When god gives you QJT...

[Guest Jlall]

Axx T9x QJTxx Qx.

 

Imps, 2N on right, 3C on left, 3H on right, 3N on left. Your lead?

[gnasher]

This is quite difficult. Usually against this sort of auction I lead my doubleton to try to find partner's long suit. Having an honour makes this especially attractive: imagine partner with KJ109x and only one entry - Qx will be far more useful than two small.

 

Against that, he didn't double 3♣; maybe he simply didn't think of it, but it's also possible that his clubs aren't that good. In fact, his long suit could be hearts - I have only three of them, so he could have as many as six - and I have a nice sequence to lead from. Still, someone bid hearts, so it's not completely clear.

 

I think I need to have a look at dummy before I decide which rounded suit to play. I lead ♠A.

[Guest Jlall]

This is quite difficult.  Usually against this sort of auction I lead my doubleton to try to find partner's long suit.  Having an honour makes this especially attractive: imagine partner with KJ109x and only one entry - Qx will be far more useful than two small.

 

Against that, he didn't double 3♣; maybe he simply didn't think of it, but it's also possible that his clubs aren't that good.  In fact, his long suit could be hearts - I have only three of them, so he could have as many as six - and I have a nice sequence to lead from.  Still, someone bid hearts, so it's not completely clear.

 

I think I need to have a look at dummy before I decide which rounded suit to play.  I lead ♠A.

Ahh British humour. Is this really so obvious as to warrant all that?

[Guest Jlall]

Also fwiw I did not lead the DQ, and did think a different lead was definitely better (though I've gotten mixed views on this, hence the post).

[gwnn]

... then I lead it?

[P_Marlowe]

... then I lead it?

Yes.

 

In a story involving Kaplan and a sudent, this

was Kaplans advice to the student as he did not

lead from the sequence, although it was KQJ.

 

The next deal they played, the student was again

on lead, looking at the same sequence, but partner

had made an overcall.

The student went with "whn god gives you ...",

it was wrong.

Kaplan nodded and said, "I know how you felt, you

backed the wrong expert."

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: Regarding the lead - the mayors are out, they

hold them, and so is club, given my holding.

What is left?

[1eyedjack]

At the table I would have gone with Diamonds. I reckon that I am more likely to have entry to my Diamonds than partner has entries to his suit, always assuming I guess the alternative correctly, which is far from certain. Underleading the QJT could be right, if either opponent has a 4 card diamond suit and partner has one of AK9.

[whereagles]

Is this a trick question? ♦Q is absolutely obvious.

[gnasher]

Ahh British humour. Is this really so obvious as to warrant all that?

Maybe it was a bit unkind. Here is a more serious response.

 

The only thing one might consider a problem is which diamond to lead. The layouts where a low diamond is necessary are:

- Partner has a singleton king; either I have two entries or declarer needs the extra diamond trick.

- Partner has Hx, the suit is 4-2, ♠A is my only entry, and ♠A gets knocked out before we get a chance to unblock them.

- Dummy has a singleton honour and declarer has H9xx.

and perhaps a few more of the same sort. The possibility of partner having 9x and the suit being 4-2 isn't relevant - even if I lead a low one, declarer can duck the first trick. [Edit: that's true if partner has one of our entries; if I have two, a low diamond lead does gain.]

 

The layouts where a low diamond costs are those where declarer has the A, K and 9 between the two hands, and:

- I have two entries, or

- Partner has one entry and gets in first, or

- Declarer needed ♦9 as his ninth trick

 

It seems to me that the latter set of possibilities is rather more likely. That analysis is, I expect, roughly the analysis that was used when people first determined that the right lead from QJ10xx was the queen.

 

The only other question is whether to lead the standard card or a falsecard such as the jack or 10. The jack might induce declarer to try to block the suit by winning the first trick with Hx opposite H9xx; likewise the ten might do the same against H8 opposite H7xx. However, declarer should reason that in the layouts he's playing for he can achieve the same result by ducking the first trick.

