Missing QJxx in trumps

[Finch]

We've had a very long thread on playing AKQ9xx opposite xx, and what you should do when the 10 is played on the first round. Here's another such hand.

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=s108642h10d10ca109862&s=sak97haq7dak64c53]133|200|Scoring: XIMP

2NT 3♥

4♦ 4♥

4♠ 4NT

5♦ 6♠[/hv]

 

Teams-of-8 round robin 12 board matches X-imps converted to VPs (Tollemache Cup qualifier)

 

2NT = 20-22

4♦ = non-minimum, diamond side suit (does not deny a club cuebid)

4♥ re-transfer

 

West leads the Jack of spades.

 

You may take the inference that West does not have a singleton club nor KQxx which increases the chance the you don't need two club ruffs in hand.

 

How do you play the spade suit?

 

The actual West is good enough to be in the top 8 players in his county, but has not won much in the way of national events that you are aware of.

 

Does it matter is West is a well-known expert? A bunny?

[dburn]

As a matter of psychology, I prefer not to go down by following a line different from the one I would have followed left to my own devices. If I finesse and that's wrong, team-mates will jeer rather less loudly than if I play for the drop and that's wrong.

[Halo]

Agree with dburn.

 

After a 2NT opening West may be reluctant about non trump leads for perfectly good reasons.

[jvage]

If West was an average player my experience is that this lead is most often an attempt to be clever from QJ (never Jx and rarely a singleton J). This West sounds more than good enough to know that with QJ he is likely to win a trick if he does not lead the suit (if both honours are with declarer), since declarer will follow restricted choice. I think it's closer than the two previous posters, but would probably have finessed, playing the leader for a singleton.

[brianshark]

Finesse has everything going for it really. It's the normal play without the lead and an unusual lead is only more likely to make declarer do something unusual like play for the drop (as evidenced by the existence of this thread).

 

The only other thing of relevence is if West has most of the outstanding values or no attractive lead he may be more likely to want to lead trump regardless. I guess a discovery play might be to play the ♥A and then Q at tricks 2 and 3 (intending to ruff the Q) to see if it's covered. But I can't see it affecting my decision.

[MomoTheDog]

Unless I complete misunderstand the principle, the principle of restricted choice calls for a clear finesse. In the choice of the play of the trumps suit, I think this principle alone should override the playing style of the leader or other psychological aspects.

[mikeh]

I am not sure that the finessers have fully appreciated the folly of the lead of a stiff J. When the trumps are as we have them, it is a 'psychological' ploy. When trump are Q10xxx opposite A9xx or equivalent, it is a disaster: note that we may well be of a keycard on the auction.

 

It is far closer than I think the previous posters have suggested, and I'd like to be at the table (not that my table feel is remotely legendary, at least not in a good way)

 

I'm going to play for the drop... but I wouldn't if LHO had won any nationals.

[bid_em_up]

I am not sure that the finessers have fully appreciated the folly of the lead of a stiff J. When the trumps are as we have them, it is a 'psychological' ploy. When trump are Q10xxx opposite A9xx or equivalent, it is a disaster: note that we may well be of a keycard on the auction.

 

It is far closer than I think the previous posters have suggested, and I'd like to be at the table (not that my table feel is remotely legendary, at least not in a good way)

 

I'm going to play for the drop... but I wouldn't if LHO had won any nationals.

I don't think its close at all.

 

Nothing about this auction (as given, although 4♦ could be a super-accept of spades it is not indicated as being such) gives the leader any indication that declarer has a good spade holding.

 

Assuming West is this good, he will not be leading the J from Jx, nor will he be leading the stiff J as it is too likely to blow a trick in the trump suit.

 

Play for the drop.

[Finch]

Nothing about this auction (as given, although 4♦ could be a super-accept of spades it is not indicated as being such) gives the leader any indication that declarer has a good spade holding.

Sorry, I missed out the fact the 4♦ was not only non-minimum with a diamond side suit but also promised 4-card spade support.

[bid_em_up]

Nothing about this auction (as given, although 4♦ could be a super-accept of spades it is not indicated as being such) gives the leader any indication that declarer has a good spade holding.

Sorry, I missed out the fact the 4♦ was not only non-minimum with a diamond side suit but also promised 4-card spade support.

I still play for the drop. :)

[dburn]

I am not sure that the finessers have fully appreciated the folly of the lead of a stiff J. When the trumps are as we have them, it is a 'psychological' ploy. When trump are Q10xxx opposite A9xx or equivalent, it is a disaster: note that we may well be of a keycard on the auction.

 

It is far closer than I think the previous posters have suggested, and I'd like to be at the table (not that my table feel is remotely legendary, at least not in a good way)

 

I'm going to play for the drop... but I wouldn't if LHO had won any nationals.

