Help
2♦ - Multi, Weak Major only.
2♥ - Pass or correct.
Page 1 of 1
Lead problem
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 104
- Joined: 2006-April-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Bangalore
- Interests:Bridge, Chess, Reading, Music, Travelling, Movies.
Posted 2013-June-17, 09:31
2♦ - Multi, Weak Major only.
2♥ - Pass or correct.
Cheers, Krishna.
_________________
Valiant were the efforts of the declarer // to thwart the wiles of the defender // however, as the cards lay // the contract had no play // except through the eyes of a kibitzer.
_________________
Valiant were the efforts of the declarer // to thwart the wiles of the defender // however, as the cards lay // the contract had no play // except through the eyes of a kibitzer.
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,680
- Joined: 2011-February-12
Posted 2013-June-18, 06:39
It is more than quite possible we have already seriously damaged
our side with our "1 suited" heart bid---we could easily have a huge
spade fit we will never know about ---sighhhhhhh p either has 5d set
with no problems or needs a specific lead and the most likely specific
lead p needs is a heart. P apparently has a fair amount of "stuff" over
there to x 3n then 5d. The only logical reason for this is they were
exceeding;y short in hearts and were being cautious. There is a strong
possibility they are void in hearts.
our side with our "1 suited" heart bid---we could easily have a huge
spade fit we will never know about ---sighhhhhhh p either has 5d set
with no problems or needs a specific lead and the most likely specific
lead p needs is a heart. P apparently has a fair amount of "stuff" over
there to x 3n then 5d. The only logical reason for this is they were
exceeding;y short in hearts and were being cautious. There is a strong
possibility they are void in hearts.
#3
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 104
- Joined: 2006-April-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Bangalore
- Interests:Bridge, Chess, Reading, Music, Travelling, Movies.
Posted 2013-June-18, 10:30
Yes, the opening bid was just a gamble with that ♠ side suit - likely done due to the vulnerability. Partners 2♥ could be from a fairly wide range of hands, mostly with less than game invitational values & certainly with very little in ♥ (as partner has 2♠ to invite in ♥ or 2NT to find out more about your hand). His later doubles suggest sufficient sources of defensive tricks outside of ♥. We now need to decide if an active or passive lead is called for & which cards are active/passive.
Cheers, Krishna.
_________________
Valiant were the efforts of the declarer // to thwart the wiles of the defender // however, as the cards lay // the contract had no play // except through the eyes of a kibitzer.
_________________
Valiant were the efforts of the declarer // to thwart the wiles of the defender // however, as the cards lay // the contract had no play // except through the eyes of a kibitzer.
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,786
- Joined: 2004-September-05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Galloway NJ USA
-
Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.
Posted 2013-June-18, 12:54
Normally, a double of 3NT after a "weak 2 bid" has a specific implication about which suit to lead. Here, however, partner never found out what your suit was. So when he doubled 3NT he was saying, essentially, that he expected to beat 3NT all of the time or only on the lead of your suit, whether it was hearts or spades.
Given that, even though I was tempted to lead a spade, I would lead a heart. I believe partner has to have a card or two in hearts for his double, or he has them beat regardless.
Given that, even though I was tempted to lead a spade, I would lead a heart. I believe partner has to have a card or two in hearts for his double, or he has them beat regardless.
#5
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 104
- Joined: 2006-April-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Bangalore
- Interests:Bridge, Chess, Reading, Music, Travelling, Movies.
Posted 2013-June-18, 13:20
The general system agreements are that doubles mean do not lead my/our suit; though I think that is far from applicable in this case. Partner must have a ♦ card and enough source of tricks on the side for his doubles. Partners ♠'s will be at least as good/long or better than ♥'s for his 2♥ bid, though it is not clear if he can have too much in ♠ on this sequence.
Of course, if partner had them beat regardless, this wouldn't be much of a problem. As the table, a specific lead was required to beat it. I have since convinced myself that the lead can be logically worked out, but as I may be biased, I thought I would pose it as a problem & get your opinions.
Of course, if partner had them beat regardless, this wouldn't be much of a problem. As the table, a specific lead was required to beat it. I have since convinced myself that the lead can be logically worked out, but as I may be biased, I thought I would pose it as a problem & get your opinions.
Cheers, Krishna.
_________________
Valiant were the efforts of the declarer // to thwart the wiles of the defender // however, as the cards lay // the contract had no play // except through the eyes of a kibitzer.
_________________
Valiant were the efforts of the declarer // to thwart the wiles of the defender // however, as the cards lay // the contract had no play // except through the eyes of a kibitzer.
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 1,848
- Joined: 2011-June-08
- Gender:Male
- Location:UK Near London
- Interests:Crystal Palace
Posted 2013-June-18, 13:41
purely on the basis no-one else voted for it and I look like a genius if it's right, I pick a club 
"definitely that's what I like to play when I'm playing standard - I want to be able to bid diamonds because bidding good suits is important in bridge" - Meckstroth's opinion on weak 2 diamond
#7
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,866
- Joined: 2008-July-13
Posted 2013-June-18, 16:42
opening a multi on this hand is a capital offence.
as for what to lead i'd go for a club - partner doubled 3nt without knowing which major you held, so he probably wasn't expecting to defeat it with major tricks.
as for what to lead i'd go for a club - partner doubled 3nt without knowing which major you held, so he probably wasn't expecting to defeat it with major tricks.
#8
- Group: Members
- Posts: 29
- Joined: 2012-November-21
Posted 2013-June-19, 04:51
Partner has no inviting hand if we play hearts. He doesn t know that I ve a very good hand for this vulerable. And he must have a very good hand to double 3NT and 5 diamonds.
