Opening lead

[mike777]

Your lead at MP and why?

Your lead at IMP and why?

 

1nt=3nt

 

9752

Q76

T974

J3

[Blofeld]

My leads tend to be awful, but I'll try the ♦T at MP, and the ♥6 at IMPs.

 

[Edit because I can't tell my suits apart]

[inquiry]

Your lead at MP and why?

Your lead at IMP and why?

 

1nt=3nt

 

9752

Q76

T974

J3

At matchpoints I don't want to blow a trick. I will lead the a ♠, which I view as safer than a diamond.

 

At imps, I want to beat the contract. Parrtner will need a lot of something to beat it. I have to many spades to be useful. An attacking lead is best. I see two options. A low heart so partner can return one (we play partner for good hearts). Or lead the club JACK (we play partner for a long clubs and hope the jeck is deadly). The fourh diamond makes teh chances dummy is long in ♣ too great, so I start the ♥.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

Jack of clubs, trying to hit partners

suit, solving all declarer problems

 

Playing MP, the ten of diamond

is probably your safes lead, but

...

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[ArcLight]

Partner has a good hand.

The opponents probably have a lot in the minors.

 

At IMPS

♥Q.

 

♥6 is standard. But I'm broke, and probably wont get in again, unless I can stop Diamonds. If pard has the A and declarer the K, the suit can become blocked on the lead of the low heart. Leading the Q allows a continuation if declarer ducks. Also, if dummy has the K and you lead the Q and pard a tenace, you may make 5 hearts.

 

At MPs I don't want to blow a trick, but I still think declarer has the minors and I dont want to lead them. The field will probably lead a heart, so I'd do the same as above.

[paulg]

At IMPs I'd lead the ♥6 but not with confidence :D and I would not be surprised to see that a spade worked.

 

Although there has been mention of leading the ♥Q I feel this is worse than a low card. It is certainly the lead that gets into the papers when it works, but on the occasions when partner does not have 5 solid hearts the ability to lead back to your ♥Q could be very important. It also retains its value as an entry if a heart is not the killer.

 

Paul

[Guest Jlall]

count me in as a heart leader at imps. gives me the best chance to beat the contract. at MP I lead a spade, the diamond spots are better but they're less likely to have long spades.

[luis]

Heart, automatic.

I did a study/simulation on the lead after 1N-3N with a bad hand.

A 3 card major is better than a 4 card major when your suit is weakish,

a 3 card major is better than a 4 card minor or a 3 card minor.

Heart, automatic!

[Chamaco]

Low heart at IMPS, diamond Ten at MP.

 

I think/hope leading from T97x won't waste a trick often, and still might be a decently aggressive lead.

[sceptic]

would lead a heart due to luis's simulation on his web site, made sense to me in that ezact same auction.

 

aslo can you put ur site back up luis

[keylime]

At MPs, I'm a big believer in leading spades versus 1NT-P-3NT.

 

At IMPs tho, it's a tossup. I rather like a heart myself.

 

BTW, nice to be back after my enforced hiatus. :-)

[han]

Heart, automatic.

I did a study/simulation on the lead after 1N-3N with a bad hand.

A 3 card major is better than a 4 card major when your suit is weakish,

a 3 card major is better than a 4 card minor or a 3 card minor.

Heart, automatic!

did you get these results for matchpoints too?

[mikeh]

At imps a small ♥. My experience is that we almost never beat these hands when you hold this type of hand, but if you do, it will be partner taking the tricks. So lead the suit in which you hold the most help. You will usually blow an imp (altho against a good team, playing similar methods, you may expect a push) but you maximize the chances of a beat.

 

At mps, I go with a ♠: the spot depending on my methods: usually 2nd highest from this holding. The ♦ is NOT safe(neither is the ♠, but there are fewer holdings on which the ♠ gives declarer something to which he is not entitled). The ♣ is both unlikely to hit partner's suit ( responder rates to hold 4+♣) but may well blow a trick: picture dummy with Q109xx opp declarer's Axx :)

[Jurek S]

♥ on IMP, seems quite standard,

♥ on MP also but will accept the blame if it's wrong without post-mortem fight

[Chamaco]

I post here 20 simulated hand taken from a 50 hand subset (I have / can make more, but I do not want to clutter the thread too much).

