[FrancesHinden]

Scoring: IMP

1NT P 2♥ 2♠
P 2NT 3♣ 3♦
3♠ 4♥ 4♠ P
P dbl all pass

---

A fairly lengthly auction
1NT = 12-14 balanced
2♥ = transfer to spades
2♠ = Michaels, 5-5 in hearts and a minor
2NT = at least invitational values
3♦ = you haven't discussed this specific auction, but your general approach when partner has showin an invite would be that this is a minimum
4♥ = may as well now

What exactly do you lead, and why?
(your usual lead agreements are lowest from an odd number, third highest from an even)

This post has been edited by FrancesHinden: 2009-March-23, 09:19

[Codo]

I would lead the 9 of hearts. Pd nearly knows that I have 3 or 4 hearts, so the additional length information by leading the 7 is close to non-existent.

But maybe he can read the 9 as a card which denies Heart Honours.


I think that a heart is the best suit to lead because I plan to play a forcing game later, when I win tricks in diamond or spade.

[Hanoi5]

I also lead a heart, the 7 to comply with my agreements.

[TylerE]

A♠ and a ♠. Yes, this will blow a trick when partner has stiff K or Q, but I think a void is far more likely (or small singleton), and I don't want to skewer partners heart holding. Let declarer break the side suits.

[bid_em_up]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 23 2009, 08:02 AM, said:

3♦ = you haven't discussed this specific auction, but your general approach when partner has shown an invite would be that this is a minimum

I'm just curious as to why you would play it this way.

From my perspective, partner can double to show clubs, and pass would show diamonds with a minimum, so the "normal" (to me) meanings of 3D should be either 1) extra shape, or 2) non-minimum with diamonds.

So why would you attempt to reverse the meanings of these two bids, so that pass of 3C shows a non-minimum and bidding 3D shows a minimum? What is there to be gained by playing it this way?

(Or am I simply misunderstanding what you are saying?)

As far as the problem at hand goes, I think if we are going to play a forcing game, (and I think we should), then we need to start it immediately. So its a question of which diamond to lead as that is the suit where the force is most likely to occur. It's also possible our diamond winners could disappear on hearts early, if we do not take them now. I choose the Ace of Diamonds, and pray that it isn't ruffed.

I also don't think I would have doubled 4S with partner showing a minimum, but to each their own.

(Sorry Tyler, I think the A spades and a spade will yield tempo too quickly. If you must lead a spade here, an initial small spade is likely to work better, as it at least allows you to retain control of the trump suit for later in the hand).

[FrancesHinden]

bid_em_up, on Mar 23 2009, 02:47 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 23 2009, 08:02 AM, said:

3♦ = you haven't discussed this specific auction, but your general approach when partner has shown an invite would be that this is a minimum

I'm just curious as to why you would play it this way.

From my perspective, partner can double to show clubs, and pass would show diamonds with a minimum, so the "normal" (to me) meanings of 3D should be either 1) extra shape, or 2) non-minimum with diamonds.

So why would you attempt to reverse the meanings of these two bids, so that pass of 3C shows a non-minimum and bidding 3D shows a minimum? What is there to be gained by playing it this way?

(Or am I simply misunderstanding what you are saying?)

Certainly double shows clubs (as we've shown invitational plus values, we must be prepared to defend 3Cx when partner has 5 of them).

Anything higher than 3D shows a good hand (certainly 3H or 4D will show a sixth card, not sure what others would be but we can use our intelligence).

That just leaves pass and 3D. One of them shows a minimum, and one of them shows a non-minimum without anything better to bid.

I don't think I can think of a strong argument for which way round to play them in this particular auction. This is an extension of our general agreement which is that when we have the choice of pass or bid our suit at the lowest level, the former is stronger than the latter.