I don't think its close at all.

 

Nothing about this auction (as given, although 4♦ could be a super-accept of spades it is not indicated as being such) gives the leader any indication that declarer has a good spade holding.

 

Assuming West is this good, he will not be leading the J from Jx, nor will he be leading the stiff J as it is too likely to blow a trick in the trump suit.

 

Play for the drop.

Technically, the lead of the jack can never actually blow a trick in the trump suit - all it can do is save declarer a guess if she is missing the king and the jack. Some of the time this will not matter if declarer has only a nine-card fit, but it will always be fatal if declarer has a ten-card fit (since then she would lay down the ace if left to her own devices).

 

If for example trumps are as in the example above, declarer might run the queen anyway (this is exactly as good as cashing the ace for the purposes of avoiding a loser). If trumps are slightly weaker, Q9832 facing A764, leading the jack will "blow a trick" in the sense that declarer would otherwise play ace and another.

 

If you believe that West would take these factors into account and, for those and other reasons, lead the jack from QJ twice as often (or more) as he would lead it from the singleton jack, you should play for the drop. If not, you should follow your normal line. From the description Frances gives of this West I cannot tell in what category I would place him.

[Finch]

If you believe that West would take these factors into account and, for those and other reasons, lead the jack from QJ twice as often (or more) as he would lead it from the singleton jack, you should play for the drop. If not, you should follow your normal line. From the description Frances gives of this West I cannot tell in what category I would place him.

This problem actually arose at two tables in our 4-table match. The auction at the other table was not quite the same (2NT - 3H - 4S - 4NT - 5D - 6S) but similar.

 

At one table the opening leader is Peter Lee (who has won a number of major English events). At the other table the opening leader is a Lancashire player called Paul Williams.

[neilkaz]

On this auction, the opps have at least 9 trumps and often 10+.

 

If holding QJ vs 9 trumps is it poor percentage sense to lead the J since declarer can be expected to follow the principle of restricted choice (~65% chance) and will take the losing hook into your hand after dropping your first honor.

 

Lets assume declarer has 10 trumps, if you lead the J from QJ you will get your last trump drawn anyhow assuming declarer has the A and K.

 

What's the possible gain in leading the J from QJ in trumps here on this auction ?

I honestly don't see one, as unless declarer can "read" the defender's "tells" he'll follow restricted choice and you get your trump trick when he has only 9 trumps.

 

However, what possible loss is there in leading the J from QJ vs 9 trumps if one assumes that declarer will always follow restricted choice anyhow ? You still get your trump trick !

 

Now we need to look at the reasons for leading either the stiff J or J from Jx.

 

Can the stiff J blow a trump trick ? Well lets say that PD has Qxx and declarer's A and K are split. Declarer wins in dummy and then hooks PD's queen, but if left to his own devices and having a two way finesse for the missing honor and planning to follow restricted choice, declarer needs to guess whether to play his honor from dummy or the closed hand and may guess wrong.

 

However, on this auction, and noting the the opps didn't ask for the Q of trumps, I think that the opening leader has lead the J since he lacks any attractive lead into the strong 2NT opener and since he feels it is most likely the declarer will have no problems picking up the trump suit. (ie he thinks declarer has 10 trumps or AKQ in posession if only 9 trumps)

 

I'll take the bait and finesse and still think that the opening leader felt that we hand 10 trumps or that we had the Q and 9 trumps and was just trying not to blow a trick with his opening lead. This seems more likely to me than the fact that he may be fooling around with QJ.

 

.. neilkaz ..

[Fluffy]

We can play ♥A+Q to find if west did actually have a lead problem, if he doesn't cover I'd say he was trying to be clever.

[skjaeran]

Unless LHO was a complete bunny I'd always play for the drop, and I don't think it's close. I've seen this jack lead quite a few times, and I'm still waiting for it to be from J or Jx. Being laughed at doesn't bother me at all in these situations, but I'd be insane the day I finessed. Just consider anyone leading the singleton J finding the queen in dummy, partner with an unsupported king and declarer with the ace...

[cherdano]

If you believe that West would take these factors into account and, for those and other reasons, lead the jack from QJ twice as often (or more) as he would lead it from the singleton jack, you should play for the drop. If not, you should follow your normal line. From the description Frances gives of this West I cannot tell in what category I would place him.

I don't understand what you are saying - if West leads the Jack from QJ more often than the Jack singleton (and never leads Jx), then we should play for the drop.

Just in case you were assuming a restricted choice situation (I doubt you did), that seems wrong -- nobody would lead a singleton trump queen against a slam, and so nobody should lead the Q from QJ.