 

In the meantime, there is a risk that a misleading lead will mislead the wrong player. It would be unfortunate if partner were to get in and switch.

Edited May 3, 2008 by gnasher

[whereagles]

It's ok to lead the Q. RHO has at most 3 diamonds and hence the likelyhood there's a block for our side is very small.

[gnasher]

It's ok to lead the Q. RHO has at most 3 diamonds and hence the likelyhood there's a block for our side is very small.

Assuming that 3♣ was Stayman, RHO could be any of 2443, 3442, 2452, 2542.

[gnasher]

The only other question is whether to lead the standard card or a falsecard such as the jack or 10. The jack might induce declarer to try to block the suit by winning the first trick with Hx opposite H9xx; likewise the ten might do the same against H8 opposite H7xx.

I wasn't making much sense here. Assuming that my QJ10xx was QJ1032, Hx opposite H9xx is three diamond stops whatever I do, and if declarer has H8 opposite H7xx all honour leads are equivalent. Hence I can't think of a layout where a falsecard lead gains.

 

This is what comes of trying to analyse a problem that isn't one.

[keylime]

I don't lead a high card in the diamond suit, and lead a club instead per agreements. If forced to, it's a LOW diamond.

[jdonn]

Wow, I totally look forward to hearing why queen of diamonds might not be right. I can't think of any possible reason, but the mind remains open.

[Winstonm]

Of the two choices: Hoping to look brilliant or simply appearing less stupid, I choose appearing less stupid and lead the diamond Q.

[CSGibson]

Q♦ is what I lead at the table. I don't see any inferences from my hand or the bidding to try anything different just because it was posed as a question. After all, I have teammates to answer to, if the obvious defense beats it, then I will take that line unless my "superior" inference and deduction skills say to try it another way.

[cherdano]

Wow, I totally look forward to hearing why queen of diamonds might not be right. I can't think of any possible reason, but the mind remains open.

If I didn't have ♣Q, I might actually lead a low diamond. The reasoning is more or less:

 

If declarer has ♦A,K,9 between him and dummy, we will hardly ever set up diamonds anyway, basically the only case being where the suit is 5332 and parter has 3 (or 5422 obviously but in this case either lead will work). On the other hand, when partner has Hx and the suit is 5422, we need to lead low to unblock.

 

Here with the ♣Q being a possible second entry, and with both their hands sounding balanced the risk of leading low and giving up the 9th trick seem a little too big.

[neilkaz]

We have 9 HCP, we have to assume that PD has 5 or 6 or we aren't likely to beat this. Perhaps he has 4 and the right stuff in D. Anyhow, I doubt the Q of ♣ can do any good even if it catches PD with ♣ since he's most unlikely to have enough strength in ♣ to matter and an outside entry.

 

I have an outside entry, I'll clearly lead my Q of ♦ as it is also not very likely to blow a trick (sometimes declarer has only 7 or 8 easy tricks, once in a while he'll missguess and hook into my Q of ♣ etc.

 

If someone can convince me that on this auction, another lead has better chances than the Q of ♦, I remain open to learning, but honestly, my Q of ♦ is hitting the table quickly here.

[jdonn]

Wow, I totally look forward to hearing why queen of diamonds might not be right. I can't think of any possible reason, but the mind remains open.

If I didn't have ♣Q, I might actually lead a low diamond. The reasoning is more or less:

 

If declarer has ♦A,K,9 between him and dummy, we will hardly ever set up diamonds anyway, basically the only case being where the suit is 5332 and parter has 3 (or 5422 obviously but in this case either lead will work). On the other hand, when partner has Hx and the suit is 5422, we need to lead low to unblock.

 

Here with the ♣Q being a possible second entry, and with both their hands sounding balanced the risk of leading low and giving up the 9th trick seem a little too big.

