Leading Aces against small slams

[Trumpace]

This question is for the Advanced/Advanced++ posters. It is in the beginner/int forum as I expect some learning to be done after reading this thread...

 

Question is:

When do you recommend leading Aces against small slams?

 

I know it depends on your hand, bidding so far.

 

Can you please give specific examples and the associated reasoning (this is more what I am looking for) for when and when _not_ to lead Aces against small slams?

 

I am also looking for sort of guiding principles.. For instance something like "if dummy has shown a long suit you might try going active by taking your Ace if in doubt what to lead" etc

 

Sorry for the vague question... Feel free to say why you think this question is stupid too... that will help too :D

 

Thanks.

[mikeh]

This is an excellent question: not the least bit stupid :D

 

I suspect that you will get a number of differing suggestions.

 

One important factor is the form of scoring.

 

If you are playing mps, an overtrick may be horrible. Let's say that the opps had a power auction: say LHO opened and jump rebid in a suit, and responder immediately launched into 4N and, on learning that an Ace was missing, jumped to 6N. Let's also assume that you hold xxx in opener's suit and nothing useful in the suit bid by declarer. Well, they sure sound like they are making and you know from your hand that they are running 6+ tricks in opener's suit and have at least a chance of 4 or 5 in declarer's suit. And when the opps bid so strongly, you can expect that the entire field will be in 6N. Now is the time to forget about trying to beat the contract: take your Ace.

 

If they have a slow, tortured auction to 6N, and/or your hand suggests that cards are not lying well for them, don't lead the Ace: since doing so will probably give them a precious tempo and/or a trick.

 

If they are in a suit contract and you have an unpleasant surprise in store for them in trump, cash your Ace. Beware, however, that if you hold, say, Qxx in a suit in which they rate to have a two-way guess or they have (example) AJxxxx opposite K10x, many declarers will finesse you for the Queen, even holding a 9 card fit because they think that you are more likely to lead an Ace when you hold a trump trick. So if your 'surprise' is Qxx, and there is a chance that dummy holds a top honour, consider the risk of the A trick going away if you do not lead it.

 

At imps, you are less likely to lead the Ace unless you believe that your side has another probable trick somewhere. The lead of the Ace often sets up a winner for the opponents and almost always buys them a tempo. Thus if you hold Qxx in a side suit and partner holds the K, leading the Ace may set up enough tricks for them to pitch their losers in the suit: whereas had you led from the Q, you'd retain the side Ace and be able to cash out when declarer tackled that suit.

 

So the inference that the lead of the Ace suggests a trump trick is even stronger at imps, and you should be aware of it.

 

BTW, there are times when the correct lead is to underlead the Ace!

 

I have seen this several times: the correct time to do it is when dummy has suggested possession of the K.

 

Thus, my first use of this came on an auction in which my competent opponents bid 1N (on my right) 4♣ (ace asking) 4♠ 6N

 

I held the ♦A and knew that my LHO had to have the A or K of each suit, since otherwise he would not have asked for aces. So I led a small ♦ and got lucky in that dummy held KJ and opener xxx. Declarer made the normal misguess and went down several tricks, with 12 winners off the top on any other lead. That was at rubber scoring, and I am not at all sure that the lead was correct at mps. At mps, I think the A would have been better: had dummy held KQ, declarer would have had 13 tricks on a small ♦ lead.

 

I am sure that others will post other good factors to bear in mind, but I hope my suggestions help you.

[han]

In my experience it is more often right to lead an ace against a suited slam then against 6NT.

 

I can't think of anything else to add to Mike's post, which I thought was very good.

[fred]

I thought Mike's post was excellent, but here are a couple of other times in which I would be more inclined than usual to lead an Ace against a slam:

 

- if it sounds like the opponents may have had a bidding misunderstanding

- if you think the opponents might be pushing (because they are losing the match and need a swing for example)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[luke warm]

excellent question and excellent quality in the answers

[Fluffy]

Also lead the ace when they had no option to cue, then partner can have the King.

 

In general leading the ace looks good when each opponent has a long suit (and teh Ace is in a side suit).

 

It is normally very bad when you have another working card (a Q or a K), or the ace is on a long suit of them.

[mikestar]

Also lead the ace when they had no option to cue, then partner can have the King.

 

In general leading the ace looks good when each opponent has a long suit (and teh Ace is in a side suit).

 

It is normally very bad when you have another working card (a Q or a K), or the ace is on a long suit of them.

Agree.

 

Along those line, never lead the ace of trumps. Against a small slam, build up another trick and use the ace as the entry to cash it.

 

Of course, never is a slight overstatement--if there are losers to be ruffed in the dummy and dummy likely has fewer than 4, it may be the winning lead just as against a lower contract.

[cherdano]

It sounds to me like I like ace leads vs small suit slams more than Mike, but of course I am not sure this is right.

 

Generally, it is not urgent to cash the ace when both opponents are balanced. When they are unbalanced, and you have a hope for a slow trick in one of their suits (this could also be shortness in front of dummy's side suit, for example), it can be very urgent. When both dummy and declarer have some moderate length in your ace suit, again it is not urgent to cash the ace.

 

I am probably biased by Blackwood's 400 page book on leads, one of the few bridge books I have read. He makes a strong case in favour of ace leads. He has one example where leader has KQ in one suit and A in another, but from the auction it seems clear to lead the ace (the opponents have a second fit in the KQ suit, so they will score anyway).

 

I am not a fan of ace underleads. A lot has to happen to make it right: king in dummy, queen with partner, jack with dummy or declarer. And sometimes when it is as good as the ace lead double dummy, partner will go wrong because he doesn't expect you to have the ace. (Latest Bridge World's match report has an example where the suit is Axx, x in dummy, Kxxx with partner, and QJTxx with declarer; of course partner of opener leader ducked the underlead.)

 

Arend

[42]

Funny, that this topic arose right now, it is exactly a current problem for me, too.

I had a discussion about that issue with 2 leading German players and they always lead the A against a small slam (it MAY differ, I am not sure, but when we talked it was like a rule). When playing with one of them, I did so with Qxx in trumps and a K in a 3. suit, and it turned out that it gave opps the contract, a passive lead in the 4th suit would have worked fine. I asked if I overlooked something and p said he would have been also leading the A on my place. Perhaps it was unlucky in this case.

Yesterday in a local club (weak field, MP), we had the auction

(3♦) 4♦! (p) 5♦!

(p) 6♥ (p) 6♠.

The lady, who opened 3♦ -she held Jxx, Ax, QJxxxxx, x- lead her single ♣ instead of ♥A: 1 down (leading the A would have been giving us the contract. She said that the A doesn't run away after this auction).