[pclayton]

Jlall, on Jun 25 2008, 07:16 PM, said:

pclayton, on Jun 25 2008, 06:56 PM, said:

but I need a reason to lead a club, not just that they have extra values.

How about because RHO cuebid diamonds and bypassed the opportunity to cuebid clubs. Clubs is also their only uncuebid suit, and may be the reason they chose not to go beyond 4.

I don't think this is necessarily a reason, per se. All it means is that they have a potential hole in the club suit. While its possible we force declarer to misguess immediately or creatively establish a tap against the closed hand, its also possible we will blow a tempo, or set up a winner in dummy for the diamond pitch.

[gnasher]

Jlall, on Jun 26 2008, 04:21 AM, said:

the type that is more likely to post on bridge forums (not meant about anyone in particular, it's just that forums attract people who like to read about bridge and think about it a lot but may not be particularly great at execution and may be more likely to just try to make a hero play/lead for the fun of it).

Oww. That was a bit close to the bone.

[nige1]

Echognome, on Jun 24 2008, 07:01 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

1♥ - 2♣
2♠ - 3♠
4♦ - 4♥
4♠ - All Pass

Note that this is the opponents' bidding.  You and partner are silent throughout.

Your lead?

---

IMO ♦ = 10, ♠ = 6, ♣ = 4, ♥ = 2
Jlall makes a good argument for a small club lead but, in practice, I wouldn't have found it

[kenrexford]

Actually, all of this stuff about the opponents not cuebidding clubs is incredible wrong thinking, and shocking that anyone would consider that as a basis for the lead (including me with the stupid Q9xx mirage).

I would say that it is almost 100% that dummy has the club King. Opener declined to cue clubs and in fact bypassed clubs. Hence, Opener does not have a club control unless he has a stiff. Responder cuebid 4♥, which normally suggests that he has clubs controllled, otherwise he would simply sign off. That is, unless 4♥ is to be interpreted as some sort of LTTC bid seeking club shortness.

If you want to lead the suit that has not been proven controlled yet, then that suit is hearts.

All of this relies, however, on what inferences can be derived from the opponents' cuebidding style. Hence, why I asked the question initially (but got no answers).

[Codo]

Responder bypassed a 4 card spade suit to show his clubs, so he must have 5+.
I cannot imagine any hand where I need to cash my winners in clubs now. (I can imagine some, where declarer can guess wrong).

But I can imagine a lot hands where a club lead can cost.

As both queens don`t look to promising, I try a low spade.

OR as the the old saying is:

Spät geeinigt in Atout, greife Trumpf an im Nu.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jun 26 2008, 03:10 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 26 2008, 07:08 AM, said:

All of this relies, however, on what inferences can be derived from the opponents' cuebidding style.  Hence, why I asked the question initially (but got no answers).

That is because the opponents had never played together before. FWIW, I was the 4H bidders and did not have the CK because I assumed partner would not cuebid a stiff club after my 2C bid so we could still have a slam. Partner signed off and slam was STILL pretty good lol.

LOL!

Well, that info would definitely be important.

"What kind of cues do you use?"
"Ummmmmmmm........"
"Never mind." [small club]

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jun 26 2008, 03:15 PM, said:

I was also worried that my 4H bid would be interpretted by partner as showing a club control and we would get to slam off the AK of clubs, however my hand seemed too good to sign off in 4S as we might miss slam if partner had a stiff club. What is the kenrexford solution, to cuebid shortness in partner's suit or something else? My hand was like... AKJ9 of spades and Kx of hearts and maybe a little other stuff but those were the main features.

Let's see.

You had something like ♠AKJ9 ♥Kx ♦Qx ♣Qxxxx? MAybe a Jack or two?

Partner opened 1♥ and you bid 2♣. So far so good.

Partner bid 2♠ and you bid 3♠. Also good, although the preemptioin sucks. The Flannery or no Flannery question pops up, as does the GP as to whether the 2♠ rebid otherwise shows something interesting. Anyway...

Opener now bids 4♦. I'll assume Serious 3NT was in place. So, he does not have serious interest and he does not have a club honor, but he might have club shortness. All true. I would not cue shortness either. I would (picture) splinter into shortness possessed by partner, but that's not available here.

So, you imagined something like ♠Qxxx ♥AQJxx ♦AJx ♣x, maybe. Fair enough. Partner might have just bid 4♠ the first time otherwise.

As a result, you bid 4♥ LTTC. Good bid.

You were worried that this showed a club control. I agree that it smells bad.

This seems like where that Lackwood thing comes in handy, but you obviously did not have any agreement that detailed. But, partner would probably be right for a 5♦ or 5♥ cue when he lacks a club control, or could cue 5♣ with a nice-looking club stiff (contextually).

So, if you trust partner, then the auction is perfectly good by "Rexford" style standards. I'd have the exact same solution.

[kenrexford]

Jlall, on Jun 26 2008, 03:33 PM, said:

kenrexford, on Jun 26 2008, 03:30 PM, said:

This seems like where that Lackwood thing comes in handy, but you obviously did not have any agreement that detailed.  But, partner would probably be right for a 5♦ or 5♥ cue when he lacks a club control, or could cue 5♣ with a nice-looking club stiff (contextually).

So, if you trust partner, then the auction is perfectly good by "Rexford" style standards.  I'd have the exact same solution.

Yes I also thought partner with a great hand in context and no club control would just cuebid 5 of a red suit and we could stop opposite xx clubs with 5 level safety. The apocalypse is now coming.

Like my Kool-aid?