jtfanclub Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 Two hands, both times RHO opened 1NT 2nd seat (announced as 15-17) and it was passed out. IMPs, if vulnerability matters please say so. 1. [hv=d=s&s=s9864haq62dq74cqj]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] 2. [hv=d=s&s=s9864haq62dq74cqj]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 spade 4club 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 spade 4club 8 too tough..way too tough for me......well doneI lead:1) 2H2) 3D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 Why "Well done", Mike? At IMPs I lead exactly as you have done. I need to get my long suits working if I am to beat this contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 I agree with Mike's leads. Matt's leads look like he was playing matchpoints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 1) spade2) diamond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 1) spade2) diamond Darn, that's what I would have chosen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 1) spade2) diamond Darn, that's what I would have chosen. hahahaha you suck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codo Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 spade and Diamond too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 ♠ / ♣. I'm in a passive mood this morning :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 Spade and a diamond for me too. I'm much more likely to lead passively against 1NT than against 3NT, but I can't stomach a club on the second hand. BTW, which spade are you (= spadde leaders) leading? Obviously a high spot lets partner know that we don't hold honors in the suit, but it might be important for partner to know that we have 4 of them. I usually lead high (second) from xxxx and low from xxxxx or 10xxx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 If you insist upon "???" as the vulnerability, and IMPs, I lead ♠, ♦. However, this may be a more interesting problem, perhaps, if the vulnerability is white-white, versus MP. Of course, that's not the problem, but I just thought it would be interesting to figure out what hand possibilities partner will have if he passes out 1NT, at least on the first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph23 Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 1. 9 of ♠. I want my partner to figure out to lead a ♥ when he gets in... if I lead a low spade he may get confused. 2. Lowest ♦ on number 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 1. High Spade 2. Low Diamond Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted August 13, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 If you insist upon "???" as the vulnerability, and IMPs, I lead ♠, ♦. However, this may be a more interesting problem, perhaps, if the vulnerability is white-white, versus MP. Of course, that's not the problem, but I just thought it would be interesting to figure out what hand possibilities partner will have if he passes out 1NT, at least on the first. Actually, part of what I'd like to know is if your lead changes if it's all red vs. all white. Assume any standard system for your side that passes most balanced 11 counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 I agree with the majority spade and diamond. And I offer for debate that the same lead should be chosen at imps and matchpoints (against partscores anyway) the vast majority of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 If the right lead depends on the vulnerability, then bridge is too tough a game for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 1. ♠82. ♦3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 What is the attraction of attacking with a diamond on the 2nd hand. Pard has a maximum of a 3-4 count. Our points are well situated behind declarer and they haven't advertised a trick source. A diamond looks rather desparate to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 What is the attraction of attacking with a diamond on the 2nd hand. Pard has a maximum of a 3-4 count. Our points are well situated behind declarer and they haven't advertised a trick source. A diamond looks rather desparate to me. Pard has a minimum of 3-4 points, with less opps would have at least invited game. (OP said RHO opened a 15-17 NT passed out.) I'd not lead a ♣ - that's the lead most prone to kill one of partner's honours. Leading a ♦ might be both active and passive at the same time. Sure it might blow a trick, but any other suit is more prone to blow a trick. And that trick might easily be returned with interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bid_em_up Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 Pard has a maximum of a 3-4 count. Huh? And why is that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 Pard has a maximum of a 3-4 count. Huh? And why is that? I think he's under the misconception that he's defending 3NT, not 1NT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 I agree with the majority spade and diamond. And I offer for debate that the same lead should be chosen at imps and matchpoints (against partscores anyway) the vast majority of the time. 1. Spade2. Diamond I agree with your proposition in certain circumstances. This is one auction where I agree. Against the auction, say, 2NT - 4NT - Pass I may well make a different lead at IMPs and matchpoints. I tend to make fairly aggressive leads against games at matchpoints, on the basis that you don't usually know if you are trying to beat the contract or save the overtricks, so you may as well try and beat the contract which will usually be a good score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 What is the attraction of attacking with a diamond on the 2nd hand. Pard has a maximum of a 3-4 count. Our points are well situated behind declarer and they haven't advertised a trick source. A diamond looks rather desparate to me. Pard has a minimum of 3-4 points, with less opps would have at least invited game. (OP said RHO opened a 15-17 NT passed out.) I'd not lead a ♣ - that's the lead most prone to kill one of partner's honours. Leading a ♦ might be both active and passive at the same time. Sure it might blow a trick, but any other suit is more prone to blow a trick. And that trick might easily be returned with interest. For some reason I thought it was 1N- 3N on the 2nd. I agree a ♦ looks better against 1N. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 The reason for the lead change possibility is not tactics as much as inference. If partner passes out 1NT at MP, NV all, he has a different hand on average than if all V. If we are all NCV, pard has more minor cards than expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.