 

The simulation constraints were:

 

South = 15-17 hcp, any 5332, 4432, 4333, and 5422 with minors. I did not include 6m322 in this set, I might in the future

 

North = 9-15 hcp, any hand without 4 card major OR any 4333.

 

I am sure in the real world there are deviations from such constraints, but I considered it to be more or less representative of the "field" :)

 

As I am not an expert, you can try your own analyses.

 

--------------------------------

 

From a quick glance, I could estimate that in a a fair number of hands the lead would be irrelevant.

In some cases a major suit lead would be appropriate, but in almost the same number of cases it could waste a trick.

(Basically, often opener had one or both major with a tenace waiting to trap East honors that would otherwise hard to guess, especially when dummy had a singleton in the suit)

 

I could estimate more or less the same of a diamond lead: sometimes it did waste a trick when dummy had H8x(x) in diamonds, but it did not waste a trick, even given that holding, in all hands where NS held AKQJ in diamonds.

Perhaps the biggest downside of the diamond lead was that, in some cases, even if not wasting a trick directly, it did not attack declarer's weak spot, although in some cases the diamond Ten would be the only lead defeating the contract.

 

As a whole, the major suit lead (even spades) tended to be riskier than the diamond lead, but there were more casew where it would defeat the contract (although in a few cass, the diamond lead would be the only good one even at IMPS)

 

In a few cases the best lead would be a club.

 

-----------------------

 

Hand 1

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

Hand 2

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

Hand 3

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

Hand 4

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

Hand 5

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

Hand 6

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

Hand 7

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

Hand 8

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

Hand 9

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

Hand 10

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

Hand 11

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

Hand 12

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

 

Hand 13

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

 

Hand 14

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

 

Hand 15

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

 

Hand 16

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

 

Hand 17

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

 

Hand 18

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

 

Hand 19

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

 

 

Hand 20

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sat4hj97dq532ca62&w=s9752hq86dt974cj3&e=sq863haktdj6c8754&s=skjh5432dak8ckqt9]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

West North East South

 

 -     -     -     

[kfgauss]

I put this hand in Jack and had it simulate 1000 deals. This is double dummy, of course, so we lose interesting info like when we have erased guesses for declarer which do show up often as Chamaco's simulation suggests. (Does anyone know simulators that have some limited ability to correct for "guesses" like this -- e.g. deciding a 2-way finesse makes half the time? Perhaps GIB or Jack does this to some extent -- it seems they would need to know something about 2-way finesses for their play engines.)

 

Also, the output is expected (i.e. average) total points, which means it's only really relelvant for imps. Again, I repeat my request for suggestions for a better simulator (more user configurable, with output giving the number of times each result was achieved for each lead would be great).

 

Jack's definition of 3NT is:

1) 9 hcp, a 5-7 card minor, no 4+ card major [edited]

2) 10-13 hcp, no 8+ card minor, no 4+ card major

3) 14-15 hcp, no 6+ card minor, no 4+ card major

 

Expected total points (opps non-vulnerable):

 

♠2 = -388.8

♥6 = -397.4

♦10 = -403.4

♥Q = -407.0

♣J = -415.5

 

For those who know something about Jack, I have adjusted ♥Q to the correct double dummy value (Jack originally gave -417.0) -- Jack docks systemically incorrect leads 10 points to help itself decide which lead to make -- i.e. it makes the "incorrect" lead from a suit if its expected total point score is more than 10 points better, which is interesting & reasonable, but not of interest to us right now, though I guess we should note that the ♥Q lead could cause partner to go wrong. Of course, the ♥6 lead could cause partner to go wrong too. I led low from ♦A52 against 3NT recently (it was the unbid suit), hitting partner's ♦K8xxx and he had no entries and had a very tough decision of whether to duck when ♦10x showed up in dummy. If anyone wants to comment on this, does anyone advocate leading the ♦5 from my holding for some reason (even though we play standard leads vs NT), or does anyone advocate systemically leading 2nd from 3 systemically vs NT, so ♦5 would be the systemic lead? (Of course, tell me why too.)

 

Andy

[Finch]

Expected total points (opps non-vulnerable):

 

♠2 = -388.8

♥6 = -397.4

♦10 = -403.4

♥Q = -407.0

♣J = -415.5

Given the range of errors from mis-guesses etc, that just tells you that 3NT is making whatever you lead.... so isn't enormously helpful!

