[pescetom]

---

MP, partner is a solid bidder.

Please vote your choice of lead (first question)?

Now imagine that East accidentally bid 5♥ which was doubled by South before East managed to correct. The TD allows the change to 5♦ and bidding proceeds as shown. Does the (unauthorised) information that South would double 5♥ suggest the lead of one suit over another (second question)?

[Cyberyeti]

I'd lead my stiff club without any UI (would be worried about a double diamond void). The UI in hearts suggests a heart might not be best, but I wouldn't ever lead one anyway.

[Tramticket]

I think that you should have polled the first question without telling us about the UI. You could then mention the UI oce you had received initial responses.

But it looks to me as though a club is the best shot, since a diamond will not stand up and a forcing defence looks unlikely.

[nige1]

pescetom writes 'MP, partner is a solid bidder.Please vote your choice of lead (first question)?Now imagine that East accidentally bid 5♥ which was doubled by South before East managed to correct. The TD allows the change to 5♦ and bidding proceeds as shown. Does the (unauthorised) information that South would double 5♥ suggest the lead of one suit over another (second question)?'
+++++++++++++++++++++
I rank
1. ♦2 Partner's ♦ trick might disappear.
2. ♥7.
3. ♣3.
4. ♠2.
Agree with Tramticket that a poll would probably show that a ♥ lead is a logical alternative. If so -- and a ♥ lead would help declarer -- then the director might insist that I lead one (although, in practice, I wouldn't have)..

---

[Tramticket]

nige1, on 2019-June-27, 09:18, said:

1. ♦2 Partner's ♦ trick might disappear.

Well it might - if partner bid 5♦ on a seven-card suit! If he has more than seven then we ain't got a diamond trick.

[pescetom]

Thanks for replies so far. Hope there will be some more.

Cyberyeti, on 2019-June-27, 07:06, said:

I'd lead my stiff club without any UI (would be worried about a double diamond void). The UI in hearts suggests a heart might not be best, but I wouldn't ever lead one anyway.

A double diamond void is maybe pessimistic, but yes they can't have more than 1 or 2 and I would be very worried about a single void. My first thought about the UI was that it might slightly increase the chance of finding diamonds 1-1, in which case there is a case for a diamond lead before North's card disappears on the hearts. But it might also decrease the chance of them holding 2 diamonds at all so I doubt it would change my judgement much. I'm interested to see how others think on this.

Tramticket, on 2019-June-27, 08:06, said:

I think that you should have polled the first question without telling us about the UI. You could then mention the UI oce you had received initial responses.

I would have liked to, but I haven't had good luck adding a second poll later and also people here seem to get bored with discussions very quickly I don't think it will do much damage in practice - if people think that they can't answer question 1 honestly after reading question 2 I'm sure they will say so. In my club, at least, the LAs were pretty clear but I wanted a reality check with the rest of the world.

nige1, on 2019-June-27, 09:18, said:

Agree with Tramticket that a poll would probably show that a ♥ lead is a logical alternative. If so -- and a ♥ lead would help declarer -- then the director might insist that I lead one (although, in practice, I wouldn't have)..

Let's discuss director's options in a specific Laws discussion later. For now I just want bridge judgement about which lead is best and whether any lead is suggested by the UI.

[Tramticket]

pescetom, on 2019-June-27, 10:30, said:

A double diamond void is maybe pessimistic, but yes they can't have more than 1 or 2...

You described your partner as a "solid bidder". Partned jumped to the five level, vulnerable, in the sandwich seat opposite a passed partner. Would your "solid bidder" partner do this with a seven-card suit? It feels unlikely that opps wil have two diamonds. A double void doesn't look pessimistic to me.

[Cyberyeti]

Tramticket, on 2019-June-27, 11:17, said:

You described your partner as a "solid bidder". Partned jumped to the five level, vulnerable, in the sandwich seat opposite a passed partner. Would your "solid bidder" partner do this with a seven-card suit? It feels unlikely that opps wil have two diamonds. A double void doesn't look pessimistic to me.

Indeed, I would expect 8+♦ with 9 quite likely and 7 vanishingly unlikely vul against not for a sound bidder.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-June-27, 11:21, said:

Indeed, I would expect 8+♦ with 9 quite likely and 7 vanishingly unlikely vul against not for a sound bidder.

"Sound bidder" is an observation of his usual performance, not a judgement of this specific bid. He knows that opps are forcing to game and he doesn't know you have 4 diamonds. If I were his partner I would expect 8 diamonds but without ruling out the much more frequent 7 or the vanishingly infrequent 9. For the rest I know the layout and so any comments are flawed. Tomorrow I will post it and you can judge for yourselves.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2019-June-27, 14:45, said:

"Sound bidder" is an observation of his usual performance, not a judgement of this specific bid. He knows that opps are forcing to game and he doesn't know you have 4 diamonds. If I were his partner I would expect 8 diamonds but without ruling out the much more frequent 7 or the vanishingly infrequent 9. For the rest I know the layout and so any comments are flawed. Tomorrow I will post it and you can judge for yourselves.

You say 2♣ was GF, I presume it was nat and GF, which makes much more unlikely but not impossible the only hand type where I might do it on 7 (7♦-5♣).

[KingCovert]

This is the wrong vulnerability for partner to be sacrificing. Your partner has taken the position that 5D has real play, it must make or go down 1. I'd make the following assumptions:

• Partner has a full opener, thus allowing them to count most of the HCP.
  
• Partner has a spade void, thus giving 5D real play and making the push into 5S a potentially lethal one. (Partner has good reason to expect the break is bad after all.)
  
• If the previous two are true, partner is probably bidding 5D with well positioned clubs. Otherwise how does 5D have any play?

