Misuse of a golden Lead

[firmit]

Bidding

(1N)-P-(2♣)-(X) clubs, lead against NT

(2♠)-P-(3N])-AP

 

[hv=w=sjxxhxxxdjcaj98xx&s=saxxhqjxxdxxxxckx]266|200|2♣ lead from E[/hv]

 

How to proceed? What does partner hold - or maybe more importantly - what does he NOT hold?

[Codo]

How do you lead from 2 or 3?

If you play 3.5. you are lucky, pd has at least xxx and you have no problem.

But in this case you had not write about this hand.

So pd has

single 2 or X2, with x being 3456 or 7. That leaves declarer with 2 sure spade tricks and you with no high card to gain the lead again after the clubs are cleared.

 

S, I would win the trick and switch to pds suit- Diamonds. He may have up to 8 HCPS, so maybe he has even AQT9xxx and we can beat them by winning the first 7 tricks. Or maybe he has a weaker holding in Diamonds but a high card in Hearts, so that we can win at least 5 tricks on a slower route.

[inquiry]

Can we assume north with ♣QTxx would have redoubled? If so, partner has lead from a three card suit. So now the question is was it from QTx, Qxx, or Txx (he has to have one of the two missing ♣ honors.

 

The correct play with a "thinking" partner in this case is the JACK. If partner has the Qxx you will win all the remaining tricks, as he will unblock the Queen when you cash the ACE. He will also unblock the Ten if the Jack loses to the QUEEN when he gets in and returns the TEN if he had Txx.

 

If partner had the QTx, I would hope he would have started unblocking at trick one, by leading an honor. I can't see playing the 9 or 8 here to cater to that holding.

 

What if North would not have redouubled with four clubs? Hoping for partner to have AQT9xx of ♦ is too big a gamble for me. My partners bid over 1NT with such holding. He has at least 2♥, 2♣, and spades are behaving for him so odds are at least 3♠. Hope looks grim. So I will play partner for 3♣, giving north a not unreasonable 4-3-4-2, and play the JACK anyway.

[kenberg]

Can declarer hold 4-2-5-2? I don't see why not. At any rate, having asked for a club (I'm not so sure I would have done that with my non-existent side entries) I'm not going to get cold feet. I'll put my faith in the club suit and play the J. If partner led from Txx he should have no trouble figuring out, when in with his diamond card, that his next club needs to be the ten. If the deuce is stiff, there is always the next hand.

 

Added: Looking at Ben's post, I had not thought of the QT2 problem. I agree that I would not cater to that, and also that partner should realize the problem and begin the unblock at T1. I think even I would be alert enough to do that.

[Codo]

Why are you two so sure that the 2 is from a three card holding?

I did not read this in firmits question. And if he posseses 3 clubs, what is the correct lead with QTx or Qxx after this bidding? Isn´t it obvious to lead the queen?

 

In which layout could this be wrong? Or do you double with Axxxx and some side values? And with any other holding, from KJxxx upwards, the queen simply solves the problems from pd.

 

So a thinking pd does not owe the queen, not even the ten. And if he has just xxx, any card will be good enough.

 

And about the XX: I play this as to play. And I doubt that QTxx opposite xx qualifies for this risk while a 4 card major fit is still possible. But I agree that we can disagree on this.

[kenberg]

I am by no means confident that partner has led from three. But the deuce is from either 1 or 3, and having doubled the clubs I'll stick with that plan if it has a reasonable shot at being right, as I think it does.

 

As to leading from QT2: Leading the Q could be wrong, but partner's double of 2C has to be based on something and I am not going to chance blocking the suit. I think, on lead, I would lay down the Q. I think.

[inquiry]

I play the redouble as a suggestion to play 2♣XX, not a demand to do so. I have scored a ton of points from 2Cxx over the years. It is one of my favorite contracts. Same as for 1NT-P-2H-X-XX. If they are going to make lead directing doubles, you have to make them pay when you can. Often partner pulls these redoubles. Sometimes the doublers partner pulls to his regret. But you can't play it if you don't redouble when you hold the doubled suit.

 

From QTx, clearly leading Q or T is automatic. From Qxx leading low seems normal to me, as from Txx.

[firmit]

Could someone explain why leading low from Qxx in this hand, knowing partner got some clubs is better than leading the Q?

[Codo]

Could someone explain why leading low from Qxx in this hand, knowing partner got some clubs is better than leading the Q?

No cause there is no reason. :huh:

[kenberg]

Could someone explain why leading low from Qxx in this hand, knowing partner got some clubs is better than leading the Q?