This is relevant in auctions such as

(1C) 1S (P) 2C
(x) ?

here we play that pass shows a non-minimum with nothing suitable to bid, and 2S is the weakest action. The idea is that if you are non-minimum you have given partner more room to make a descriptive bid at the 2-level; if you have a horrible overcall it is less likely that partner will want to start making delicate game tries. You can quite possibly argue this the other way round: if you have a horrible overcall it's more likely that partner will need the 2-level to make another game try.

This seems to me the 'natural' way round to play it: you sign off immediately with a poor hand and do something more encouraging with a better hand. So I think I'm being normal and you are being reverse...

I don't think it really matters which way round you do it in practice, as long as you have discussed it. There's probably some deep theoretical advantage to one rather than the other but I don't know what it is.

[hanp]

I would also lead my highest heart, I hope that partner can win and switch to the diamond queen. A good alternative is to lead the diamond ace. Maybe this is better actually.

I agree with Charles that it seems a better to play that pass is the nothing-to-say call, and 3D showsa minimum with extra distribution. In this auction we have not shown a fit, just values. It would be nice if we weren't forced to bid again if partner has an absolute minimum. This is not the same as

1H - (1S) - 2S - (..)

where we voluntarily forced to the 3-level, here we had no choice. It is also nice if partner can show a minimum with extra distribution, without going to the 4-level if we don't have a heart fit.

I must admit that I think I play it the same as Frances said, since this is our general style. I do think that this "fast arrival" style is sometimes inferior.

Oh by the way, I would have bid 4H immediately. Partner made a red against white 2S bid and I have some support plus two aces. It is true that 4H has better chances if partner has diamonds but let's bid game and see what happens. The actual auction seems to have given us useful information though.

[FrancesHinden]

hanp, on Mar 23 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

Oh by the way, I would have bid 4H immediately. Partner made a red against white 2S bid and I have some support plus two aces. It is true that 4H has better chances if partner has diamonds but let's bid game and see what happens. The actual auction seems to have given us useful information though.

Sorry the vulnerability is given wrong. You are at favourable.
(I've edited the problem)

[bid_em_up]

FrancesHinden, on Mar 23 2009, 09:56 AM, said:

This seems to me the 'natural' way round to play it: you sign off immediately with a poor hand and do something more encouraging with a better hand.

Well, as far as I knew, making a free bid such as 3D was encouraging (you do not have to bid in this position), and pass is the sign off (weak, your suit is known). And being systemically forced to make a call on a minimum hand in this auction is simply begging for a penalty double, imo.

The other auction you give is slightly different, I can agree with the meanings you give for pass, 2S, and 2 anything. But in this auction partner has already essentially committed your side to at least 2S. There is also something to be gained by bidding 2S with a weak hand immediately in this position, since if you pass, you give your LHO the opportunity to bid freely at the two level if they desired to do so. The same cannot be said of the problem auction.

[mikeh]

I opt for the heart 9. Partner can read this easily enough, given the auction.

This has many ways to win. The biggest way to lose is when opener has good hearts and ditches one or more of dummy's diamond(s).

However, a diamond lead isn't risk free... imagine declarer with the K and dummy with xx. Or dummy with xx x in the reds and declarer with Axx Kxx (yes, we need partner to contribute some help in the blacks when this is the layout, but he's allowed to hold the spade 10, for example)

Partner can hardly go wrong: any clubs I have are going to take tricks eventually anyway.

[Phil]

A heart, the ♦A or even the ♦J could be right here, although a diamond looks kind of desperate.

I'll lead a high heart and let things run their course.

[655321]

Agree with ♥9.

Dislike any non-heart lead, so it is just a question of whether to lead the 9 or the 7. It seems to me that the 9 should always be readable, so partner will be able to switch to diamonds as soon as he gets in.

[Vilgan]

Definitely a forcing game defense..

♥ or ♦ could be right. I'll probably just default to the heart 9 with the agreements you described.

[skjaeran]

bid_em_up, on Mar 23 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 23 2009, 09:56 AM, said:

This seems to me the 'natural' way round to play it: you sign off immediately with a poor hand and do something more encouraging with a better hand.

