Survivor

[wackojack]

This came up playing Survivor: MP
  86
  5
  A5432
  KJ542

  AK2
  KJ73
  Q987
  A8
Bidding: 1NT-3NT Lead 3 , 2, 10, Ace. No information about opponents' lead style.  I think most likely from Qxx3, although some like GIB will lead small from 4 small. 
How do you play the diamond suit? I played 7 to the Ace and another.  However, it was suggested in the later analysis in the context of J  lead that running the Q was the best play.  This was indeed the play that would lose only 1  trick if RHO turned up with the stiff 10.  However, Ken later pointed out that the best chance of losing only 1 diamond trick was the way I played.   Doing the analysis I make it that running the Queen gives you 53.1% chance whereas small to ace and another gives you 65.6% chance of only losing 1 diamond. 

However, even losing 2 diamond tricks I still made my contract.  If the defence is very cute now and lead a club.  (Giving me a free finesse in  s but end-playing me in    and forcing me to lead away from my    suit)  I will go down. But that didn't happen.   

Incidentally I play a 3   response to 1NT to show 5-5 in the minors game forcing. I think I would still bid 3N but it is close. This is BBO Adv.  Is that general in iac?

[kenberg]

I raised your 1NT to 3NT at least in part because I was by no means sure what any other route meant. The bots play that 1NT -2 is Minor Suit Stayman, in which case it would go:
1NT - 2 (asking for a four card minor)
3 - 3 (a stiff)
3NT - Pass
where  the 3NT shows a hand with good values in the majors, making it a good hand for 3NT and a lousy hand for 6 . 
Well, as I play MSS the 3 shows a stiff, I am not sure of the bots.
Old joke: If two people can't communicate they should shut up.


The hand has interesting features. In the abstract, a small diamond to the A and back toward the Q is the percentage play for developing the suit with only one loser. Te reasoning as follows:
Line A: small to the A, small back toward the Q.
Line B: Lay down the Qand let it ride if not covered.
If the diamonds are 2-2, we lose one trick with either line.
If there is a stiff j or T on declarer's right, line B succeeds, line A fails.
If there is a stiff J or t on the left,  line A succeeds and line B fails.
So far A and B are in a tie. But:
If there is a stiff K on either side, line A succeeds and line B fails.
If there is a stiff 6 on the left, line A succeeds and line B fails.
If there is a stiff 6 on the right, both lines fail.

So line A is looking good. BUT ( I thought about this later)

The auction was 1NT-3NT, the opening lead was the 3, we are looking at the 2. Assuming Lho has four clubs, he does not have, or almost surely does not have, a stiff diamond. If he has four clubs and one diamond, he would either have a five car major, which he would surely lead, or he would have two four card majors and I would expect him to lead one of those.

Now, if Lho cannot have a stiff then we have to worry only about Rho having a stiff .  If he has a stiff K, line A works, if he has a stiff J or T line B works, so line B it is.

It's a very nice hand. In the abstract, the small is right. But if we believe that the  lead of the 3 precludes Lho from having a stiff , then the Q is right.

[jcreech]

First, it is an interesting hand.  How to bid this after a 1NT opening, how to play the diamonds, and how to deal with the possibility of a blocked suit when the outside entry is attacked.

Second, I tend to play whatever my partner has included in their profile, so I don't often have the luxury of having a favorite convention available when I need it.  On Bridge Winners, I put for my favorite convention - The one that best describes my hand at the moment its needed (when needed, it is almost never played by the partner at the time, and if it is, then they have forgotten it).  I have partners where responder's hand can be shown easily, but with most partners, the auction will include some flaw in the description of the hand.

Third, MPs is an evil game.  It bothers me to take a line where the contract may fail to gain an overtrick that everyone in the field will be trying to get.  It feels so much more satisfying to play safely for the contract and stop worrying about overtricks.  But when you buy your entry to a MP event, that is the bargain with the devil you make.

[wackojack]

The auction was 1NT-3NT, the opening lead was the 3, we are looking at the 2. Assuming Lho has four clubs, he does not have, or almost surely does not have, a stiff diamond. If he has four clubs and one diamond, he would either have a five car major, which he would surely lead, or he would have two four card majors and I would expect him to lead one of those.

Now, if Lho cannot have a stiff then we have to worry only about Rho having a stiff .  If he has a stiff K, line A works, if he has a stiff J or T line B works, so line B it is.

It's a very nice hand. In the abstract, the small is right. But if we believe that the  lead of the 3 precludes Lho from having a stiff , then the Q is right.

Yes that is most interesting and something I hadn't but should've appreciated.  After 1N-3NT, we can make this into a broader conclusion which is.  "If we can ascertain that the opening lead is not from a 5 card suit, then this hand will not have a singleton if the lead was a minor and still very unlikely to have a singleton if the lead was from a major". 

