[kenrexford]

Jlall, on May 30 2008, 08:46 PM, said:

kenrexford, on May 30 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

If partner has something like QJxxx-KQx-xxx-xx, a POC, he can probably bid 4♠ successfully anyway.  Instead, I show the stiff diamond, which helps nothing.

lol??? How would 4S be "successful"? Why do you write so many words when you say ridiculous things like partner can probably bid 4S "successfully" with this hand. Yeah going for 500 or if you get very lucky 200 or very unlucky 800, is very successful when your opponents cannot even make a game. What a joke. And why does 3D show a stiff diamond lol? What would you bid with xxxx Axxx Axxx x? 3C now is a splinter not a fit non jump lol? What planet are you from? I see why you try to talk in a language people cannot decipher, becuase when you do try to offer an actual example hand you show how utterly moronic everything you are saying is.

God there are a lot of ignorant comments here.

One concession. You are accurate that the hand provided, the 8-count, lacks game potential. The diamond-club length was changed late. I meant the 8-count QJxxx-KQx-xxxx-x. The addition of the spade Ace (replacing a small spade) would allow the xxx-xx minor pattern. Are you aware of hand typos occurring? I concede my ability to do this.

However, some of your other comments are a tad strange.

"Why does 3♦ show a stiff diamond?" It does not. Not sure what you mean.

"What would you bid with xxxx-Axxx-Axxx-x?" 3♦.

"3♣ is now a splinter and not a fit non-jump?" I'm getting really confused. No -- it would in fact be a fit non-jump. Are I missing something here? You seem to be ascribing to me strange and bizarre agreements that I have not claimed and then shooting them down as strange and bizarre. I'll concede the strangeness and bizarre nature of these hypothetical agreements, which I do not have.

"What planet are you from?" Uh, I cited Robson-Segal. Where they live.

"I see why you try to talk in a language people cannot decipher, becuase when you do try to offer an actual example hand you show how utterly moronic everything you are saying is." I'll try to speak more slowly for you. Everyone else so far seems to understand. Maybe try asking them.

[inquiry]

I would lead a spade. Probably shows my inexperience at bridge, but I tend to lead my partners suit without a good reason to lead something else, especially when i have four card support.

As for the question that probably should not be here...(bidding it differently), if I had 3♥ available as a fnj would i use it? With AT9xx the answer is no, I would not use it. The 3♦ cue bid as a mixed raise, seems perfect, i have support and I have good defense (two bullets for goodness sake), tell partner ABOUT that, not that i have five hearts to the ACE (fit jumps and nonfit jumps usually in suits iwth honors other than the ACE).

[kenrexford]

So many things to say, so little time.

1. The very first comment, the first sentence, was that I suppose that I would lead a heart. Hence, the OP was answered.

2. The follow up was to suggest that this lead problem is not so much a lead problem as a bidding problem. Many "lead problems" are actually bidding problems. In fact, most are, but not from this angle. On this hand, a bid made at a specific point that would be different would solve the lead problem. Hence, the answer is "Guess heart, but..."

3. I don't give a rats ass what percentage of top 100 people would do in a specific situation. However, when a noted authority advocates a position, to characterize that position (immediately without provocation and then later redundantly) as mentally handicapped is arrogant and ignorant. I'd really like to see if you would poll 100 experts, including Segal and Robson, to find out what percentage of these 100 experts would characterize Robson and Segal as menally handicapped.

4. This last point is perhaps the most important. Just because you start a post does not mean that all folks posting replies are necessarily conversing with you alone. The rest of us do not sit around offering words of wisdom to you specifically, as the guest speaker of the post, carrying on a conversation as if we were all in an auditorium and you on the podium. Rather, with an interesting problem (it was) to discuss amongst ourselves (you are at least invited), we chit chat thoughts inspired by the OP, and replies thereto, and such. When a lead problem could have been solved by a bidding decision, that interesting (to some) idea becomes a topic of discussion (as noted by several other similar comments following mine). If you feel that your little party has been ruined, then that is truly a shame. The humorous thing is that you yourself ruined the party. You could have commented, at your first comment, that "that would have worked, but we unfortunately did not have that agreement," ending this issue. Instead, you attacked the idea as ridiculous, thereby spinning the debate off onto a different course yourself. I mean, I actually enjoy seeing the old jlall, and perhaps have a few others to thank for that (having read through the tornado posts a few days ago). Justin Lall on meds is so less interesting.

[kenrexford]

jdonn, on May 30 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

gnasher, on May 30 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

I'm mentally retarded to the extent that I play 3♥ as a fit bid.  You boys seem to save a lot of bids for hands that might have preempted but didn't.

True, better to have 8 bids that raise partner and 2 bids that don't....

I'm not sure how this reply goes very far.

I mean, take transfers. It would sound rather silly to object that, after a transfer to hearts, we have 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, and 3♥ all to show heart support of some variety and nothing to show anything else.

So, sure. A person might want 8 bids that raise partner and two bids that don't.

Oh! And, I'd lead a heart.

[xcurt]

Trying to return this thread to bridge...

I'm leading hearts.

Those folks talking about negative inferences from partner not doubling are being silly. We have our sides aces so from from partner's perspective the opponents may have 9 runners on the go and be waiting to come over the top. If he doubled he has QJT8x, xx, KJ9x, xx or so....

[kenrexford]

I'd say that the club Ace seems to be the standout lead.

The opponents are expecting a spade lead, and they surely have this suit stopped well. This screams of a hand where diamonds are running, probably for seven tricks. Add to that two spade tricks, and they have nine rippers.