Specifically on this hand? Obviously it isn't. In other circumstances then I guess it depends on the circumstances. Say partner opens 1S, the opponents reach 3N, you are on lead with Qxx. I imagine the x will most often work out. It's true that if the play goes x to an ace and a spade spot back, declarer going up with the king, you will have a decision to make. But if your partner holds, say, the AT9xx of spades and declarer KJx, the lead of the Q gives declarer two stops, the lead of the x (to the ace and then the ten) gives him one.

 

The principle difference is that in the second situation, it can be assumed that the long spade hand has outside entries. This lessens the chance that blocking the suit is fatal, making it more reasonable to play the suit itself to maximize the tricks.

 

In the case at hand, opening leader can probably look at his own high cards and see that, assuming his partner has something in clubs then he can have virtually nothing outside. This does make the lead of the queen more attractive, even form Qxx. From QTx, it seems to make it mandatory.

 

At least this is the sort of thing I take into consideration when choosing the card from Qxx.

[Guest Jlall]

I would never lead the queen, I might lead the ten from QTx though.

[Fluffy]

My only question is... why didn't partner bid 2♦?

[SoTired]

It is a common novice misconception that you are supposed to lead your highest card when leading partner's suit. This is wrong. Too many wasted honors. Only lead an honor when you have a doubleton, or when you have the next lower card.

 

I don't understand the difficulty. Don't tell me you played the ♣A? Or you played the ♣J and partner did not unblock on the ♣A? In either case a mistake was made. The opening lead of low from ♣Qxx was correct.

 

I especially hate it when someone scolds his partner when the partner made the correct play or bid and the someone was the one that made the mistake.

[jdonn]

Could someone explain why leading low from Qxx in this hand, knowing partner got some clubs is better than leading the Q?

No cause there is no reason. ;)

What if we had one club less and declarer had Txx? On a low lead he would probably have played the king in case we doubled with QJ98x and partner had Axx, or at least he might.

[SoTired]

Could someone explain why leading low from Qxx in this hand, knowing partner got some clubs is better than leading the Q?

No cause there is no reason. ;)

Another: What if Dummy had the singleton ♣K and declarer had ♣Txx. Now the ♣Q lead looks really stupid.

[Guest Jlall]

Could someone explain why leading low from Qxx in this hand, knowing partner got some clubs is better than leading the Q?

No cause there is no reason. ;)

Another: What if Dummy had the singleton ♣K and declarer had ♣Txx. Now the ♣Q lead looks really stupid.

Another....declarer has KJx of clubs.

 

Another, partner will misdefend when he thinks you have Qx since he doesn't have the count.

 

Another, declarer has KTxx of clubs and we have AJ98x.

[Finch]

From Qxx or 10xx I would lead a low one, which tells partner I have an honour in the suit (or a singleton).

 

From Q10x on this auction (where declarer may not have a stop at all) I would "like" to lead a low one, but have to lead an honour so as not to block the suit.

 

Personally I would lead the Queen rather than the 10, but either can be right.

 

If they they have no stop in either hand (e.g. dummy has xx or Jxx and partner AKxxxx) and we lead the 10, partner might duck the trick completely to maintain communications which would look very silly.

 

However on this particular layout - dummy having Kx and partner having AJ98x(x) - the 10 from Q10x works better than the Queen. If you lead the Q and declarer plays the King from dummy, partner cannot tell if you have led from Qx (delcarer has 10xx and he should duck) or Q10x (the suit runs). If you lead the 10 and declarer plays the King partner will have to take it to prevent declarer having two tricks in the suit.

[Codo]

I had to learn in this threat that it is common practice to double 2 Club with AT9xx in clubs and out. At least anybody believes that his pd may hold such a hand.

Okay sorry that I was not on this wavelength, but as most posters accept this as normal, it must have some merrits to double this light.

 

And their opps tend to bid 3 NT with a singelton King or with nothing in clubs, hoping that pd as opener has KJxx. Funny game this brigde.

 

If my pds tend to X with a suit of this quality a low lead is mandatory.

I don´t see the point in doubling with AJ98x of clubs and out in front of a strong NT but I am willing to learn. (I would do so with good overall strength and High cards in other suits too, but this was not the case here)

 

If my opps tend to blast 3 NT without a stopper a low lead is mandatory.

But they don´t do this too often, do they?

 

So if you now suggest that dummy has Axx, Kxx JTxx or something like this in clubs, I doubt that the lead of the queen is still as bad as you believe. Or am I wrong again?