I hear reasoning like this a lot. Aside from that I don't see why 3-3-2 with partner having 3 is at all unlikely, I think this starts with the faulty premise that if we don't set up diamonds we can't set them. We have good defense and they could just be down always, why can't a low diamond lead be giving up trick 9 in a silly fashion? And all to cater to partner having specific doubletons with the suit 4-2 or 2-4 in the other hand, it has always seemed like a big reach to me.

[han]

I lead the diamond queen. Oh, and this:

 

3. Do not vainly use the name of your God.

[Guest Jlall]

Ahh British humour. Is this really so obvious as to warrant all that?

Maybe it was a bit unkind. Here is a more serious response.

 

The only thing one might consider a problem is which diamond to lead. The layouts where a low diamond is necessary are:

- Partner has a singleton king; either I have two entries or declarer needs the extra diamond trick.

- Partner has Hx, the suit is 4-2, ♠A is my only entry, and ♠A gets knocked out before we get a chance to unblock them.

- Dummy has a singleton honour and declarer has H9xx.

and perhaps a few more of the same sort. The possibility of partner having 9x and the suit being 4-2 isn't relevant - even if I lead a low one, declarer can duck the first trick. [Edit: that's true if partner has one of our entries; if I have two, a low diamond lead does gain.]

 

The layouts where a low diamond costs are those where declarer has the A, K and 9 between the two hands, and:

- I have two entries, or

- Partner has one entry and gets in first, or

- Declarer needed ♦9 as his ninth trick

 

It seems to me that the latter set of possibilities is rather more likely. That analysis is, I expect, roughly the analysis that was used when people first determined that the right lead from QJ10xx was the queen.

 

The only other question is whether to lead the standard card or a falsecard such as the jack or 10. The jack might induce declarer to try to block the suit by winning the first trick with Hx opposite H9xx; likewise the ten might do the same against H8 opposite H7xx. However, declarer should reason that in the layouts he's playing for he can achieve the same result by ducking the first trick.

 

In the meantime, there is a risk that a misleading lead will mislead the wrong player. It would be unfortunate if partner were to get in and switch.

Doesn't this analysis totally ignore that by far the most likely case of beating this contract is when partner does in fact have a diamond honor? In other words the specific case where partner has Hx and one opp has 4 diamonds or pard has 9x+ and we lead the Q is far more likely to cost the contract than any other case that you mentioned?

[cherdano]

Wow, I totally look forward to hearing why queen of diamonds might not be right. I can't think of any possible reason, but the mind remains open.

If I didn't have ♣Q, I might actually lead a low diamond. The reasoning is more or less:

 

If declarer has ♦A,K,9 between him and dummy, we will hardly ever set up diamonds anyway, basically the only case being where the suit is 5332 and parter has 3 (or 5422 obviously but in this case either lead will work). On the other hand, when partner has Hx and the suit is 5422, we need to lead low to unblock.

 

Here with the ♣Q being a possible second entry, and with both their hands sounding balanced the risk of leading low and giving up the 9th trick seem a little too big.

I hear reasoning like this a lot. Aside from that I don't see why 3-3-2 with partner having 3 is at all unlikely, I think this starts with the faulty premise that if we don't set up diamonds we can't set them. We have good defense and they could just be down always, why can't a low diamond lead be giving up trick 9 in a silly fashion? And all to cater to partner having specific doubletons with the suit 4-2 or 2-4 in the other hand, it has always seemed like a big reach to me.

In the situation with partner having xxx, he also needs to have an entry, and declarer has to misguess to give partner his entry before I get the ♠A.

[Guest Jlall]

Wow, I totally look forward to hearing why queen of diamonds might not be right. I can't think of any possible reason, but the mind remains open.