[kfgauss]

Expected total points (opps non-vulnerable):

 

♠2 = -388.8

♥6 = -397.4

♦10 = -403.4

♥Q = -407.0

♣J = -415.5

Given the range of errors from mis-guesses etc, that just tells you that 3NT is making whatever you lead.... so isn't enormously helpful!

As these things go, this 10 point difference is fairly significant. Notice that the ♣J is only 12 points worse than ♦10, even though this seems to be a much worse lead (at least to me). If the only possible results were -430 or +50 (I choose -430 because 397 is frightfully near 400), this 10 point difference would translate to beating the contract 8.9% of the time instead of 6.8% of the time. (This is a silly hack computation, but I apologize for the fact that Jack has silly output.)

 

Also, it seems to me that the spade lead needn't erase declarer's guess more frequently than the heart lead away from Qxx. Maybe that's so, and I certainly favor thinking over rigidly accepting the output of flawed simulations, but it's at least rather interesting that the spade lead beats 3N more often than the heart lead double dummy, especially given that the vast majority of the responses favor the heart lead.

 

The majority of responses favor the heart lead because they think it's more likely to set, but will often blow a trick. Perhaps this is true (even double-dummy), but then the 1 imp or so we're gaining by leading the spade is worth more in the long run (accepting the above double-dummy analysis) because at total points you should be even more likely to go for the set than at imps.

 

If people still believe the heart lead is best, perhaps it'd be useful for them to think about and explain why a heart lead is likely to have/preserve a larger gain for the defense over pure double-dummy play than a spade lead.

 

Andy

[hrothgar]

Expected total points (opps non-vulnerable):

 

♠2 = -388.8

♥6 = -397.4

♦10 = -403.4

♥Q = -407.0

♣J = -415.5

Hi Andy...

 

Any chance that you could provide a more precise explanation regarding how you ran the simulation... Based on your post, I'm assuming that you did something like the following

 

1. Deal 1000 hands consistant with the auction 1N - 3N

2. Go to hand 1 and Force Jack to lead the ♠2. Record the score

3. Repeat for the ♥6, ♦10, ♥Q, and ♣J

4. Go to hand 2, hand 3, hand 4, ... and repeat

5. Calculate the total points by summing the scores across each opening lead

6. Divide by 1000 to get the expected value for each lead

 

One quick question:

 

Does Jack permit you to easily run any tests to determine if the results are statistically significant?

[kfgauss]

It wasn't manual at all. Jack has a built in "analyze this situation" button which will deal out 1000 deals consistent with the bidding (and play, though there hadn't been any at this point) and display the expected total point score for each action --i.e. it takes each action on each of the 1000 deals and (using the double dummy result of each lead) averages the total points achieved. This is rather different from having Jack play all the hands -- double dummy is of course quite different. I don't have an easy way of doing what you suggest (it would be very nice to be able to do that though).

 

This feature seems to be one that Jack uses internally to decide how to proceed in various situations (such as bidding "judgement" problems, opening lead problems, much of the play).

 

I haven't really looked around, but I'd be very interested in programs that can do this with more user input (it only uses its definitions for the bids) and also which display the number of times each result was achieved as opposed to the irritating averaging going on. It has no (built-in at least) ability to run tests to see if the results are statistically significant, but I will say that the results rarely change by more than 5 total points from around deal 200 on (you see the results change as it deals more hands -- it takes a minute or two total).

 

One can also run it several times and see if you get roughly the same answer. Here are the results of another run in case that's interesting:

 

♠2 = -387.3

♥6 = -397.2

♦10 = -403.6

♥Q = -406.4

♣J = -414.8

 

I would give another few runs, but it seems to have a random number seeding issue and keeps giving the same results [even if i restart the program]. I've rebooted my computer since my previous post which has apparently reset it, but it'd be an annoyance to do this several times. In any case, these results are fairly close to the original ones and hopefully give you an idea of the accuracy. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like to know.

 

Andy

[mikeh]

I strongly distrust software that purports to evaluate the likely outcome of specific leads against specific contracts. Such simulations are biased by the assumptions made by the programmer. What are the constraints on the 1N bid?