This is enough for me to lead clubs. But at this point, I'm really not certain that partner has any more than 7 diamonds headed by the AKQ. But, the opponents aren't playing 6S for a reason... If North has a diamond void, solid clubs, and let's be honest, knows that hearts are playing well.... What's there to think about? Something has to give.

I'm leading my singleton club, because partner won't play me for it if I don't, and if we're not defeating 5S on a club lead, I need a new partner.

[pescetom]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-June-27, 15:31, said:

You say 2♣ was GF, I presume it was nat and GF

Either natural 5+card ♣ or artificial without 5+card ♦ or ♥.
But it's unlikely to be artificial as he would probably have been able to splinter in ♦.

[KingCovert]

As a follow up to my previous post, and upon further consideration, I think the distributions on this hand are actually pretty marked. Give or take a card between Clubs and Hearts.

N: 3316
E: 0274
S: 6412
W: 4441

North probably has something like JXX of hearts, AK or AJ of spades, and KQTXXX, KQJXXX or KJTXXX of clubs and a small diamond.
East probably has 4 clubs with the rest of honours, AKQXXXX of diamonds, and two losing hearts. This would have good play for 5D opposite a shortness in clubs. And in fact, 5D makes on this hand.
South has an uninspiring 6-card spade suit (KXXXXX) with AKXX of hearts.

Partner could have the queen of hearts in the doubleton, or North could have QJX etc... There's really not much room for variance on this hand. I suppose partner could also be missing the Ace of clubs, at which point, isn't 6S just too good not to play?

[Cyberyeti]

KingCovert, on 2019-June-27, 15:33, said:

This is the wrong vulnerability for partner to be sacrificing. Your partner has taken the position that 5D has real play, it must make or go down 1. I'd make the following assumptions:

• Partner has a full opener, thus allowing them to count most of the HCP.
  
• Partner has a spade void, thus giving 5D real play and making the push into 5S a potentially lethal one. (Partner has good reason to expect the break is bad after all.)
  
• If the previous two are true, partner is probably bidding 5D with well positioned clubs. Otherwise how does 5D have any play?

This is enough for me to lead clubs. But at this point, I'm really not certain that partner has any more than 7 diamonds headed by the AKQ. But, the opponents aren't playing 6S for a reason... If North has a diamond void, solid clubs, and let's be honest, knows that hearts are playing well.... What's there to think about? Something has to give.

I'm leading my singleton club, because partner won't play me for it if I don't, and if we're not defeating 5S on a club lead, I need a new partner.

I like most of your logic, but you might not be beating 6 spades here. What's partner supposed to do with say -, -, AKQJ10xxxx, xxxx ? Even if he has better clubs with a trick that probably won't be enough.

[steve2005]

UI makes club lead a little more likely of success
declare presumably has A♥ and ♦ shortness
with A♣ they might be in slam or doubled 5♦

[KingCovert]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-June-27, 16:40, said:

I like most of your logic, but you might not be beating 6 spades here. What's partner supposed to do with say -, -, AKQJ10xxxx, xxxx ? Even if he has better clubs with a trick that probably won't be enough.

Are you sure that hand should bid 5D? That hand wants to sacrifice surely? But is 5D really an effective sacrifice? You can still count most of the remaining points, and now the opponents are cold for either grand. You can't assume that either of them has a diamond void of course, so you don't bid 7D, but 6D seems better. Although admittedly, 6D is an obvious sacrifice suggesting slam is makeable given the vulnerability..... I'm not sure... I just don't like 5D with that hand. I'd rather pass or bid less.

[pescetom]

KingCovert, on 2019-June-27, 16:35, said:

As a follow up to my previous post, and upon further consideration, I think the distributions on this hand are actually pretty marked. Give or take a card between Clubs and Hearts.

N: 3316
E: 0274
S: 6412
W: 4441

North probably has something like JXX of hearts, AK or AJ of spades, and KQTXXX, KQJXXX or KJTXXX of clubs and a small diamond.
East probably has 4 clubs with the rest of honours, AKQXXXX of diamonds, and two losing hearts. This would have good play for 5D opposite a shortness in clubs. And in fact, 5D makes on this hand.
South has an uninspiring 6-card spade suit (KXXXXX) with AKXX of hearts.

Chapeaux: you only slightly misread the majors, and even that perhaps because you were expecting different bidding if N holds 4-card ♠. But bridge is fascinating because subtle changes can make all the difference, and NS don't even have game against optimal defence here, see below.

[pescetom]

Here's the full layout.

---

At the table, West lead ♦ and NS made 5♠-1 which was 59%.

[KingCovert]

pescetom, on 2019-June-28, 06:25, said:

Chapeaux: you only slightly misread the majors, and even that perhaps because you were expecting different bidding if N holds 4-card ♠. But bridge is fascinating because subtle changes can make all the difference, and NS don't even have game against optimal defence here, see below.

Well, I had a massive hint. You did make the thread after all.

I did suspect 5-5 in the majors at first, with 4S in the North. But yes, I then re-evaluated and determined that 2C denied it. That's why I placed the major suit values how I did.

5S is kind of a gutsy bid with only 3 card support after all.... I wish I got hands like this right at the table though :(

Hahahaha... My partners always get mad at me for placing cards! Standard defense is the club, and if I didn't make that lead regardless of this analysis, they'd shoot me. I'm still learning though, so can't blame them.

[Cyberyeti]

pescetom, on 2019-June-28, 06:32, said:

Here's the full layout.

---

At the table, West lead ♦ and NS made 5♠-1 which was 59%.

How much do you get for 5♠-2 ?

And I don't think anybody is seriously leading a heart,and not really considering it for long.