Simple auction, simple lead?

[cherdano]

[hv=d=w&v=n&s=sqj6h42daj97ca876]133|100|Scoring: IMP

1♣-1♥-3♣-3NT[/hv]

[mike777]

D nine

 

from longest and strongest.

P figures to only have 2 or 3 hcp, need less D help

Lead the nine just in case I need the 7 as a late entry into partner's hand.

[kenrexford]

Sexier to lead the diamond Jack. Why? I love surrounding plays. Especially on opening lead. Better story over scotch.

[benlessard]

They probably have all the tricks they need. But they need to kick the A♣.

 

 

So you need to find partner 5 card suit headed by an honor.

 

 

9♦ will work when partner have 5d headed by the K or Q + the T or 8.

 

Q♠ will work when hes got Kxxxx.

 

 

But the best lead take of both combination.

 

 

A♦ !!

 

 

Only case when it backfire.

 

 

They have 5h trick.

3D beacause of your lead

and 1S.

 

(leading ♠ would work but leading ♦ fail anyway)

 

 

The A♦ lead is best and its not close.

 

 

 

Ben

[pbleighton]

D7, because it is the obvious lead, and I tend to make obvious leads :lol:

 

SQ second choice. Pd has at least 3, and probably 4+ spades.

 

Peter

[awm]

Even if partner has five spades to the king, declarer can just hold up twice. In this case there's a good chance spade king is the only card in partner's hand and we're probably not setting.

 

Leading the diamond ace will help declarer in many situations. For example, suppose declarer has ♦QTx and dummy has two small. Leading low diamond sets the contract off the top, but diamond ace gives declarer a stopper so we can take only three diamonds and the club ace. Even if declarer has ♦KQx, we may set on a low diamond lead if partner has a side entry (say ♣Q or ♠A or ♥A). A diamond ace lead again gives declarer two sure stoppers.

 

The 3NT bidder could have bid a second suit over 3♣, so seems likely to have some sort of stoppers in the pointed suits. This makes it fairly likely that partner actually has a heart card, and in fact I sometimes like to lead hearts on this auction. In this case our hand is too strong to think we will set by leading heart, but it's not unlikely that partner's one high card is a top heart. In this case attacking spades is pretty much hopeless, but attacking diamonds might still set if partner's heart serves as an entry to play the suit back.

 

So the question is which diamond to lead? We need partner to have something in diamonds for this lead to work; either the king, queen, or ten will do. The ♦A has all the problems mentioned earlier. The ♦J can work as a surrounding play, but this is only really true when dummy has the ♦Q and partner has the ♦K (and declarer the ten). This seems a fairly unlikely position, especially since the 3NT bidder rates to have something in diamonds. On the other hand, the jack lead fails when declarer has ♦QTx (and partner the king) or when dummy has the ten and declarer the queen. I'll go with a low diamond.

[benlessard]

Leading the diamond ace will help declarer in many situations. For example, suppose declarer has ♦QTx and dummy has two small. Leading low diamond sets the contract off the top, but diamond ace gives declarer a stopper so we can take only three diamonds and the club ace. Even if declarer has ♦KQx, we may set on a low diamond lead if partner has a side entry (say ♣Q or ♠A or ♥A ). A diamond ace lead again gives declarer two sure stoppers.

 

 

This is much more improbable then finding partner with

 

♠Kxxxxx or

♠Kxxxx with ♠Ax for declarer.

or rarely

with

♠Axxxxx

♠Axxxx

 

 

Q♣ singleton and QTx facing xx are specific holdings dont count on them too much.

 

If declarer has KQx♦ your chance of defeating the contract are quite slim if you lead low ♦. Declarer will bumb your A♣ and be able to keep your partner off the lead most of the time.

 

 

IMHO the chances of defeating this contract are not good if partner doesnt have a 5 card suit (partner will need a side trick entry or ♦Kxxx)

 

Caring for the possibility of partner having 5 or 6♠ by a K or (rarely A ) seems better.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ben

[HeartA]

♠Q

[han]

The ♠Q is sooo bad, do that once with a good partner and you'll have to look for a new partner.

 

 

 

Just kidding, I was the partner and Arend lead the ♠Q.

 

[MickyB]

Ok, I'll bite...

 

What is Luis's Law?

[cherdano]

Ok, I'll bite...

 

What is Luis's Law?

Luis hates leading from Axxx vs NT (and I am sure almost all experts would agree that absent other information, you would rather lead from Kxxx than Axxx). Of course, it's a lot different from AJ9x.

Anyway, I think here you really have a lot of information, and one should really try to work out what is the percentage lead (rather than follow general rules).

 

Arend

[cherdano]

I think this hand is more interesting than the discussion has made it so far. First, I disagree with Adam's implicit claim that partner probably has just one honor. I think on this auction opponents will often be in a 23 hcp 3NT.