 

What shapes and ranges are used? Merely specifying, for instance, that 1N shows balanced hands with 15-17 comes nowhere close to real life. Some 17 counts are too good for the range. Some 14 counts ought to be included. Some hands with a 5 card major should be included, while others ought to be opened 1 Major. And so on.

 

And for the 3N bidder: what are the parameters for that? And so on.

 

That ignores potentially more important factors. How does the programme assess the play? If it is like deep finesse, then it is hardly appropriate. Many contracts that can be made double dummy are doomed single dummy, and vice versa.

 

I like hand generators for bidding system develoment, but not (at the current state of the art) for play or defence analysis.

[kfgauss]

I strongly distrust software that purports to evaluate the likely outcome of specific leads against specific contracts. Such simulations are biased by the assumptions made by the programmer. What are the constraints on the 1N bid?

 

What shapes and ranges are used? Merely specifying, for instance, that 1N shows balanced hands with 15-17 comes nowhere close to real life. Some 17 counts are too good for the range. Some 14 counts ought to be included. Some hands with a 5 card major should be included, while others ought to be opened 1 Major. And so on.

 

And for the 3N bidder: what are the parameters for that? And so on.

 

That ignores potentially more important factors. How does the programme assess the play? If it is like deep finesse, then it is hardly appropriate. Many contracts that can be made double dummy are doomed single dummy, and vice versa.

 

I like hand generators for bidding system develoment, but not (at the current state of the art) for play or defence analysis.

The definition of the 3N bid is in my first post (top of page 2 of this topic) and is very reasonable, I think. The definition of 1N is simply 15-17 balanced. Perhaps this affects things slightly but I really doubt it's a significant factor here (but who knows, I could be wrong). 1N-3N situations are amongst the easiest to model and I think the data can be quite relevant in such situations.

 

The analysis is double dummy (this is a much more important point than the above I feel). I'm fully aware of the limitations of this analysis, but at least it's clear what it is. I find it fairly interesting that a spade is a better double dummy lead here (assuming you accept the definitions of the bids).

 

Maybe this is an unfair context to put the discussion in, but I'd suggest that if you think a heart is a better lead than a spade that you should really think about and try to explain why one of the following is true (for the sake of discussion & figuring out which is better, not for my sake or because you're required to do so, etc):

 

1) a spade is better than a heart at double dummy, but for these [insert various reasons/factors here] reasons, a heart lead is better than double dummy analysis would suggest when compared to a spade lead.

 

2) against mom & pop, a spade lead is better than a heart lead, but against experts who don't evaluate their hands rigidly and who bid 1N off-shape sometimes, a heart lead has these [insert reasons] advantages over a spade lead.

 

I understand that everyone likes their own judgement, but this doesn't seem to be the sort of hand where our experience is really going to give us good data. We'll recall a couple of hands where leads from the 3-card suit are better pretty strongly -- "wasn't that weird" -- and forget the slightly greater number of times that the spade lead worked perhaps. (If you find this "model" of how so many people came to believe a heart lead is better unrealistic, I'm not actually claiming that it's true -- just putting it up as a type of possibility.)

 

Andy

[mikeh]

I agree with several of your comments, including the danger of relying upon our remembrances of experience.

 

I am still not persuaded, which may be a reflection of stubbornness on my part :P However, I will try to addrsss your questions.

 

There is, for example, an increased tendency for declarer to misread the situation after an ostensibly long suit ♥ lead (I admit that I would prefer to be leading a 2 or a 3, rather than a 6 on this issue). This can result in gains in several ways, including deciding that the outstanding ♥ are 4=4 rather than 5=3, and therefore knocking out a side Ace rather than taking a winning finesse. These marginal gains (if they exist) literally cannot be calculated by your simulation, which plays knowing all of the cards.

 

 

Further, if you lead a ♠, partner, when in, may not know to switch to ♥ when it is correct to do so. This is, again, likely to be a low-frequency cost of a ♠ lead but one that will never be taken into account by your program.

 

 

Another defect in the computer analysis is that it ignores the real world likelihood that a declarer will misguess a suit. This flaw actually strengthens the case for the ♠ lead, since the computer assumes that declarer will always get a 2-way ♥ hook correct, thus to some degree minimizing the real-world cost of a ♥ lead.

