Lose to 3 to AA, with an unusual push at -200. 1H by LHO making 5 (when AA didn’t balance). 4S X down 1 by me, when I did. Reissued
ETA: I win the Declare-only with +14.25, by 5.5. Reissued (Proud to have thought to win 13 on board 2. Usually I only consider the best legitimate chance, but realized it would cost nothing to lead the spade Q from dummy to see if RHO would cover. He did. Making 5 instead of down 1.)
EATA: Lose to NN by 12. Reissued [one of the all-time worst system notes explanations, which neither NN or I followed. Fortunately it did not cost. Favorable vul, LHO opens 1S, partner overcalls 2D, RHO cue bids 3D (limit raise or better). We have S-2 H-94 D-QJ1093 C-Q10962. It seems so obvious to sacrifice at 5D, which we both did, doubled, down 3, - 500. (If we could have seen partner’s hand, we might choose to defend 4S, which might conceivably have good down, though double dummy it can make 5.) So what was odd about the system notes? They said our 5D call showed 3+ diamonds, 18-19 total points. Sacrificing is apparently not on the system notes’ radar.
NN wins the regular group challenge with +23.75, by 15.75. Reissued
ETA: Win 16-1 vs NN. Reissued
EATA: Finished new round of the regular group challenge. Perhaps the worst set of 16 boards I can remember. Only one absolutely clear error: failing to beat a part score that should have been beaten. But so many other decisions worked out badly, and so many of the alternative (successful) decisions were also very reasonable, so maybe not much company for me. Miraculously, preliminary result (only 2 players) has me at +6 imps.
ETA: Demolished by NN by 32, 52-19. 26 of them on slightly unlucky slam situations. 6NT that I didn’t bid which would have required a club hook on a club lead, otherwise cold. (But on the auction a club lead would have been bizarre, and it was onside anyway.) 7D on a hook where I stopped in 6, and the hook was on. Reissued
Baffled. No history for the Declare-only. I thought I had played it, but maybe not. I can’t see anything for it. Maybe someone else can report results. Reissued.
Theoretically possible, I guess, since 3S ostensibly showed at least 13+ points, tempting CHO to bid the hopeless slam, thinking we must have 4 key cards instead of only 1. I felt sure 3S was reasonable, and in fact 4 of us chose that call.
ETA: NN wins the regular challenge with +26.25, a whopping 19.50 margin. Reissued.
EATA: Lose regular challenge to NN by 10. Surprised at the detail, because I lost 11 imps for a different (and fatal to me) opening lead against 3NT, when I thought that opening lead would likely be pushed.
Lost by 16 to NN. With a push on board 16, for 2H vul making 6. Lost 13 on board 15. NN is in 4H, voluntarily, making. I did not bid 4H voluntarily, or even when opps competed to 3S. OTOH, I was probably right to sell out to 3S, when opps easily make 5S on any defense and made 6 after CHO’s somewhat strange choice of opening lead. (Could, probably should, make 6 on any lead, but it was more obvious on the actual lead.) We never make more than 4, so it was their hand.
Both reissued
ETA: win by 4 vs AA, all on one board. Reissued
EATA: AA wins the group challenge with +16.00, by 7.00. Reissued
I win the Declare-only with +22.50, by the massive margin of .25. Reissued
:swear: Lose to NN by 6, including 8 on an unbelievably bad opening lead by CHO. He has S-xx H-10xxx D-J C-AJ10xxx at unfavorable and hears
1D (by his RHO) - P - 1H - 2S
3D - P - 3S - P
4D - P - 5D - all pass.
If he just leads his doubleton in the suit I overcalled, we get the first 3 tricks and set it. His 4th best heart lead, a suit the opponent’s had bid, let them make 6. (NN had quite reasonably overcalled 3S instead of 2S, and played it there for -100)
Reissued
(Maybe I shouldn’t complain too much. On another hand the opps stumbled into a strange 3D contract after I had made a weak 2S overcall, and he did not lead from his AQ doubleton in my suit. Good move, since declarer had the K. But there was a hint that my spades were bad, since I had passed rather than opening 2S.)
I don’t know whether NN considered the HJ. C4 would have been my second choice, but a fairly distant 2nd. C4 was the winner, when you catch partner with 5 clubs to the KJ. Meanwhile opps have 5 heart tricks (Axxxx in dummy; KQx in declarer).
I’m curious what your first choice was. C4 was the clear favorite for me. It’s the unbid suit, and a pretty decent suit for you, so you have best chance of finding a setting suit against opponents. And ignoring that (maybe you disagree), I feel like all other leads are more likely to cost a trick.
I would have led the heart jack at the table, but now that I have started constructing hands, I think a club may be better.
My initial thinking was that RHO will be setting up diamonds, and we want to be running a suit with leading it twice from our side (once on lead, once when in with the diamond king), and holdings like AJx with RHO will hold up, and on this auction, it sounds like he has clubs well under control.
However, I realized that even if he has a holding like that, and we lead it twice, and he gets two club tricks, add that to five diamond tricks, and he would need AK of hearts to get 9 tricks, in which case a heart lead probably would not have been effective anyways. No longer sure what is right.
I led the heart J. Seemed very unlikely to give away a trick, though maybe gives away timing. Only dummy’s second suit, so very likely only 4 in dummy. Club looks like only one length trick available , plus maybe some winners by force. Club was the big winner because it catches partner with 5, and opps with 2 each. (And, caught dummy with Axxxx in hearts and declarer KQx)
I just created a poll at Bridgewinners. com. I realize now that I could have specified E and W were bots, but that shouldn’t have much impact on the lead choice. The poll did force me to specify conditions, and no choice is perfect, but Imps (knockout) that I used is better than any matchpoint option.
If you want to see the poll results Lead Problem . You might have to vote (including abstain as a possible) to see the results, and may need to create an account (free) to even do that.
I’ll report here, if I remember. It even possible to see how each individual voter voted, but most of the individual voters’ name mean nothing to me. Occasionally you get a voter who I recognize as real expert (sometimes one who has won a world championship.)
