[mikegill]

Scoring: MP

P 1♣ 3♦ 4♦
p 4N* p 5♥
p 6N all pass

* straight blackwood

---

Scoring: MP

P 1♣ 3♦ 4♦
p 4N* p 5♥
p 6N all pass

* straight blackwood

---

[Free]

1. ♠Q
2. ♠x

[mikeh]

1. club... the most passive.. I already picked off any club card partner has, by my 3♦ call

2. tough one. I'd lead the heart Ace.. but this is close to the spade x or even the diamond Ace... to threaten a ruff.... or maybe even get one for partner.. no way do I go for the sexy underlead in hearts, to score the club ruff.. too many ways to lose at mps.

[Fluffy]

1. ♥4, this auction doesn't ask for passivity.

2. low heart trying to get a ruff at any cost (lets hope the price is not too high)

[Apollo81]

mikeh, on Apr 10 2008, 11:05 AM, said:

1. club... the most passive.. I already picked off any club card partner has, by my 3♦ call

2. tough one. I'd lead the heart Ace.. but this is close to the spade x or even the diamond Ace... to threaten a ruff.... or maybe even get one for partner.. no way do I go for the sexy underlead in hearts, to score the club ruff.. too many ways to lose at mps.

(1) agree with mikeh

(2) feel that its a tossup between underleading the red aces, I guess the ♥2 is easier to read (and higher risk) so I'd try that unless i already felt I had a great session going, in which case id do the small diamond or just lead an ace

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Apr 10 2008, 10:34 AM, said:

1. ♥4, this auction doesn't ask for passivity.

I couldn't disagree more

I suppose it is possible to construct a hand, consistent with the auction, on which we have to build a heart trick early.. but think about the fact that RHO keycarded and chose 6N rather than 6♣. If the opps hold the heart K and either the Jack or the 10, your lead will probably lose a trick immediately or by exposing you to a red suit squeeze or strip squeeze. Only if partner holds the heart K is the lead favourite to succeed. Do you like those odds on this auction?

[jdonn]

1. Club is OBVIOUS, I hate any other lead so much. Declarer is about to misguess both major suit queens so we want to lead one of those suits? Even if partner had a major suit honor you would only guess right half the time, so you would need a major suit lead to be good at least twice as often as not for it to be correct.

2. More strong feelings haha. In practice I see these underleads to get a ruff work almost never, I simply don't do them any more unless it's vs a slam where I think anything else is totally hopeless. They only work well in books and old stories. I would go ace of hearts.

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on Apr 10 2008, 11:56 PM, said:

but think about the fact that RHO keycarded and chose 6N rather than 6♣.

This is match points, RHO opted for NT just because it gives more points even if clubs give an overtrick.

But I must confess I failed to see that partner had an oportunity to double 5♥, did he made a slow pass? .

I don't like pasivity on this kind of slams, we ain't talking about giving a 9th trick, we are talking about giving a 12th, this happen very often.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Apr 10 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

1. Club is OBVIOUS, I hate any other lead so much. Declarer is about to misguess both major suit queens so we want to lead one of those suits? Even if partner had a major suit honor you would only guess right half the time, so you would need a major suit lead to be good at least twice as often as not for it to be correct.

2. More strong feelings haha. In practice I see these underleads to get a ruff work almost never, I simply don't do them any more unless it's vs a slam where I think anything else is totally hopeless. They only work well in books and old stories. I would go ace of hearts.

Agree with the casino numbers guy.

[Codo]

The first one is too ugly.
What had 4 Diamond from responder been? Maybe the answer will give us a hint. If it was just a strong club raise, I go for a club.

I don´t see the point about declarer is missguessing both major queens. If he takes his club tricks and switch to spades, we are simply endplayed to open a red suit for him, so we are not that much better placed then leading a heart right now.


In the second example, I lead a spade, second choice ace of heart . Any suit can be right, but with spade I may have the fewest disasters.

[zasanya]

pclayton, on Apr 11 2008, 01:07 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 10 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

1. Club is OBVIOUS, I hate any other lead so much. Declarer is about to misguess both major suit queens so we want to lead one of those suits? Even if partner had a major suit honor you would only guess right half the time, so you would need a major suit lead to be good at least twice as often as not for it to be correct.

