[dave_w]

gnasher, on 2011-November-14, 09:51, said:

Yes, I gathered that, but I was hoping for a slightly more specific reply.

Given the way the auction started, do you think it possible that partner has ♥A9xx or ♥K9xx, or ♥Jxxx plus an entry? Or are you hoping to get one heart trick and then switch?

Regardless, if we're going to lead hearts I think it's clear to lead the queen. That gives us more chance of getting partner in, may mislead declarer about the layout, and may smother declarer's jack.

Unfortunately the ♥Q might confuse partner too (I don't mind the lead - it could be a big winner).

As for Heart layouts - this wasn't as important as the rest of the hand. Us Heart leaders are trying not to blow a trick on the opening lead. If dummy has the ♥A and we lead a Spade or a Diamond then declarer might now have 9 tricks. And if partner has the ♥A then we've found partner's entry - hoorah - what a great lead.

The worst layout is dummy has the AK, declarer has 7 clubs and claims - when we could have cashed out Diamonds or Spades (or maybe both!!))

[gnasher]

Quote

Unfortunately the ♥Q might confuse partner too (I don't mind the lead - it could be a big winner).

I'll be surprised if partner has enough high cards for the confusion to matter.

Quote

Us Heart leaders are trying not to blow a trick on the opening lead.

If that's your sole objective, it seems to me that a club is better.

[han]

How about posting your thoughts for once instead of asking questions and nitpicking.

[JLOGIC]

[gnasher]

han, on 2011-November-15, 04:09, said:

How about posting your thoughts for once instead of asking questions and nitpicking.

I'll post whatever I feel like posting. Nobody forces you to read it.

On this hand, I'm not sure what is best, partly because I'm not sure what is the least that partner can have for a double of 1♥. I know that I'd double 1♥ with ♥A9xx or ♥KJxx and nothing else, but I'm not sure how typical that is. Hence I would be interested to learn what heart holdings people are hoping for when they lead a heart. Is that OK with you Han?

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2011-November-15, 04:58, said:

I'll post whatever I feel like posting. Nobody forces you to read it.

On this hand, I'm not sure what is best, partly because I'm not sure what is the least that partner can have for a double of 1♥. I know that I'd double 1♥ with ♥A9xx or ♥KJxx and nothing else, but I'm not sure how typical that is. Hence I would be interested to learn what heart holdings people are hoping for when they lead a heart. Is that OK with you Han?

Even you would not double 1♥ with 3 cards there.
You simply hope for 4 tricks in the majors, either 2 ♥ and 2♠ or 1♥ and 3♠ tricks.
For me the choice is between the ♦A or the ♥Q, but prefer the ♥Q slightly.
Of course ♦ could be wide open.
If partner has the ♦K you hope they might not have 9 tricks running on the ♥Q.

Rainer Herrmann

[han]

gnasher, on 2011-November-15, 04:58, said:

I'll post whatever I feel like posting. Nobody forces you to read it.

You are right of course.

Regarding the hand, I wouldn't double 1H holding only KJxx or A9xx of hearts.

[mikeh]

han, on 2011-November-15, 09:16, said:

You are right of course.

Regarding the hand, I wouldn't double 1H holding only KJxx or A9xx of hearts.

Nor would I.

My own view is that the double of 1♥ promises values, while bidding 2♥ shows a hand that may be weaker than a double but boasts a 5th heart. So KJ9xx and out, I'd bid 2♥, but to double I'd usually only hold 4 and I'd have a side K or equivalent values, or better.

Obviously, if playing Andy's style, the case for the heart Q, or for any heart, diminishes significantly and now I'd probably lead a club as being the least likely to give away the 9th trick.

[MrAce]

Interesting thoughts about dbling 1♥. I would dbl in the fashion Andy does, but what MikeH said also makes sense, i just recognized that this is something that i need to put in "talk with pd" list.

[JLOGIC]

To me the point of doubling 1H is not to get the lead but it's to try and compete in hearts/compete in general if it's right (while maintaining some safety). So I would not double 1H nearly as aggressively as some others have suggested.

[aguahombre]

JLOGIC, on 2011-November-16, 03:32, said:

To me the point of doubling 1H is not to get the lead but it's to try and compete in hearts/compete in general if it's right (while maintaining some safety). So I would not double 1H nearly as aggressively as some others have suggested.

And/or expose a psyche response.

Anyway, those who have convinced me a heart lead is probably a good idea even without a double from partner probably should stick with the ten, not the queen. An entryless dummy with AJXX(X) opposite stiff King could prove embarrassing; and if dummy also has the nine, you can't even dump your ten for a later entry to pard.

[phil_20686]

leading the queen can score a massive own goal when declarer has Jx and partner leads one back from A9xx hoping that declarer started with Tx.

[aguahombre]

The heart lead discussion is assuming declarer has a stiff in the suit. People who rebid 3NT with 2NT rebids or 2NT openers have a different perspective.

[gnasher]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-16, 10:19, said:

leading the queen can score a massive own goal when declarer has Jx and partner leads one back from A9xx hoping that declarer started with Tx.

Who has the 8 and 7 in your suggested layout?

[Zelandakh]

phil_20686, on 2011-November-16, 10:19, said:

leading the queen can score a massive own goal when declarer has Jx and partner leads one back from A9xx hoping that declarer started with Tx.

Also if declarer has K9 and partner plays the jack from J43 thinking we led from KQT9 with declarer holding a singleton 2. Of course if we never made leads that could potentially backfire we would be missing out on some opportunities much of the time...