Well, as far as I knew, making a free bid such as 3D was encouraging (you do not have to bid in this position), and pass is the sign off (weak, your suit is known). And being systemically forced to make a call on a minimum hand in this auction is simply begging for a penalty double, imo.

The other auction you give is slightly different, I can agree with the meanings you give for pass, 2S, and 2 anything. But in this auction partner has already essentially committed your side to at least 2S. There is also something to be gained by bidding 2S with a weak hand immediately in this position, since if you pass, you give your LHO the opportunity to bid freely at the two level if they desired to do so. The same cannot be said of the problem auction.

I've always played as Frances here - when partner had forced us to a level, bidding at that level is always weaker than pass (when that's an option). That feels completely natural and logical for me - and has for all my partners over the years.

[mikeh]

skaeran, on Mar 23 2009, 04:31 PM, said:

bid_em_up, on Mar 23 2009, 04:29 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Mar 23 2009, 09:56 AM, said:

This seems to me the 'natural' way round to play it: you sign off immediately with a poor hand and do something more encouraging with a better hand.

Well, as far as I knew, making a free bid such as 3D was encouraging (you do not have to bid in this position), and pass is the sign off (weak, your suit is known). And being systemically forced to make a call on a minimum hand in this auction is simply begging for a penalty double, imo.

The other auction you give is slightly different, I can agree with the meanings you give for pass, 2S, and 2 anything. But in this auction partner has already essentially committed your side to at least 2S. There is also something to be gained by bidding 2S with a weak hand immediately in this position, since if you pass, you give your LHO the opportunity to bid freely at the two level if they desired to do so. The same cannot be said of the problem auction.

I've always played as Frances here - when partner had forced us to a level, bidding at that level is always weaker than pass (when that's an option). That feels completely natural and logical for me - and has for all my partners over the years.

I agree with this.. I didn't add my opinion earlier, because I thought this was standard, but obviously some don't see it that way. so I add my voice to the Frances-Harald consensus, for whatever help that might be

[hanp]

How nice! So we all agree with standard but inferior or does anybody actually think the method is good?

I'm also curious about the layout.

[mikeh]

hanp, on Mar 23 2009, 05:26 PM, said:

How nice! So we all agree with standard but inferior or does anybody actually think the method is good?

I'm also curious about the layout.

Says who?

Maybe, just maybe (and I am not conceding this) there is a good case for 3♦ showing, say, 5=6 in the reds, with no game interest, but we have to balance the rarity of such specific sub-agreements against the ease of memory of a standard approach.

A method may be second-best in the context of a specific, narrow auction, yet be definitely the best in the context of an overall method. I think that having consistency in these situations has a value... in this case, enough to offset the modest value of using 3♦ to suggest a minimum 5-6 as opposed to a minimum 5-5 or better.

[hanp]

I don't what you mean by "says who?".

As you may have read in this thread, I also play the same method for the same reason. I do think that the alternative is better, and I would be interested to hear it if you have good arguments against playing it that way. I am not planning to change my agreements, but I have read some articles by the grannovetters on this topic and I think it is an interesting idea.

[paulg]

I play the same method as the Frances-Harald-Mike-Han-godknowswhoelse quintet.

However, being in Scotland, I get more insight into Michael Rosenberg's methods than the southerners. In such situations he tends to use pass as the weakest or strongest action, with bidding (3♦) showing intermediate values.

Paul

[gnasher]

Let's try a closer analogy

  1♦ 1♠ dbl 2♦
  2♥

As in the originally posted sequence:
- We both know that we have a fit.
- We're committed to play in at least 2♠ or to double them in 2♥.
- I've been told that with a good hand it's safe to go past 2♠.
- I have two calls to show a less good hand.
- The two calls provide us with the same amount of space for constructive bidding.
- One of them allows partner to make an unlikely penalty double, but the other one doesn't.

Some people play pass as a better hand than 2♠, and some play 2♠ as a better hand than pass. Does anyone use one of the two calls to show specifically more shape than the other?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2009-March-24, 03:25