[MFA]

Scoring: IMP

---

4♥ - (4♠) - pass - (5♥),
pass - (5♠) - pass - (pass),
X - (pass) - pass - (pass).

The opponents are very strong, natural players, but even though they have played together quite a lot on and off, they tend to be sloppy with their agreements.

5♥ was a spade raise with a heart control.
Partner's X was lightner for sure.

Man or mouse?

Bonus question: If we assume that partner has a void, with what percentage would you estimate this to be in clubs, given our 4-5?

[Jlall]

The point here is a common theme; if partner has a club void we probably have some natural club tricks anyways, whereas if he has a diamond void we have no tricks and MUST get our ruffs in immediately. For instance a diamond lead would be auto with xxxx diamonds and KQJxx of clubs.

So what is the cutoff? IMO it is just an illusion that we're going to still score club tricks if we fail to get partner his ruffs. They might have a finesse in clubs, and they probably have pitches on the diamond.

I don't think theres much equity there either way if we fail to give partner his ruffs esp when they have tried for slam, so I will just go with a club as it's most likely to be partner's void.

[OleBerg]

The heart ace.

I don't think partner would double on a void and no side-trick.

If I had to lead a minor, I would probably choose diamonds. In sequences like this, one of the players might easily have been smitten with a long side-suit. This moves the probabileties enough for me.

[Jlall]

OleBerg, on Nov 24 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

The heart ace.

I don't think partner would double on a void and no side-trick.

If I had to lead a minor, I would probably choose diamonds. In sequences like this, one of the players might easily have been smitten with a long side-suit. This moves the probabileties enough for me.

Why on earth would partner not double with no side tricks? That is even better than having a side trick in your hand, partner is way more likely to have an entry this way. The opps stopped in 5 and didn't bid slam, they aren't just gonna claim after I get my ruff.

[OleBerg]

Jlall, on Nov 24 2009, 11:41 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Nov 24 2009, 04:39 PM, said:

The heart ace.

I don't think partner would double on a void and no side-trick.

If I had to lead a minor, I would probably choose diamonds. In sequences like this, one of the players might easily have been smitten with a long side-suit. This moves the probabileties enough for me.

Why on earth would partner not double with no side tricks? That is even better than having a side trick in your hand, partner is way more likely to have an entry this way. The opps stopped in 5 and didn't bid slam, they aren't just gonna claim after I get my ruff.

Well, one of the idées of agressive bidding is to make the opponents guess. And when opponents even are sloppy with agreements, the chance that they have guessed wrong is not miniscule.

If you have a void and zero tricks, an XX could be costly.

I would have to have really, really good faith in my opponents, to trust them to have doubtlessly done the right thing here. So I probably wouldn't double them with zero tricks and a void.

[Jlall]

OleBerg, on Nov 24 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

If you have a void and zero tricks, an XX could be costly.

It could be, it's a good thing they cannot ever logically redouble given that they've already decided they can't make SLAM on reasonable breaks, so they cannot be so confident they will make 5 when the opps get a ruff at trick 1 and still have the same amount of values you thought they had.

IMO it would be a big mistake to not make a lightner double with a void on this auction, as it generally is against slam also (even when they CAN redouble!). Even if you're not sure you can beat it, you greatly increase your chances of beating it and those instances make it really worth it to give up 850, even if they are making it half the time (which, again, clearly they should not be. Sure you made them guess and they may have misevaluated, but much of the time they have probably evaluated correctly).

[OleBerg]

Jlall, on Nov 24 2009, 11:53 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Nov 24 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

If you have a void and zero tricks, an XX could be costly.

It could be, it's a good thing they cannot ever logically redouble given that they've already decided they can't make SLAM on reasonable breaks, so they cannot be so confident they will make 5 when the opps get a ruff at trick 1 and still have the same amount of values you thought they had.

For one thing, one of them might have been close to bidding slam, but only just decided against it.

And they do not have to be that confident to redouble. After all, they are only turning -200 into -400 on a board where a lot things might happen.

And finally, in favour of the heart lead; if they have evaluated correctly, partner will have a trick. Surely they haven't evaluated that we have one ruff, but not two.

[Jlall]

OleBerg, on Nov 24 2009, 05:02 PM, said:

And they do not have to be that confident to redouble. After all, they are only turning -200 into -400 on a board where a lot things might happen.

I don't see why they cant go -1000 on a bad lead. Also -400 instead of -200 is much worse on a board where "anything can happen" than the gain you get from XXing and making instead of just making Xed. If you know the other table will be in the same contract then you get good XXing odds, but if you don't then the odds are getting worse, not better.

Also, why are you assuming the HA is cashing? LHO bid 5H. He is void or singleton. Don't you think there's some risk of it getting ruffed?