2. More strong feelings haha. In practice I see these underleads to get a ruff work almost never, I simply don't do them any more unless it's vs a slam where I think anything else is totally hopeless. They only work well in books and old stories. I would go ace of hearts.

Agree with the casino numbers guy.

In the second case P has bid 2♥ so between the 2 of us we must have at least 9 cards of ♥.What odds would casino guys offer on 1of us having K of !h?If we hit Ps K and get ruff we get top If ops have K we get bottom.Is it a bad idea to play "top or bottom" especially if we are playing few boards in a large field as happens in bbo free tourneys?

[skjaeran]

zasanya, on Apr 11 2008, 05:58 PM, said:

pclayton, on Apr 11 2008, 01:07 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 10 2008, 04:17 PM, said:

1. Club is OBVIOUS, I hate any other lead so much. Declarer is about to misguess both major suit queens so we want to lead one of those suits? Even if partner had a major suit honor you would only guess right half the time, so you would need a major suit lead to be good at least twice as often as not for it to be correct.

2. More strong feelings haha. In practice I see these underleads to get a ruff work almost never, I simply don't do them any more unless it's vs a slam where I think anything else is totally hopeless. They only work well in books and old stories. I would go ace of hearts.

Agree with the casino numbers guy.

In the second case P has bid 2♥ so between the 2 of us we must have at least 9 cards of ♥.What odds would casino guys offer on 1of us having K of !h?

What kind of joke is this? Our 6-card suit lacks the king, partner presumably holds 3 and opps a combined 4. To me that means it's 4-3 against partner holding the king.

[kenrexford]

On the first, a club for me as well.

On the second. Interesting side note: in one partnership, we now use honor redoubles here. Hence, partner would have XX'ed instead of 2♥ with the heart Ace (impossible) or King (even doubleton). That would make the odds 100% that he has the heart King after a redouble but 100% that he does not after 2♥. I like this agreement more and more.

[jdonn]

zasanya, on Apr 11 2008, 11:58 AM, said:

In the second case P has bid 2♥ so between the 2 of us we must have at least 9 cards of ♥.What odds would casino guys offer on 1of us having K of !h?If we hit Ps K and get ruff we get top If ops have K we get bottom.Is it a bad idea to play "top or bottom" especially if we are playing few boards in a large field as happens in bbo free tourneys?

You are assuming partner will always know to play the king if he has it, on top of what skaeran said...

[cherdano]

The heart underlead would be much more attractive if partner had made a preemptive raise. The longer his hearts, the better the odds he has ♥K, and here it is 3:4 against us.

As usual, I don't understand Ken's treatment. Do you really forbid partner to show honest support when he has ♥KQx, forcing him to redouble to show an honor, and support later when the auction might be at the 3-level or higher?

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Apr 11 2008, 02:13 PM, said:

The heart underlead would be much more attractive if partner had made a preemptive raise. The longer his hearts, the better the odds he has ♥K, and here it is 3:4 against us.

As usual, I don't understand Ken's treatment. Do you really forbid partner to show honest support when he has ♥KQx, forcing him to redouble to show an honor, and support later when the auction might be at the 3-level or higher?

No. We occasionally lie about honest support on occasion with Kx or Ax by redoubling.

Don't you? I mean, don't you ever raise a major with Ax or Kx in competition?

If not, then you would never make an honor redouble with Ax or Kx. But, the idea would be the same. Redouble would show support with the Ace or King, 2♥ (or also 2♦ if you play Suit/Lead) would show the same thing without the Ace or King.

[mikeh]

kenrexford, on Apr 11 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

cherdano, on Apr 11 2008, 02:13 PM, said:

The heart underlead would be much more attractive if partner had made a preemptive raise. The longer his hearts, the better the odds he has ♥K, and here it is 3:4 against us.

As usual, I don't understand Ken's treatment. Do you really forbid partner to show honest support when he has ♥KQx, forcing him to redouble to show an honor, and support later when the auction might be at the 3-level or higher?

No. We occasionally lie about honest support on occasion with Kx or Ax by redoubling.

Don't you? I mean, don't you ever raise a major with Ax or Kx in competition?