 

Let's see: if partner has only one honor we can only beat this if this is

1. ♦K and we can take 4 top tricks there (lead doesn't matter)

2. ♦Q with a 5cd diamond suit (need ♦ lead)

3. ♥A and opponent's having only one ♦ stopper if partner leads diamonds through the second time (need ♦ lead)

4. ♠A and a layout so that we can develop 3 spade tricks: ATxx or Axxx with spades 3-3 (need ♠ lead)

5. ♠K when partner has ♠KTxxx and ♦T so he can lead a ♦ through after overtaking the second spade (need ♠ lead, but this will be rare)

 

For 2. or 3., we have to lead a ♦. Adam's construction 3. doesn't work with a lesser heart honor than the ♥A, because otherwise declarer will have 5♣+1♦+1♥+2♠ tricks, making.

 

What if partner has two useful honors? If he has two heart honors, it probably doesn't matter which pointed suit we lead. If he has a spade and a heart honor, a spade lead looks better (hoping for 2 spade tricks, one heart trick, and the two aces). If he has a diamond and a heart honor, a diamond lead is probably more often better (but not always -- give declarer ♦Kxx, partner ♦Qxxx, ♠Txx and ♥K and a passive spade beats it, while a diamond gives declarer his 9th trick).

 

If partner has a spade and a diamond honor, it is more often right to work on spades first, so that partner can hopefully play diamonds from the ♦Q through later (sometimes after overtaking the second spade to counter a 2nd duck from declarer); if partner's diamond honor is the ♦K the lead shouldn't matter.

 

Yes I led a high spade, and if I had to make a bet I would still think it's a little better (assuming you trust your and partner's defense later to find the right shifts). Of course at the table I didn't think about all of this, I just thought that catching partner with a 4-card spade suit we can develop would be enough, while catching him with 4 diamonds would not be without another trick (unless it's ♦Kxxx, in which case we can still take our ♦ tricks later).

 

Arend

[benlessard]

I think on this auction opponents will often be in a 23 hcp 3NT.

 

 

Yes I led a high spade, and if I had to make a bet I would still think it's a little better

 

 

 

Sorry to tell you that i think you would loose a lot of money if you keep making bet like this.

 

 

3clubs tend to show at least 17 HCP (especially if made with a 6 card suit) because with a less pts and a more distributionnal hand most decent player will make a simple 2 clubs rebid (wich doesnt show a minimum hand by the way).

 

 

The 3nt bid cant really be weakish. Because its show ♦♠ stoppers and the odds are that he has an heart honnor.

 

 

 

Unless West is a known overbidder playing partner for more then 4 HCP is dubious.

 

Odds are that you have no way of settings this contract.

 

 

 

Ben

[Guest Jlall]

I'd lead a diamond with the goal of taking 4 diamonds and a club. Seems like the easiest way to set them.

[joshs]

I need partner to have either:

a. DK and declarer has only 3 of them (almost any reasonable lead works)

b. D KTx or better (almost any reasonable lead works)

c. D Qxx or Txx (or better) and a major suit ace (need to lead a diamond, or the correct major)

d. SK and Kx Qx of diamonds (lead a spade)

e. D KX and spade K (spades)

f. Major suit ace and Qx of diamonds (either diamonds or the major, partner might need to lead a low diamond back in some lies if trick 1 went to his major suit ace)

 

(I am ignoring the possibility that partner has a club trick but thats also possible)

 

It seems like leading a spade, and switching later to diamonds is slightly better than leading diamonds from the go.

[mikeh]

I almost always lead the ♠Q in this kind of situation.

 

I control ♣, and I can always find the ♦ switch later. Of course, that switch may well be too late: but it will usually be in time of partner holds the K.

 

By contrast, a ♦ lead puts all of my eggs in one basket. The chances of the layout being such that a winning ♠ switch is possible are remote.

 

Leading a ♦ means, essentially, that we are playing for 4 tricks in the suit: declarer will be running 5 or 6♣ tricks and will surely have 3 or 4 tricks in the side suits.

 

We can run 4♦ tricks if partner has 5, and the suit lies appropriately, or if partner holds the K and sufficient length. We may also have 4 ♦ tricks if dummy holds the stiff K and partner holds Qxx(x) so long as we crash the K. However, leading the A is silly (imho).

 

Leading a ♠ preserves many (but obviously far from all) of the ♦ chances while adding the element of the ♠ suit. Note that we may not need to run ♠: if declarer has Axx and partner Kxxxx, declarer can certainly hold off, but then we switch, having 2 tricks in the bank that we could not otherwise have taken.

 

I don't feel strongly and unfortunately this type of situation cannot really be simulated. There are too many variables about both 3♣ and 3N. Thus one poster thinks that 3♣ shows 17 hcp... I sure don't: a very good 15 would be all I'd need (altho I would not refuse to bid if I held 17 :rolleyes: ). And 3N sure doesn't promise solid stoppers in the unbids: thus my example of stiff ♦K in dummy: surely we'd all consider 10xxx as an adequate ♦ holding for 3N if we were Axx KQxx 10xxx xx?

 

If I led a ♦, it would be the 7: the honour leads are just plain bad bridge and the 9 is too confusing.