because I don't see how he can know to stop in 6 with that hand and bid 7 with Axxxxx void xx AKQxx... well, more accurately, I see him bidding 7 with both, and I don't want that.

2. ♠A. I not only want to see dummy, I also want to be on lead at the next trick. I am going to assume that the opponents are not off 3 keycards, with partner holding the stiff ♠K and dummy a ♣ void: if that is the lie of thr cards, I am going to be tempted to quit the game. A low ♠ invites a truly weird dummy such as 7=1=4=1 and the ♣ goes away on the ♦AK.

3. Are these the same weak opps? If they are competent, then declarer has the ♥A, and a lead away from the K will be dangerous... altho perhaps the only way to set the contract. I really, really like a low ♦... if it is not immediately fatal to the defence, it is almost surely the best lead. The problem is that it will be immediately fatal to the defence on many plausible layouts: I could never bring myself to make the lead.. it is the kind of thing I sometimes hear myself saying, after the hand:'Well, my other lead was a low ♦'... which strangely enough never gets me an adjusted score.

In real life I lead a ♣. But if a low ♦ was right, give me credit for it, please

[cherdano]

1. 6♦. I don't see what is wrong with getting to 7♠ opposite Mike's example hand. On a diamond lead we still make if trumps are 2-1 and hearts are at most 5-2.
(ruff ♦, ruff ♥, ♠K, ruff ♥, ♠Q, ruff ♥, ruff ♦ and we have 6+2 trump tricks, 3 hearts tricks, and 2 club tricks).

2. I would have led ♥Q but the comments have convinced me the ♠A is right.

3. Systemic club. I can always yell at partner if he didn't double 5♥ holding the ♥Q

[mikeh]

I forgot to mention that one reason I did not bid 6♦ on the first hand is that I may already have a decent result by reaching 6♠. While it is true that we may reach slam after a 3♥ overcall, our double has surely made our partner bid aggressively, while his likely ♥ shortness and ♦ length might cause him to hold back after 3♥... not to mention that at some tables the opps may well be taking away more room if they hold 10+ ♦s between them.

[Foxx]

1) 6♦ -- I have a hand of a hand for spades, and it's not tough to construct North hands that make 7♠ laydown. I'll do what feels right by inviting North to bid seven if he can take care of the clubs.

2) ♠A -- Dummy has a side-suit void, and took a guess as to where his partner's aces were. If his void isn't in clubs, I'll be in position to end the hand right here. Even if dummy comes down with the feared club void, another spade might be enough to stop a critical heart ruff in the closed hand.

3) ♠6 -- I'm not worried about picking up partner's ♠Q, because it would be at most doubleton and would get dropped anyway. Laying down the ♦A won't blow any tricks if declarer indeed has the singleton, but could cost a tempo (having Blackwooded he is very unlikely to be void). I think the opponents will be endeavoring to do some ruffing, and spade leads will get in their way.

[pclayton]

1. I held this hand. Double and 3♥ are pretty close, but this sure looks like a great dummy for spades.

I don't think I like the collective suggestion of 6♦, but it seems to be the kneejerk response of just about everyone I give the hand too. What are you going to find out after pard bids the inevitable 6♠? Unless 6♥ is specifically agreed as Last Train, I think 6♦ just sets you up for an ethical problem over pard's sloooow 6♠.

What does pard have? Probably 6-7 good spades, since I am holding the KQ. Definitely the ♣A, and probably the K / Q. I'm also putting him on some ♦ length since LHO didn't raise. Obviously he doesn't have the ♦A-K either. Accordingly, there isn't a lot of room for hearts in his hand.

I just blasted 7♠. He had ♠AJTxxx, ♥xx, ♦JT, ♣AQT. I consider this a sub-minimum 5♠ call myself; I would have contented myself with 4♠ (which leaves me another interesting problem with the next round with the 6403.

2. This hand was given to me. I consider the ♠A the 'correct' lead here. Dummy has a void heart and ♣xx. You get partial credit for leading the ♣A here since it 'works'. Woe to those who lead a small trump as well.

3. I'm going to continue this hand on another thread, with the assumption that you lead a trump.

[cherdano]

Phil, I think all the 6♦ bidders are happily passing partner's 6♠. This can't be that wrong when Mike isn't even trying for a grand.

[mikeh]

Anyone but me find it odd that lho did not even squeak over the double with at least 4♦s? Surely he was worth a single raise, if only to remove the 4♦ cue that he could have anticipated? Not sure that that makes any difference to the result... other than that I probably over-estimated the extent of partner's ♥ shortage

I'm not the least bit sure that I would have bid 5♠ on the North hand: I repeat that I am not sure what it asks for...nor what it shows.

We had a similar problem on another thread, in which advancer cue'd 4♦ and I (and others) raised the idea that the 4♦ bid was either at least two places to play or a very strong hand. I think the North hand, opposite a takeout double, falls into the second category and I would prefer 4♦ followed by 4♠.... maybe:

4♦   4♥
4♠   5♦
6♣   6♥
?

I don't think that 4♠ should be a two places to play bid: even at imps, North should rarely (I think, never) be looking to offer a choice between 4♠ and 5♣. Of course, I may be falling victim to the very failing I often rant about: arguing that my bid MUST mean what I have, rather than what it actually means in a vacuum.

[pclayton]

Here's another thought (not related to Mike's post but to the hand in general).

In the actual auction

dbl....5♠
?

What would a 6♥ call be? If I have a monster hand with hearts, that doesn't particularly like spades: Jxx, AKQJTx, void, AQxx, I have an auto grand bid.

Why shouldn't 6♥ be a cue for spades (since I must have spade support) and promise 1st round diamonds?

[pclayton]

mikeh, on Jan 11 2007, 09:49 AM, said:

I'm not the least bit sure that I would have bid 5♠ on the North hand: I repeat that I am not sure what it asks for...nor what it shows.

I would think that 5♠ is asking for ♦'s, however the auction is under duress, so maybe thats not clear.

We all agree that 4♦ by responder doesn't promise a control. However, if responder were to jump to 5♠ over 4♥, that sequence would undoubtedly ask trump and confirm the ♦ control.

Therefore, I think we have (just) enough headroom in this auction where a direct 5♠ should ask for ♦'s.

[HeartA]

Jlall, on Jan 10 2007, 06:51 PM, said:

1.. 6D. We have lots of grand potential with this hand if we can set up the hearts. It's true that we may have problems if partner has the hand mikeh gave, but then we still make with decent splits. If partner has even 1 heart and 1 less club in mikeh's example hand we're still cold for 7. Too many hands make it cold so I'll risk getting to some that are in the 50s. BTW I hate my X but it seems to have worked great.

2.. SA. They probably had some kind of accident but if they didn't then stopping the ruffs will be good. If they did I will be able to see it at trick 1.

3...trump. RHO has the hearts controlled so thats out. A trump is passive and I'll just hope we score 2 tricks somehow.

I concur with Justin.