[ahydra]

IMPs

---

Opps play a precision variant. 1H = at least a 4-card suit with 10-14 HCPs. The 3H rebid shows a maximum with six. Partner's double is for takeout, normally showing the other two suits.

Thanks,

ahydra

[mikeh]

Why is this a lead problem rather than a play problem? I get that, since it is a lead problem, we rate to be able to beat it, but at imps white v red I would bid 5C

[rmnka447]

I'd bid 5 ♣ also.

But given the lead problem, I'm leading a ♦ 5.

[nige1]

Ahydra writes 'IMPs. Opps play a precision variant. 1H = at least a 4-card suit with 10-14 HCPs. The 3H rebid shows a maximum with six. Partner's double is for takeout, normally showing the other two suits.'
+++++++++++++++++++++++

Public polls are more instructive because who voted for what can be significant. Agree with Mikes that sacrificing would avoid this difficult decision. Now, the stakes are high. Anything might work but I rank
1. ♠9 = Try for ruffs but could well wrap up the ♠ suit for declarer
3. ♣T = Superficially, safe
2. ♦5 = Attempt to cash out. We may have quick minor winners and slow major winners.
4. ♥3 = Passive. Feels wrong. But could be right.

---

[Winstonm]

I lead the K of diamonds. I don't know if we need to cash 4 minor suit winners or get spade ruffs. Seeing dummy may help and if the king does't hold we probably weren't beating this anyway.

But, as others have said, why am I defending?

[pescetom]

rmnka447, on 2019-May-18, 08:35, said:

I'd bid 5 ♣ also.

But given the lead problem, I'm leading a ♦ 5.

Wow. For once I agree with you on both points