pclayton Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 A few interesting decisions from last night. 1. You need 4 tricks from this combination to make your slam: J87 opposite AQ532. Entries are not an issue. How do you play? 2. ♠8xx ♥xx ♦AJTxx ♣Qxx. White / red, you open a featherweight 2♦. P-P-2N on right, 3N on left. Your lead? 3. ♠T9xxx ♥Qxx ♦xxxx ♣J 1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 6♣. Your lead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 1. neat one, I havent seen this before but the jack is right (gains against T/9/6 singleton offside, loses to stiff king anywhere). 2. I would try a spade, partner didn't raise diamonds w/r so it seems unlikely he will have 3 that often (though maybe if this is my style of weak 2 bid he doesn't raise with 3?). Anyways, it would basically come down to how often I think partner could pass with 3. Of the non diamond suits it seems like a major is best, and I lead my longer one for obvious reasons. 3. I would lead a boring spade, they bid all the other suits! lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 1. I look at the opponents' hands first. 2. This is within style for one of my weak twos but I would lead diamonds for much the reason that Justin doesn't. 3. seems close between a heart and a spade. I think I would go with a heart but without confidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jlall Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 btw I just want to add that I see people all the time leading their SHORTER major on hands like hand 2 which is really silly to me. You are already making a surprise attack, and while its true partner will have long hearts more often than long spades, we are a lot more likely to run spades when we do hit his long spades because of our extra spade. You want it to matter when you do hit partner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apollo81 Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 2. Would lead the ♦J at IMPs and a spade at matchpoints.3. Spade Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 1. neat one, I havent seen this before but the jack is right (gains against T/9/6 singleton offside, loses to stiff king anywhere). 2. I would try a spade, partner didn't raise diamonds w/r so it seems unlikely he will have 3 that often (though maybe if this is my style of weak 2 bid he doesn't raise with 3?). Anyways, it would basically come down to how often I think partner could pass with 3. Of the non diamond suits it seems like a major is best, and I lead my longer one for obvious reasons. 3. I would lead a boring spade, they bid all the other suits! lol. Agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 1. J♠. Caters to Justin's holdings. 2. I lead a spade here regardless of scoring. 3. I table a heart here. They have no spade issue by implication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 1. neat one, I havent seen this before but the jack is right (gains against T/9/6 singleton offside, loses to stiff king anywhere). 2. I would try a spade, partner didn't raise diamonds w/r so it seems unlikely he will have 3 that often (though maybe if this is my style of weak 2 bid he doesn't raise with 3?). Anyways, it would basically come down to how often I think partner could pass with 3. Of the non diamond suits it seems like a major is best, and I lead my longer one for obvious reasons. 3. I would lead a boring spade, they bid all the other suits! lol.Agreed. Note that strengthening the AQxxx slam suit to AQ632 would make the A first then low to the Jack better, since it protects against the stiff K and also picks up stiff 9 or 10 on your right. As for the lead from 8xx xx in the majors, Phil gave us the spade 8 for a reason, so I am sure that it is wrong to lead it on the problem as posted, but comfortable that it is the theoretically best lead...altho not by a wide margin. I would be interested in knowing whether a low diamond is statistically better than the 'normal' lead of the J (or the 10 playing Journalist leads), but it is too tough to simulate easily. I'd expect the J to be superior but by how much? My dilemma over that issue is one reason for the spade lead: even if a diamond attack were better, the Jack loses when partner has Qx or 9xx and opener has a 4 card holding while the low is horrific on other holdings, so my guess may backfire anyway. I'd lead a diamond if I knew the holdings and a spade otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pclayton Posted March 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 1. Gnome played this combo. He tried low to the Ace dropping the stiff King offside. We all looked at Suitplay later and determined running the J is better. 2. My opponent held this and led a heart. This wasn't a success as his pard had Jxxx. A spade works well (your pard has AJxxxx and they are 2-2) or a LOW diamond. Declarer (me) had KQ tight opposite 8xxx. 3. I led the pedestrian low spade. $$$ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echognome Posted March 5, 2008 Report Share Posted March 5, 2008 Note that strengthening the AQxxx slam suit to AQ632 would make the A first then low to the Jack better, since it protects against the stiff K and also picks up stiff 9 or 10 on your right. Actually it's a tie with running the J which now picks up either low singleton. Edit: While losing additionally to stiff K onside. (so gains against stiff 4 or 5 off, but loses to stiff K either side for a wash) 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.