If not, then you would never make an honor redouble with Ax or Kx. But, the idea would be the same. Redouble would show support with the Ace or King, 2♥ (or also 2♦ if you play Suit/Lead) would show the same thing without the Ace or King.

While I almost never raise with Kx or Ax (I value the LOTT too much to mislead partner in competitive auctions... I don't slavishly follow it, but I do pay attention to it), the main problem with your approach is that you double with Kxx or KQx or Axx, etc, and now partner doesn't have any clue as to whether you hold 2 or 3 card support.. I get the impression that you'd even redouble with single raise values and Kxxx! But I don't need to be right about that point to view your approach as, in a big way, unplayable.

Knowledge of partner's length is usually more important than knowing if he holds a top honour, whether because we want to compete one more level (protected by a 9 card fit) or bid game (because of the extra playability of the longer fit) or take a save. I will gladly trade all of my opportunities to know if it is safe to underlead my Ace, to get a ruff, for always knowing if partner has 3 card support rather than 2.

Add to this the lack of preemption: [1♦] 1♠ [x] xx [2♥]

Nice: now you, as overcaller, know that partner has Hx or Hxx. Meanwhile, rho got in a cheap 2♥ call, both showing hearts and a minimum. My partner raised to 2♠ on Kxx and made opener pass or stretch with 3♥. And I knew how many trump we probably had. Who do you think is better placed in the auction?

[kenrexford]

What?!?

So many flaws in your analysis, Mike.

First, you suggest that I don't know whether partner has Axx, Kxx, or KQx. This is a rather odd analysis, as I'm not aware that 1♥-X-2♥ clarifies that issue. Actually, it is more than odd, as 1♥-X-2♥ could also include Qxx, Jxx, or xxx. My way actually clarifies more about the honors than does not using this approach, but the lead objection is as to honor holdings???

Then, you say that partner does not know if I have 2 or 3 card support. If you would bid 1♥-X-2♥, on rare occasion perhaps, with Ax or Kx, then I could object to your 2♥ call because Opener might suspect that you have two-card support. Weird, considering that my 2♥ calls, denying the Ace or King, can be taken to the bank as not two-card, isolating that rare occurrence into the XX.

But, it gets better! You then assume that I might have Kxxx and redouble! Well, if I do not have enough for a preemptive raise, which is rare when one condition is having four-card support to the King, then I show a three-card suit, like you, with a rare possibility of a two-card suit, like you, but I promise the King or Ace, unlike you. So, how is my way worse on partner?

As to the "lack of preemption" issue, you provide an example of an auction where the redouble is not made by Responder. This is curious, as the redouble I mentioned is being made by Responder. This wildly changes the game, as the double is NOT a takeout double, but rather negative, and as the information exchange is less, and the value of preemption greater. That said, there is a kernal of truth, in that a redouble here does have some loss of preemptive value. It is just not as strong as in the completely different situation you describe.

Finally, you leave out what seems the best objection available -- inability to redouble to show values without direction. Thus, the debate that made sense to me was whether XX gave up a call that was too useful (the redouble -- partner suggested well that this just gets them to shut up too early) and whether the redouble cost small preemptive value. I am liking the fruits, because the preemptive loss is being made up by the lead benefits, it seems.

Weird.

[Fluffy]

cherdano, on Apr 11 2008, 07:13 PM, said:

The heart underlead would be much more attractive if partner had made a preemptive raise. The longer his hearts, the better the odds he has ♥K, and here it is 3:4 against us.

On this hand we don't need partner to have ♥K for the underlead to work, partner can have ♥QJx and get in after we win our ♠K.

[skjaeran]

Fluffy, on Apr 12 2008, 05:00 AM, said:

cherdano, on Apr 11 2008, 07:13 PM, said:

The heart underlead would be much more attractive if partner had made a preemptive raise. The longer his hearts, the better the odds he has ♥K, and here it is 3:4 against us.

On this hand we don't need partner to have ♥K for the underlead to work, partner can have ♥QJx and get in after we win our ♠K.

Sure, opps cards always break 2-2, don't they???
If you add in QTx with Jx in dummy you increase the odds slightly, though.... not enough IMO.