So, it seems that I need to find an atacking lead, to get our fifth trick in before theirs.

I could try the heart first, but whichever Ace I start with may be fatal. For instance, the opponents might have only Kx-KQx in clubs-hearts. If I guess wrong, then I might establish their tricks before ours. They could have a slow 9 tricks, after all.

The reason why I see a top club as standout, assuming all of this, is that I am very concerned that a heart lead, if successful, will get us a terrible score anyway. Most of the field will be bidding 3♥ with this hand. If partner has good hearts for me, the opponents will not bid 3NT at these other tables. In fact, we will probably be declaring 4♠ and making. So, as we are playing inferior methods, I have to assume the best, that being that partner does not have good hearts with me. Therefore, I'll assume some club length, either something like KJxx or Q-high with dummy's King doubleton subject to attack.

[gnasher]

Quote

This is an excellent way to hang partner. He overcalled at the one level and your RHO bid 2N behind you when you have no spade honor. Most posters seem to think this shows two spade stoppers, which would imply 2 spade losers.

Seriously I don't understand how you can drive to game vulnerable when you are getting a poor split (as in, if partner has AKJxx you have a loser for sure, AQxxx is probably 2 losers, etc), and they have opened and bid 2N. Sure LHO could be on a psyche or semi-psyche, and probably is, but partner can bid game if you can make it over your 3D bid. What hands are you worried about missing game opposite?

I hope I can respond to this without being considered to have aided and abetted a hijacker.

I don't accept that RHO has promised two spade stops. He has to be able to bid descriptively with Kxx Kxx AJx xxxx (an intentionally extreme example). Something he is quite likely to have is a partial diamond fit, which makes 4♠ more attractive, because our hands will fit better.

Other reasons for bidding 4♠ are that it may talk LHO, who appears to be short in spades, into an indiscretion, and it will save me from having to find a lead against 3NT. (Though these points argue for 4♠ rather than 4♦.)

Having said all that, in the cold light of day driving to game does seem a bit excessive. Maybe the answer is that I'd bid 3♦ most of the time and 4♠ with some beer inside me.

Having bid 3♦ I'd lead a spade, because partner bid them when he didn't, apparently, have much of a hand. A heart lead seems both speculative and dangerous to partnership confidence.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2008-May-31, 05:46

[FrancesHinden]

I was going to lead a heart, until I read gnasher's post pointing out that partner's 1S overcall was obviously very light, which means he should have a decent suit.

I lead a spade. The risk is that dummy has 7 diamonds and the AQ of spades (or a slower double spade stop and a heart stop), but a heart lead has pretty much the same type risk.

Partner was never going to double 3NT, how could he possibly know that we have 2 aces? Yes, we've shown high cards, but slow stuff is unlikely to be helpful.

p.s. count me in with the mentally retarted people who play 3H as a fnj here as a passed hand.

[OleBerg]

FrancesHinden, on May 31 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

p.s. count me in with the mentally retarted people who play 3H as a fnj here as a passed hand.

Me 2.

[jtfanclub]

Jlall, on May 31 2008, 06:51 AM, said:

I agree btw, I don't understand those who say RHO should have 2 spade stops.

I don't think RHO should have two spade stops.

I think LHO had two ways of checking to see if RHO had two spade stops, and didn't. So that implies to me that either he's confident of 9 tricks after a spade lead, or that he's got some stuff in spades of his own. Or maybe they're just overconfident. I dunno.

[jdonn]

Jlall, on May 30 2008, 11:26 PM, said:

Guess I should ask btw, who is Segal? lol

Now this was funny.

I forgot to say what I lead! I guess a spade, I don't have the balls to be wrong with a heart and my hearts aren't THAT good.

Clayton is wrong, I used to piss off KMB regularly by not leading his suit at times like this.

[FrancesHinden]

jtfanclub, on May 31 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

Jlall, on May 31 2008, 06:51 AM, said:

I agree btw, I don't understand those who say RHO should have 2 spade stops.

I don't think RHO should have two spade stops.

I think LHO had two ways of checking to see if RHO had two spade stops, and didn't. So that implies to me that either he's confident of 9 tricks after a spade lead, or that he's got some stuff in spades of his own. Or maybe they're just overconfident. I dunno.

I think LHO's got long solid(ish) diamonds and is hoping to run 9 tricks.
Looking at say x Kxx AKQxxx Jxx it just seems to bid 3NT and see if it makes.

[jdonn]

kenrexford, on May 30 2008, 11:32 PM, said:

jdonn, on May 30 2008, 06:49 PM, said:

gnasher, on May 30 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

I'm mentally retarded to the extent that I play 3♥ as a fit bid.  You boys seem to save a lot of bids for hands that might have preempted but didn't.

True, better to have 8 bids that raise partner and 2 bids that don't....

I'm not sure how this reply goes very far.

I mean, take transfers. It would sound rather silly to object that, after a transfer to hearts, we have 2♥, 2♠, 2NT, 3♣, 3♦, and 3♥ all to show heart support of some variety and nothing to show anything else.

So, sure. A person might want 8 bids that raise partner and two bids that don't.

Oh! And, I'd lead a heart.

I can't blast you as roundly as someone else did since it's not my fight. So thank you as always for your totally profound and in-context example of how a hand already confined to a very tight range of shape and strength opposite a potential yarbrough is in the exact same situation as a hand on a very wide range of strength and no range of shape opposite a hand that has promised some minimum of values.