Also, if they have evlauated correctly that doesn't mean partner has a sure trick somewhere. They may have a natural club loser, or they may be on a diamond hook, etc.

[Jlall]

Oh and also the fact that partner should double with no outside tricks because they have stopped in 5 and he can infer we have some stuff doesn't mean that they have always evaluated correctly. This could just be a case where they made a lucky stop when they had a lot of values. The fact that such a case exists does not mean partner should not be doubling. It is a game of percentages. I don't think I ever claimed the opps ALWAYS evaluate correctly in this scenario.

[gnasher]

Suppose that they have misjudged, and have stopped in 5♠ even though their only obvious loser is a heart. Now you need two ruffs to beat 5♠, and ♥A lead lets it through.

[OleBerg]

gnasher, on Nov 25 2009, 12:17 AM, said:

Suppose that they have misjudged, and have stopped in 5♠ even though their only obvious loser is a heart. Now you need two ruffs to beat 5♠, and ♥A lead lets it through.

Indeed. No leads are safe.

But blindly guessing a minor will probably let it through, if we are wrong. And that is very 50/50 ish.

[benlessard]

What wrong with 50-50 ish ?

Its very possible the only way to beat this is ruff-H Ace and ruff. Im glad partner double and give me a chance to get it right instead of plainly leading my H Ace.

I agree that a xx is a possibility but in practice most players are way too passive with the business XX.

[OleBerg]

benlessard, on Nov 25 2009, 09:51 AM, said:

What wrong with 50-50 ish ?

That I believe I am significantly more than 50% to beat it taking the ♥A.

Maybe bad judgement, but still judgement.

[gnasher]

A club lead is significantly better than 50-50. It's not just that we have an extra card there, it's also the fact that we have ♣Q109 and opponents stopped below slam despite having lots of high cards.

Imagine that you're advancer and you're considering bidding slam. You'd prefer to have AQJ10x AJx in the minors than AQJ AJxxxx. When they don't bid slam, one reason might be weak club length, making it more likely that partner's void is in clubs.

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Nov 25 2009, 04:05 AM, said:

A club lead is significantly better than 50-50. It's not just that we have an extra card there, it's also the fact that we have ♣Q109 and opponents stopped below slam despite having lots of high cards.

Imagine that you're advancer and you're considering bidding slam. You'd prefer to have AQJ10x AJx in the minors than AQJ AJxxxx. When they don't bid slam, one reason might be weak club length, making it more likely that partner's void is in clubs.

+1

[OleBerg]

gnasher, on Nov 25 2009, 11:05 AM, said:

A club lead is significantly better than 50-50. It's not just that we have an extra card there, it's also the fact that we have ♣Q109 and opponents stopped below slam despite having lots of high cards.

Imagine that you're advancer and you're considering bidding slam. You'd prefer to have AQJ10x AJx in the minors than AQJ AJxxxx. When they don't bid slam, one reason might be weak club length, making it more likely that partner's void is in clubs.

Indeed. But on the other hand, a strong (diamond) suit might be the reason the invite was even made.

[billw55]

A♥ can only lose the post mortem. Partner is clearly asking for a non heart lead. It would be tough to explain later, after dummy comes down void, why we did not get our ruff. I prefer to do as partner asks; even if we don't beat it this time, we maintain trust on future deals.

Quote

I believe I am significantly more than 50% to beat it taking the ♥A.

Why? Lefty showed a heart control. Maybe a stiff, maybe void. Why should a stiff be so much more likely?

[MFA]

Partner had xxx, KQJxxxxx, Jx, - and the club lead gave us +200. I considered the ♥A for a long time (billw55: don't care if my plays "are tough to explain", or "not what partner wants", I lead what I think is right) and still think it has merits. But perhaps I'm influenced by a recent board in a Swedish tournament I played, where (strangely) my partner had the exact same type of problem with 5-4 in the minors and an ace (that might not be cashing). I was void in his 4-card suit.

At the other table it went all pass after 4♠, and +650.

[billw55]

MFA, on Nov 27 2009, 09:57 AM, said:

(billw55: don't care if my plays "are tough to explain", or "not what partner wants", I lead what I think is right)

Of course, if you have information that makes something else obvious, then by all means. But when the decision is close, I always go with partner.

In this particular case, it looks like we need to win trick one to beat 5♠. A♥ could work, or maybe not. The right minor will definitely work, and the wrong minor won't. That alone makes it a toss up. Furthermore, if dummy has a heart then the A♥ gets us a second ruff - which might be needed to beat 5♠. Overall this doesn't look all that close to me.

So what was the heart holding in dummy? Just curious ..

[MFA]

billw55, on Nov 30 2009, 03:47 PM, said:

So what was the heart holding in dummy? Just curious ..

Small singleton.