ordinary lead problem

[awm]

Spade lead for me.

 

Sometimes declarer wins, takes a heart finesse, and I score the ♥Q plus a ruff. Maybe he will even figure that "I would never lead a singleton with Qxx of trump" and take a heart finesse even after spade to the ace and a ruff.

 

Frequently on this auction partner has good spades behind dummy's good spades, and I just don't want to give a trick. People bid a lot of games that don't make if you just don't give it to them. :)

[jtfanclub]

x Qxx QTxxx KT87

 

1H p 1S p 3H p 4H p p p. Imps. Your lead.

In my usual idiocy, I lead a spade.

 

Why?

 

Because if I didn't have a Potential heart trick, the spade lead would be obvious. So if I don't lead a spade, it may become obvious that I have a potential heart trick.

 

So I lead a spade, trying my best to look like I don't have the heart queen. Who knows? I may convince them to finesse the hearts the wrong way, especially if a finesse the wrong way would cost an extra trick (say, AJTxxx across Kx). Heck, I had one of those where I led a spade, got a ruff, exited out with some minor suit, and when the opponent drew trumps he took the king and finessed my partner! After all, I must not have the heart Q for my opening lead, so the finesse is an excellent play.

 

Stupid, I know. But at least I'm consistent.

 

Edit: Damn, somebody better than me posted the same logic at the same time.

[whereagles]

Well, I wouldn't lead a spade for 2 reasons:

 

1. Pard prolly has a spade trick, but, unless he has 2, we're just helping out declarer setting up the suit.

 

2. Been having bad results from leading spades on situations like these!!!!!

[kenrexford]

I don't lead against potentially marginal games at IMP's until I predict as much as I can.

 

GENERAL ANALYSIS: 3♥ is a somewhat mild bid. People have a tendency to overbid at IMP's with a GF jump shift into a minor frequently. 3♥ often is of questionable values. Responder often bids game because he feels that he must. He might have made a cue of some variety with extra stuff.

 

SPECIFIC ANALYSIS: I have 7 HCP. It seems fair bet that partner has something like 5-10 HCP's. I'm expecting a spade card as likely. Spades still worry me as a possible ditch source. I think I want to work on clubs.

 

CLUB SUIT ANALYSIS: Partner will likely get in in spades soon enough to continue the club assault. I'll give Declarer the Ace and two more cards in clubs, because I want that, and Dummy three clubs as well, because I want that. If partner has Q-J, nothing I play matters. If partner has just the Q, however, my card might matter. If Declarer has AJx, it looks best to lead the 8 (third best). However, the 8 looks like top of trash. Hopefully partner will work this out if that is my choice3.

 

Maybe, however, Declarer has A9x. In that event, I need to lead the 10, a surrounding play. If I lead the 10, I can still win against AJx if partner has the 9. However, I lose when Declarer has AJ9 or AJx with 9xx in dummy. If I lead the 10 to catch J9x in dummy, we were dead anyway.

 

So, the 3-3 situations of concern are:

 

1. Jxx in dummy, A9x or Axx with Declarer (lead 10)

2. AJ9 with Declarer (lead 8)

3. AJx with Declarer, 9xx on dummy (lead 8)

 

If the Jack is in dummy, then, the 10 wins in two situations concerning the 9 and does not hurt in the remaining (J9x on dummy).

 

If the Jack is with Declarer, then the 10 hurts if Declarer or dummy has the 9, but not if Declarer has it.

 

This seems like 50-50, roughly. So, the question seems to be a pure "where's the Jack?"

 

Well, I want Declarer to have AKJxxx in hearts, Hx in spades, A?x in clubs, and Ax/Kx in diamonds, with Dummy having the other diamond card, nothng in hearts, and a few points in spades. I'm having trouble tossing in the diamond JAck with Opener.

 

So, perhaps because of the auction, I'll decide that Dummy has the club Jack and attack with the club 10.

 

Actually, I really love the surrounding-play opening-lead stories.

[bhall]

The auction suggests that partner holds about 7-9 HCP, split among the off suits. We rate to take about 3 defensive tricks due to our likely favorable high-card positions, and quite possibly a fourth by development.

 

My length in diamonds suggests that this may be opener's short suit, which decreases the odds of developing a trick there. My tenace in clubs suggests that a club lead could blow our control of that suit as often as it develops a trick. All things considered, I would lead a small diamond.

 

This does not appear to be a hand where I need to "get lucky" in order to set the contract. I certainly wouldn't raise an eyebrow if my partner elected to lead an unlucky club, however.

[skjaeran]

I'm a diamond leader here - I mostly agree with Mikeh's analysis.

[ulven]

Spade for me. Garozzo.

[Guest Jlall]

Just for completeness I'll give results. I led a spade (for passivity rather than ruffs). This worked but only for a random reason, dummy was 6241 with S/H/D kings. You need to lead trumps before declarer starts ruffing clubs, and since partner had the AQJ of spades he won the spade lead and shifted to a trump.

[jdonn]

You need to lead trumps before declarer starts ruffing clubs,

Ha!

[nige1]

♠ x ♥ Q x x ♦ Q T x x x ♣ K T 8 7

 

1♥ _P 1♠ _P

3♥ _P 4♥ AP

Imps. Your lead.

IMO ♦ = 10, ♠ = 9, ♥ = 8, ♣ = 6

 

Cards seem to lie badly for declarer, so a passive lead seems best.

 

Any lead may give away a trick but longer suits tend to be safer and ♦ may be OK if partner holds the king or knave.

 

RHO's jump to 3♥ may be predicated on a ♠ fit, so ♠ seem more risky. In favour of a ♠ lead, however, is that partner is marked with values so may be able to give you ruffs. A ♠ has the particular merit of working as the cards lie :blink: Jlall did well to find it :)

[keylime]

My lead agreements mandate a diamond length due to the auction, and the fact that I have a potential trump winner.

 

Additionally, Mike's and bhall's arguments are similar to my views.