Lead problem

[Miron]

[hv=d=n&v=e&s=sa98hak1042d9cj1072]133|100|Scoring: IMP

p - 1NT - p - 2C

p - 2D - p - 3NT

all[/hv]

 

What will be your lead?

As you can assume the low ♥ was wrong. The right one was ♥A. Can you think out that ♥A is better or it just is not better? Does the ♠A help you (partner is very weak, opps 24, you 12, partner max 4)?

[whereagles]

I read somewhere that with AKxxx and no side trick, low is best, to keep communications open. With AKxxx and some side trick, you could try and lead from the top.

[Fluffy]

I always lead low, but I am not very happy with my results.

 

Lead low and you are aiming for only 1 target. Lead the ace and you get a more flexible position. Side entry makes a difference.

[Finch]

I wouldn't have passed over 1NT.

 

With the SA as a sure entry, there's a lot to be said for the HA lead. It may lose out to Qx in partner's hand, but with your minor suit holdings it's not likely that they can run 9 tricks in the minors.

 

In fact, I'm surprised leading low cost the contract, it seems to be a very special layout.

 

(If you play the NA style where A asks for unblock, the King is the correct lead)

[inquiry]

I suspect partner has next to nothing. So i will lead a deceptive ♥2 to give declearer the impression that hearts are dividing favorably for him. Perhaps he has 9 tricks with a hook through partner in diamonds but after the ♥2 he thinks he can safely knock out the spade ace without risking a hook.

[whereagles]

I suspect partner has next to nothing. So i will lead a deceptive ♥2 to give declearer the impression that hearts are dividing favorably for him. Perhaps he has 9 tricks with a hook through partner in diamonds but after the ♥2 he thinks he can safely knock out the spade ace without risking a hook.

Interesting thought, yes. Well done.

[Free]

With a sure entry in ♠, There's no need to lead low imo.

[Finch]

With a sure entry in ♠, There's no need to lead low imo.

It's not quite as simple as that. It's hardly difficult to construct hands where leading low is the only winning action, particularly when missing the H9.

 

The real question is which are more likely: those hands or the ones where leading a top one is right?

[JohnnyH7]

With a sure entry in ♠, There's no need to lead low imo.

It's not quite as simple as that. It's hardly difficult to construct hands where leading low is the only winning action, particularly when missing the H9.

 

The real question is which are more likely: those hands or the ones where leading a top one is right?

Well if you lead a low heart and they win, they might have 5 diamonds 3 clubs and a heart, or they may just have 4 diamond tricks but you get squeezed in three suits on your third discard if an opp has 4 clubs. They also may have 5 diamonds and 2 clubs and a heart but partner just has Qx of clubs, so you again get squeezed. So ace would gain in one of those (not so unlikely) scenarios when they just had Qx/QJ of hearts opp 2 or 3 (not Jxx). Low will gain when partner has Jx/Qx of hearts and dummy has Qxxx/Jxxx AND the opps dont have 9 runners (or 8 runners where you get squeezed). It seems like leading high is percentage.

[bid_em_up]

Holding no side entry, it is probably correct to lead small. However, with the spade Ace, the auction (and your distribution) says:

 

the 2C bidder holds at most 4 spades (they did not transfer or make some form of smolen call after 2D), and the 1N opener holds at most 3 spades, so pard will hold 3+ spades.

 

If the 2C bidder is 4-4 in the majors, it is unlikely to matter what you lead, since your two small heart spots are so poor.

 

If hearts are 3-3 in the opponents hand, it is probably a moot point whether you lead high or low (either way they are likely to have a stopper in the suit), unless partner specifically holds Qx of hearts.

 

From your hand pattern, declarer is likely to hold 5 (possibly 6) diamonds along with his 3 spades, making him a strong contender for holding a doubleton heart.

 

While partner may not hold much, there is just enough room in his hand to hold Jxx of hearts (with declarer or dummy having Qx) or any 4 hearts.

 

Lead the Ace of hearts (or king, whichever your partnership uses for count) and see whats in dummy. This is unlikely to cost a trick, you can always lead small to the next trick or cash the other honor and then lead a third heart giving appropriate suit preference signal depending on the count you received.

 

The only time I can see that this may be negative would be if dummy had Q(J)xxx and declarer holds Q(J)xx, as your spots are so poor you may allow declarer to establish 2 heart tricks with ease. I dont think this is likely to affect the outcome, as leading a small heart would effectively do the same thing. So, cashing a high heart rates to win or break even most of the time, while leading small only wins if partner holds the stiff Q (AND he returns spade AND you find Jxx in opps hand) or if he holds Qx of hearts.

 

Again, jmoo.

[pigpenz]

I suspect partner has next to nothing. So i will lead a deceptive ♥2 to give declearer the impression that hearts are dividing favorably for him. Perhaps he has 9 tricks with a hook through partner in diamonds but after the ♥2 he thinks he can safely knock out the spade ace without risking a hook.

i always lead the smallest too, and when ever it works my partners alway are right there on the spot so say oh, are we leading low from 5 now :)

[mikeh]

I used to always lead low on these hands (leading the 2 on occasion for the deceptive reasons already described) but after a couple of years playing with an excellent partner who routinely led high, I have changed my approach. Obviously, low is correct with no side entry, but here we hold the ♠A.

 

The possession of the 10 is a minor factor that adds to the attractiveness of the high: you no longer have the low frequency but possible holding of Q10x in dummy opposite xx(x).

 

High caters to Qx in either declarer or dummy, and breaks even against some Qx holdings in partner's hand: we will need 3-3 ♥ or opener to have Jx.

 

It also caters to partner holding xxxx or equivalent and breaks even against his Qxx or Qxxx.

 

It loses to stiff Q in partner's hand... especially if declarer holds Jxx :)

 

There may be other situations in which the high lead costs or gains, but these struck me as quite possible, and my gut sense is that those in which high wins are more common than those in which it loses. I'd be interested in some analytical work, especially if we change the ♥ to AKxxx.