[rmnka447]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-23, 05:29, said:

The Doctors had great "table presence" at times. I suspect that these instincts improve substatially when playing with the same partner over an extended period. Of course I might be wrong and it is vibrations at some unsensed level of the universe talking to us. On the other hand, perhaps this is the kind of table presence you might have to completely re-learn once you start playing with screens.

What the doctors had wasn't table presence, it was cheating.

One advantages of a long time partnership is that you've probably seen and discussed just about every situation that comes up at the table. For example, I recall reading someplace that Meckwell have several hundred pages of bidding system notes. That kind of in depth understanding and agreement is priceless. Additionally, you develop a good sense of how your partner thinks or will react when something new comes up. The term often used is that the players "were reading off the same page". Those advantages are still there screens or no screens.

I think barmar's follow up post is very interesting and might be a part explanation. Part may also be that you are perceiving a lot more than you consciously realize that is processed through your intuitive side.

The Bermuda Bowls are replete with examples of brilliant bids and plays that go beyond simple logic. The one that comes most readily to mind is the Italian who bid slam in the last few hands of the final versus the US and then dropped a stiff K behind him to make the hand and win. If I recall correctly, no one had a good explanation for how he was able to make the play. But as a many time world champ, it would seem like he would have an acutely developed sense of table presence that would be a factor.

[Vampyr]

Perhaps the player played the Q from hand and kept it there a long time while he waited to see if anyone twitched. I know players who use this tactic regularly.

[Zelandakh]

rmnka447, on 2015-March-23, 21:24, said:

may also be that you are perceiving a lot more than you consciously realize that is processed through your intuitive side.

This is essentially the point I was making, particularly in club bridge. It is quite distinct from the information that comes from knowledge of the bidding system or carding. In essence some of this is "cheating", in as much as perceptions that originate from partner are UI. Obviously this is difficult to handle if the players themselves are unaware of where their "instincts" come from. Hence the often noticeable difference when screens come into play.

[rmnka447]

Zelandakh, on 2015-March-24, 02:59, said:

This is essentially the point I was making, particularly in club bridge. It is quite distinct from the information that comes from knowledge of the bidding system or carding. In essence some of this is "cheating", in as much as perceptions that originate from partner are UI. Obviously this is difficult to handle if the players themselves are unaware of where their "instincts" come from. Hence the often noticeable difference when screens come into play.

You make a valid point in that sense.

Yet there are still times when table presence leads you to bids or plays that are entirely divorced from anything that the other people at the table do or don't do.

[shellsnail]

I think in this particular hand it is key to rule out the spade lead based on North's 2N bid showing doubleton spade. Your lead could eliminate a guess in the suit.

On top of that, if you count the tricks and points, declarer is likely to score 4 clubs, at least 4 spades, and 1 dime. If he has both KQ heart (split or not doesn't matter), the contract is guaranteed. So the only chance of defeating it is a heart lead to gain tempo and play partner for either Q or K heart.

But I'm guessing you already know all that and it still doesn't feel right. In that case I would say amend your feelings by challenging your intuition actively. Feed it with more data; jolt yourself out of the current reality. Practice some routines before leading such as counting HCP, tricks etc. until you internalise certain concepts. No one is born good at bridge. It's dangerous to rely on intuition in a game based largely on probabilities. Sure psychology matters but those situations don't usually come up that much.

Hope this helps.

p.s. In matchpoints it would be harder to say what is the right lead, but I would say a spade is still too dangerous.

[MrAce]

helene_t, on 2015-March-15, 05:56, said:

If I had been half asleep my spade lead might have been a misclick or a misread of the auction or the failure to realize that this is IMPs and we are not going to take the contract down with passive defense since opps have made a quantitative invite so they should have enough power to make 4nt. In other words, an aggresive or speculative lead is called for. I realized all those things before I made the lead.

The general conclusion you came to in bolded quote is wrong imho. Unless you have a suit which screams "lead me please!!", one should avoid making any aggressive lead that may cost trick(s) vs the contracts of 2 NT or 4 NT. But I am not talking about this auction in OP. I am just talking about the bolded area of the quote.

1NT--4NT-pass
2NT--4NT-pass
1NT--2NT-pass

They have their power, but they usually do not have their tricks in those auctions. Tricks comes via various techniques such as finesse, end plays, squeezes etc..In this type of auctions not giving them a trick they do not deserve is important. Of course I am talking in general and there are exceptions to that, but hard to know it when you are on lead. Basically, the race between defense and declarer will be usually about tricks here and there rather than the tempo.

Aggressive leads are required mostly when they actually DO NOT have the power for the contract they are in. And people bid games with 20-23 hcp combined for a reason and this is not because they have balanced vs balanced hands and insufficient values but because they have "trick source based" expectations. Now we are talking about tempo being priority over safety. You should lead aggressive vs this type of contracts in order to have a good sprint in that tempo race.

1♦--1[NT]
3♦--3 NT

3x--3 NT

3 NT gambling all pass

Note: By passive lead I did not mean "lead your shortest suit" or I did not mean "lead your longest suit" for aggressive leads. To me passive leads are the ones which aims not giving gifts to declarer. Aggressive leads targets setting up enough tricks for our side before they set up their suit. Because once they set up their suit, it usually is a nightmare for defense even if they do not yet have enough tricks, due to being wide open to squeezes, bad discards, communication between defense being jammed up, endplays etc etc.