[hatchett]

Agree with the two posters above. In practice the J tends to be fom QJ rather than J. I would play for the drop.

[jdonn]

I think the answer is clear either way, drop vs a strong player, hook vs bunny since they have never heard of this lead from QJ.

[MFA]

I think the answer is clear either way, drop vs a strong player, hook vs bunny since they have never heard of this lead from QJ.

Well, if playing strength is continuously distributed, there must be some point at which you will be in doubt. B)

 

Anyway, I agree with your conclusion.

[dburn]

If you believe that West would take these factors into account and, for those and other reasons, lead the jack from QJ twice as often (or more) as he would lead it from the singleton jack, you should play for the drop. If not, you should follow your normal line. From the description Frances gives of this West I cannot tell in what category I would place him.

This problem actually arose at two tables in our 4-table match. The auction at the other table was not quite the same (2NT - 3H - 4S - 4NT - 5D - 6S) but similar.

 

At one table the opening leader is Peter Lee (who has won a number of major English events). At the other table the opening leader is a Lancashire player called Paul Williams.

Peter Lee is certainly no bunny - I believe he is the only person to have won the title of British national champion at both bridge and chess. If I were to go against my stated policy of following the normal line, he is one of the players against whom I'd do it; the lead of the singleton jack of trumps is not a risk I think he would take very often. I'm afraid I don't know Paul Williams, so I would not vary my play against him.

 

But life is too short. I will finesse on the second round against anyone, and if they got me, they got me. It won't be the first time, nor will it be the last.

[nielsfoged]

I am not sure that the finessers have fully appreciated the folly of the lead of a stiff J. When the trumps are as we have them, it is a 'psychological' ploy. When trump are Q10xxx opposite A9xx or equivalent, it is a disaster: note that we may well be of a keycard on the auction.

 

It is far closer than I think the previous posters have suggested, and I'd like to be at the table (not that my table feel is remotely legendary, at least not in a good way)

 

I'm going to play for the drop... but I wouldn't if LHO had won any nationals.

For once I don't agree completely with you, Mikeh.

 

It seems to be an exceptional good day for a sophisticated LHO to lead a singleton ♠J. At both of the referred tables, the bidding included RKC from Responder (2NT-Opener showing 4 of 5 Aces). Normally, Responder should have (at least) 1 keycard for using RKC. Thus the risk of killing partner's ♠Kx(x) seems almost non-existing.

 

However, I must admit that LHO might reason differently holding the bare ♠QJ: "If I lead another suit than trump, I may unattendly attack a potential entrance on the Table in Trick 1, and thereby make it too difficult/risky for Declarer to play for the restricted choice, since Declarer then will need to draw trumps once (trick 2) to see the honnour from me, and afterwards (Trick 3) must find the entrance on the weaker Table before making the trump-finess. To play on restricted choice may well be fascilitated, if I lead the ♠J".

 

Still, my choice would be to finess the ♠Q against the very best and against all weak opponents, and play for the drop against the rest, even the quite good ones.

 

In the actual game, it would be a finess.

[rfedrick]

For what it's worth (not much, i concede), this hand was played in slam at 3 tables out of 4 in the match between Sussex and Leicestershire, on auctions very similar to the one quoted by Frances (at my table, the auction in fact was identical).

 

all three wests chose the spade Jack; 2 declarers finessed and failed, one banged down two top trumps (without pausing for thought, i'm told), and made six.

 

i finessed, for the reasons eloquently expressed by David Burn. i personally don't think it's very close - the psychological arguments are debatable and certainly not strong enough in my view to overturn 2:1 odds.

[Finch]

Finesse has everything going for it really. It's the normal play without the lead and an unusual lead is only more likely to make declarer do something unusual like play for the drop (as evidenced by the existence of this thread).

 

The only other thing of relevence is if West has most of the outstanding values or no attractive lead he may be more likely to want to lead trump regardless. I guess a discovery play might be to play the ♥A and then Q at tricks 2 and 3 (intending to ruff the Q) to see if it's covered. But I can't see it affecting my decision.

If you planning to finesse anyway, you shouldn't take this discovery play because you will run out of trumps if West has singleton club honour.

[PassedOut]

Interesting thread. I admit I would have finessed and gone down, figuring that the leader had no attractive choice.

 

Interesting to think that the singleton jack lead could be used to talk declarer out of taking the restricted choice play in trumps.

[skjaeran]

Interesting thread. I admit I would have finessed and gone down, figuring that the leader had no attractive choice.

 

Interesting to think that the singleton jack lead could be used to talk declarer out of taking the restricted choice play in trumps.

Have you ever in your life seen anyone lead a singleton jack of trumps vs a slam?

Do you ever expect this to happen?

 

I've never seen it. I never expect to see it either.