So he must be very short in hearts otherwise he´d bit something else than 2 hearts.
The difficulty is that I still don t know what to lead. Against 3NT I would lead a spade. But against 5 diamond I don t know if he wants a heart ruff or not.
I think a spade attack might be the best. But partner can missunderstand a spade 10 attack. So maybe a heart attack is better.
So he must be very short in hearts otherwise he´d bit something else than 2 hearts.
The difficulty is that I still don t know what to lead. Against 3NT I would lead a spade. But against 5 diamond I don t know if he wants a heart ruff or not.
I think a spade attack might be the best. But partner can missunderstand a spade 10 attack. So maybe a heart attack is better.
#9
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 104
- Joined: 2006-April-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Bangalore
- Interests:Bridge, Chess, Reading, Music, Travelling, Movies.
Posted 2013-June-21, 07:06
I will post the actual hand shortly; please vote & post your final comments soon.
Cheers, Krishna.
_________________
Valiant were the efforts of the declarer // to thwart the wiles of the defender // however, as the cards lay // the contract had no play // except through the eyes of a kibitzer.
_________________
Valiant were the efforts of the declarer // to thwart the wiles of the defender // however, as the cards lay // the contract had no play // except through the eyes of a kibitzer.
#10
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 7,786
- Joined: 2004-September-05
- Gender:Male
- Location:Galloway NJ USA
-
Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.
Posted 2013-June-21, 12:04
uhhlv, on 2013-June-19, 04:51, said:
Partner has no inviting hand if we play hearts. He doesn t know that I ve a very good hand for this vulerable. And he must have a very good hand to double 3NT and 5 diamonds.
So he must be very short in hearts otherwise he´d bit something else than 2 hearts.
The difficulty is that I still don t know what to lead. Against 3NT I would lead a spade. But against 5 diamond I don t know if he wants a heart ruff or not.
I think a spade attack might be the best. But partner can missunderstand a spade 10 attack. So maybe a heart attack is better.
So he must be very short in hearts otherwise he´d bit something else than 2 hearts.
The difficulty is that I still don t know what to lead. Against 3NT I would lead a spade. But against 5 diamond I don t know if he wants a heart ruff or not.
I think a spade attack might be the best. But partner can missunderstand a spade 10 attack. So maybe a heart attack is better.
A heart attack may be better than a head-on collision at 60 MPH, but not much else.
#11
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 104
- Joined: 2006-April-12
- Gender:Male
- Location:Bangalore
- Interests:Bridge, Chess, Reading, Music, Travelling, Movies.
Posted 2013-June-22, 13:11
I was the one who committed what user 'wank' calls a capital offense of opening Multi with that hand. When my partner (abccba) bid 2♥; my first thoughts were that I had committed a cardinal sin too, as usually partner would have cards in the other major when he makes a pass or correct bid & it looked like our ♠'s were lost for good. However, I began revising my initial thoughts about the hand when North (Kushari, a veteran grandmaster of Indian Bridge) overcalled 3♦, South (laltu) bid 3NT, and my partner doubled. Partner must have something good in hand to double 3NT when he does not know, or care, what my major is. Partner, who is on lead against 3NT, is likely to have a solid suit or a semi-solid suit with a ♦ card that he plans to set up on the lead.
The double of 5♦ only confirmed my thoughts that, since I could trust partner to not double 3NT if he did not have a defense to other game contracts, he must have a semi-solid suit with a ♦ card. As I mentioned earlier, he is likely to have very little in ♥ & since opps should have some ♠ to bid 3N & I've good ♠'s myself, that leaves only ♣ to be partners suit. Happy with my analysis (user 'wank' came closest to the "correct" reasoning among those who commented), I led a ♣ to discover this hand, where any lead but a ♣ would have sold the contract:
Oh well, that was a nice fairy tale, the truth alas was that I led a ♠ without much thought. In addition, I have to confess that I switched a couple of cards in the hand - partner had ♦A8 and the ♦KQ were with Kushari ji - who correctly judged at the table that 3NT would play horribly but a ♦ game may have chances. Hence, either a passive ♥ or ♣ lead could have worked on the actual hand & only my aggressive ♠ lead sold the contract.
The double of 5♦ only confirmed my thoughts that, since I could trust partner to not double 3NT if he did not have a defense to other game contracts, he must have a semi-solid suit with a ♦ card. As I mentioned earlier, he is likely to have very little in ♥ & since opps should have some ♠ to bid 3N & I've good ♠'s myself, that leaves only ♣ to be partners suit. Happy with my analysis (user 'wank' came closest to the "correct" reasoning among those who commented), I led a ♣ to discover this hand, where any lead but a ♣ would have sold the contract:
Oh well, that was a nice fairy tale, the truth alas was that I led a ♠ without much thought. In addition, I have to confess that I switched a couple of cards in the hand - partner had ♦A8 and the ♦KQ were with Kushari ji - who correctly judged at the table that 3NT would play horribly but a ♦ game may have chances. Hence, either a passive ♥ or ♣ lead could have worked on the actual hand & only my aggressive ♠ lead sold the contract.
Cheers, Krishna.
_________________
Valiant were the efforts of the declarer // to thwart the wiles of the defender // however, as the cards lay // the contract had no play // except through the eyes of a kibitzer.
_________________
Valiant were the efforts of the declarer // to thwart the wiles of the defender // however, as the cards lay // the contract had no play // except through the eyes of a kibitzer.
Page 1 of 1