[kenberg]

There are several related thoughts. If (and of course that is an "if") we believe that the 3 is from a four card suit then it could be considered at least as some evidence on this hand  that declarer is 3=3=3=4. We have 9 diamonds so it is not likely Lho has all four missing diamonds, moreover if he had all four, the KJT6, he would prefer that to a lead from Qxxx. So he does not have four diamonds  And if he had a four card major he would probably prefer a lead from that, especially since the auction 1NT-3NT suggests dummy will hit with more cards in the minors than in the majors. So if he does not have four diamonds or a four card major and the 3 is fourth best, then he is exactly 3=3=3=4.

Yes, this is all leisurely thinking long after the hand is over!

In the discussion afterward, Colin suggested that it might be better for your Rho to have started with the J at T1 from JTx. I can see the point of this, dummy  is unlikely to have four spades, the J is backed up by the T, and maybe hos partner will find it useful. So Colinn suggested, if I recall correctly, a lead of the J, a duck by declarer, and a continuation with the T.

What shall we make of this? No doubt Rho played an encouraging spade at T1. If Lho had started with JT97 he might well have played the 9 at T2 to let partner know it is safe to unblock if he had started with Qxx.  There is no guarantee, but the encouraging card from Rho and the continuation with the T suggests that it is Rho with the length. Bridge is a game with uncertainties, but perhaps it is evidence. If we believe the lead was from three cards we can get the !Ds right.

The play in  the suit depends on who might be short. In the abstract, small to the A is better. So we need to be fairly confident that it cannot be Lho with the shortage before we lay the Q down. As Clint Eastwood would say,  Well, punk, are you feeling lucky?

[Curls77]

Incidentally I play a 3   response to 1NT to show 5-5 in the minors game forcing. I think I would still bid 3N but it is close. This is BBO Adv.  Is that general in iac?

I can tell that for a fact it is not general in IAC, very few play that 1N-3D treatment. Joe taught it in what is called "Intermediate Advanced Club 2/1 system", but not many use the system at all, which is a shame, it'd be so helpful to new pardship.

[kenberg]

Incidentally I play a 3   response to 1NT to show 5-5 in the minors game forcing. I think I would still bid 3N but it is close. This is BBO Adv.  Is that general in iac?

I can tell that for a fact it is not general in IAC, very few play that 1N-3D treatment. Joe taught it in what is called "Intermediate Advanced Club 2/1 system", but not many use the system at all, which is a shame, it'd be so helpful to new pardship.

I take a practical approach: If partner and I have not discussed the meaning of 1NT - 3 then I will not be bidding 3 when partner opens 1NT. On this pair of hands it is far from clear whether 3NT or 5 is the better contract, even if you can look at both hands.  If we were playing that 1NT - 3 shows 5-5 then the auction would presumably, or at least possibly,  go 1NT - 3 - 4 - 5 . Surely there is a heart loser so diamonds must be brought in with one loser. So 5 should be easy if diamonds are 2-2, less easy if they are 3-1. 3NT is not apt to be trivial either, but on the fairly non-informative auction 1NT-3NT it has chances, and it made.

But mostly my thinking is that you do not send a coded message (i.e. make a conventional bid) unless you are sure you and partner are using the same code book.

It's not always easy to decide on these matters. Of course 1NT - 2 is a transfer but how about 1NT - (2 ) - 2 or 1NT -  (2 ) - 2 ? I have discussed these with my current f2f partner and with him 1NT - (2 ) - 2 is a trf but 1NT -  (2 ) - 2   is to play.  But undiscussed on IAC? Good luck with that.

I learned bridge in a different era. I bought a copy of Goren, something like Contract Bridge, an Introduction, and pretty much any stranger I sat across from at the table had learned bridge by reading the same thing. Now, to borrow from Cole Porter,  Anything Goes. It is a fact of life that on anything but the most basic auction, there will be more than one interpretation.  Often each person is very sure that their interpretation is the correct interpretation. There are various ways to deal with this, but they all require some discussion. Lacking that discussion, I recommend making the call that is least likely to be misunderstood, even if another choice would have been made if it had been previously discussed. 

[kenberg]

I decided to see how the bots would do on this. Left on their own the auction went 1NT - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 . Off 2.
The 2 was MSS, the 3 showed four diamonds.

I then imposed the 3 bid over 3 :
1NT - 2 - 3 - 3 -(X) - 3NT. Off 2.

The 3 showed short hearts.

Added: I went back and imposed the auction 1NT-3NT. Success. Bot making 3. 

Another thought: If you are reasonably convinced that Lho has three diamonds then there is a lot to be said from starting the s as small from the board. This works if there is a stiff K or J or T on your right. This might be a stretch, concluding it from the lead of the 3, but it's not crazy. With only Qxxx it's reasonable to think he would have preferred leading from a four card major.