 

I am trying to be objective, hence my making this point :D

 

 

To me, however, the worst flaw in your approach arises from the effect of the imp and scoring tables combined with the reality that, at the other table, the auction (and both the contract and the lead) may be different. Thus in some real world situations, your partner may be on lead or the opps may be in an entirely different spot. Not everyone plays the NT range your simulation assumes.

 

Therefore, in the real world, on some of the hands on which the ♠ lead saves points, that savings may be meaningless. If your teammates play, for example, a 13-15 nt range, and the cards are 15 opp 10, your teammates will be in 1N. If they make 150 and your lead lets your opps make 630 rather than 600, you lose the same 10 imps.

 

But if your lead holds them to 8 tricks, then you have won 6 imps. Your simulation cannot consider this, because it assumes identical auctions.

 

What if the 3N bidder held a maximum: a hand that was in your teammate's mind worth 4N. And opener had a max and bid 6N.

 

They go down when the natural ♠ lead leaves declarer misguessing a two way ♥ finesse. They are -100. At your table, your leads result in either -690 or -660. You lose 13 imps either way. How do you account for that in your method?

 

You don't: not because of any fault on your part, but because of the limitations of the method. Your method calculates a cost of 30 points for the ♥ lead. But that 30 points may be meaningless.

 

In the real world, the actual gains from setting a usually making contract are much greater than one would calculate if one assumed that the contract would be the same at the other table.

 

Your analysis assumes that a large number of small gains offsets a small number of big gains. This may or may not be valid, but the analysis depends for its validity upon assumptions as to the contract at the other table. As I hope I have shown, once you try to factor in the reality that the contract may be quite different, without anyone doing anything weird, than your calcualtions may break down.

 

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that in my view a small ♥ is likely to be very slightly better at imps than anything else, bearing in mind that the contract is likely cold :D

[Chamaco]

Expected total points (opps non-vulnerable):

Hi Andy,

thanks for your efforts!

 

All I want to point out is that quantifying cost-benefits in terms of TOTAL POINTS, makes this analysis more suitable for IMPS than pairs.

Needless to say, the difference in analysis IMPS/MP can be substantial.

 

I did argue that I would lead a diamond at PAIRS, but would lead a major at IMPS: and also the small subset of simulations I ran, suggested (to me) that diamond would be equal or less likely to waste a trick than other leads, but that indeed, it was less likely to defeat the contract.

 

The result of your simulations are quite compatible with these observations in my view.

 

It would be interesting to see if Jack can analyze the outcomes in terms of board % at pairs, rather than total points.

 

Finally, one question: did you include 5332 with a 5 card major in the 1NT opener ?

I think this should be accounted for in the analysis.

 

Also, it would be fair to include for the 3NT bidder hands with 4333 with a 4 card major.

 

======================

 

A side note to people who do not like simulations for chosing leads:

I do agree that it's hard to set criteria that will be followed in the real world by all opps.

However, it is reasonable to use some criteria that ill be hpefully followed by the majority of people, and even if the simulations are not perfect, a large number of runs should compensate for the occasional deviations (e.g. offshape 1NT, upgrade/downgrade, etc).

[kfgauss]

Thanks for the interesting points. The two most important ones seem to be:

 

1) On a heart lead, declarer may play for hearts 4-4 instead of taking a finesse and go down

 

2) When the other table is in a different contract, overtricks matter less (or not at all) compared to setting

 

It's hard to think about these and know how large these effects are, but they're well-taken.

 

The second suggests that one should try a double dummy analysis of how often the contract makes on different leads and see how they stack up then. I don't have that capability with Jack but will look around for a program that can do this for me (I really dislike the "expected total points" output). I'm a fan of overtricks, so I'm not so convinced that they're worth so much less than the amount the total points analysis values them (note that they're already undervalued compared to imps playing the same contract at total points), but your 6NT example is good -- certainly a heart is worse then.

 

The first gets at something impossible to get around given double dummy analysis, as you note. Running the sort of test Hrothgar thought I ran (ie having Jack play the hands instead of using double dummy analysis) might help here, but Jack isn't going to be the greatest card player. Some combination of this and the double-dummy analysis (with % making) could be quite good though.

 

I'm not sure I'd give up on the spade lead yet, but I do see some of the things the heart lead has going for it that aren't captured by the analysis using Jack.

 

Andy