On the bidding, what is the advantage of bidding 2H with a weak hand and 5 hearts with double showing constructive values against 2H showing a good hand with 5 and double a possibly weaker hand with hearts or a good hand with 4 hearts? Is it really more important to show the weaker hand with 5 hearts immediately?

[cherdano]

Zelandakh, on 2011-November-25, 05:12, said:

On the bidding, what is the advantage of bidding 2H with a weak hand and 5 hearts with double showing constructive values against 2H showing a good hand with 5 and double a possibly weaker hand with hearts or a good hand with 4 hearts? Is it really more important to show the weaker hand with 5 hearts immediately?

I am not sure I understand your question. I would take both double and 2♥ as constructive actions, suggesting or trying to compete in hearts. Double shows 4 hearts, 2♥ shows 5 hearts.
(I also wouldn't double with ♥KJxx and out.)

[mikeh]

Zelandakh, on 2011-November-25, 05:12, said:

Also if declarer has K9 and partner plays the jack from J43 thinking we led from KQT9 with declarer holding a singleton 2. Of course if we never made leads that could potentially backfire we would be missing out on some opportunities much of the time...

On the bidding, what is the advantage of bidding 2H with a weak hand and 5 hearts with double showing constructive values against 2H showing a good hand with 5 and double a possibly weaker hand with hearts or a good hand with 4 hearts? Is it really more important to show the weaker hand with 5 hearts immediately?

My view is this:

2♥ over 1♥ is natural, usually 5+ and limited....this is critical....it is NOT a 'good' hand...it is a constructive, non-invitational call.

Double, otoh, is natural, 4+, penalty of 1♥ should they play there, and unlimited.

That is the key. I know that these days many players will have rarely if ever encountered a psychic response in a major, but such can happen, and should your opps realize you can't handle the call, it is even more likely to happen. Exposing psychic responses is not the main reason for this approach, but it is one factor to consider (as with (1♦) x (1♠) x being penalty as opposed to takeout...I have seen a lot of players think this should be takeout, and they are just asking to be psyched against)

You need to be able to handle hands that are forcing or invitational to game and which hold 4+ hearts. You cannot play that 2♥ includes everything from constructive to game force....you cannot make the same bid with such a range of strength because the call may end the auction.

So we use double....after all, if this ends the auction, when we have invitational or gf values, we are likely to be very happy...they are going at least 500 and usually 800...in reality, the double never ends the auction, and we get another chance to bid and thus describe our hand. Double therefore simply says: opposite a minimum takeout double, I expect to beat 1♥.....I may have just enough to do this, or I may have better or even much better hands.....

[Zelandakh]

It seems there are now 3 approaches based on double showing hearts in this thread so will (try to) summarise them and then ask for suggestions on how they compare. Mike's comparison looks to me only to be against methods where double does not show hearts which is a completely different ball game.

(1C) - X - (1H)
==============
Method 1:
X = constructive hand with 4+ hearts
2H = 5+ hearts, competitive only

Method 2:
X = constructive hand with 4 hearts or competitive with 5+ hearts
2H = constructive with 5+ hearts

Method 3:
X = constructive hand with 4 hearts
2H = constructive hand with 5 hearts

It seems like the Method 1 is akin to NFBs where Method 2 is the reverse. Method 3 gives immediate shape information at the cost of losing the 5+ hearts and merely competitive hands. I hope this makes my question clearer. Is it clear that one of these approaches is signficantly better than the other 2, and why? I have to admit that I thought Method 2 was "normal" and am quite surprised that this is apparently now not so. If things have changed from when I learned it then I really need to understand why this is!

[cherdano]

I am not sure where exactly you want to draw the line between "competitive" and "constructive". If I compete in a suit that I know (barring a psych) to be breaking 4-1, I will always have a somewhat useful hand - I am bidding this to make. How does that differ from "constructive"?
In any case, as Mike said double of 1H is of course unlimited.

[Zelandakh]

cherdano, on 2011-November-27, 11:43, said:

I am not sure where exactly you want to draw the line between "competitive" and "constructive". If I compete in a suit that I know (barring a psych) to be breaking 4-1, I will always have a somewhat useful hand - I am bidding this to make. How does that differ from "constructive"?
In any case, as Mike said double of 1H is of course unlimited.

OK, perhaps I am misreading Mike's post. When he wrote "non-invitational" then I am calling this competitive rather than constructive, even when he used constructive too. I was thinking of 2H as essentially invitational or better. Then double is all the hands with 4 hearts that want to bid plus weaker hands with 5+ hearts. In all 3 methods that have been posted a double is unlimited so that is accepted. As I read it, Mike's method reversed the positions of the 5+ card hearts hands and your method simply passes with the weakish hands and 5+ hearts, although I suspect that in practise it really means your 2H bid just has a wider range. While going through all this I thought of yet another approach which is logical, using 2H as 5+ hearts but specifically invitational and then X covers the 4 card suits as well as some GF hands.

However my main concern just now is working out why bidding the weaker hands directly is better. It seems to me that there is little to choose between them so long as you cover all the heart-based hands to avoid them getting an easy psyche. As for definitions, for me "constructive" means that I am interested in game to some intent, while "competitive" means that while I may be bidding to make I am not looking for game unless partner has enough extras to bid again. It is a big part of my bidding mentality to try and divide constructive from non-constructive auctions early where possible so I use this kind of thing alot. Obviously that is quite a personal thing though and definitions will vary. Btw, sorry to be so unclear in this thread - perhaps the whole thing hangs on these definitions of "constructive" after all.