If I didn't have ♣Q, I might actually lead a low diamond. The reasoning is more or less:

 

If declarer has ♦A,K,9 between him and dummy, we will hardly ever set up diamonds anyway, basically the only case being where the suit is 5332 and parter has 3 (or 5422 obviously but in this case either lead will work). On the other hand, when partner has Hx and the suit is 5422, we need to lead low to unblock.

 

Here with the ♣Q being a possible second entry, and with both their hands sounding balanced the risk of leading low and giving up the 9th trick seem a little too big.

I hear reasoning like this a lot. Aside from that I don't see why 3-3-2 with partner having 3 is at all unlikely, I think this starts with the faulty premise that if we don't set up diamonds we can't set them. We have good defense and they could just be down always, why can't a low diamond lead be giving up trick 9 in a silly fashion? And all to cater to partner having specific doubletons with the suit 4-2 or 2-4 in the other hand, it has always seemed like a big reach to me.

Don't you think it's true that if we can set up diamonds we are very likely to set them, and we are not that likely to set them if we cant? Sure you put all your eggs in the diamond basket when it might not be necessary, but the diamond basket looks by far like the best shot.

[jdonn]

Wow, I totally look forward to hearing why queen of diamonds might not be right. I can't think of any possible reason, but the mind remains open.

If I didn't have ♣Q, I might actually lead a low diamond. The reasoning is more or less:

 

If declarer has ♦A,K,9 between him and dummy, we will hardly ever set up diamonds anyway, basically the only case being where the suit is 5332 and parter has 3 (or 5422 obviously but in this case either lead will work). On the other hand, when partner has Hx and the suit is 5422, we need to lead low to unblock.

 

Here with the ♣Q being a possible second entry, and with both their hands sounding balanced the risk of leading low and giving up the 9th trick seem a little too big.

I hear reasoning like this a lot. Aside from that I don't see why 3-3-2 with partner having 3 is at all unlikely, I think this starts with the faulty premise that if we don't set up diamonds we can't set them. We have good defense and they could just be down always, why can't a low diamond lead be giving up trick 9 in a silly fashion? And all to cater to partner having specific doubletons with the suit 4-2 or 2-4 in the other hand, it has always seemed like a big reach to me.

Don't you think it's true that if we can set up diamonds we are very likely to set them, and we are not that likely to set them if we cant? Sure you put all your eggs in the diamond basket when it might not be necessary, but the diamond basket looks by far like the best shot.

But the diamond queen lead sets up diamonds many/most of the times you need to set up diamonds anyway, so it's not like you are anywhere near giving up on that chance.

 

I'm not sure how to quantify it other than my gut, but I think they will be down a fair amount of the time even if we can't set up and run diamonds. Maybe 1 in 5 or so?

 

I actually think this would be a good hand for a sim. Despite my arguing I wouldn't be altogether surprised to be proven wrong by one. It would be eye-opening for me anyway.

[Guest Jlall]

Wow, I totally look forward to hearing why queen of diamonds might not be right. I can't think of any possible reason, but the mind remains open.

If I didn't have ♣Q, I might actually lead a low diamond. The reasoning is more or less:

 

If declarer has ♦A,K,9 between him and dummy, we will hardly ever set up diamonds anyway, basically the only case being where the suit is 5332 and parter has 3 (or 5422 obviously but in this case either lead will work). On the other hand, when partner has Hx and the suit is 5422, we need to lead low to unblock.

 

Here with the ♣Q being a possible second entry, and with both their hands sounding balanced the risk of leading low and giving up the 9th trick seem a little too big.

I hear reasoning like this a lot. Aside from that I don't see why 3-3-2 with partner having 3 is at all unlikely, I think this starts with the faulty premise that if we don't set up diamonds we can't set them. We have good defense and they could just be down always, why can't a low diamond lead be giving up trick 9 in a silly fashion? And all to cater to partner having specific doubletons with the suit 4-2 or 2-4 in the other hand, it has always seemed like a big reach to me.

Don't you think it's true that if we can set up diamonds we are very likely to set them, and we are not that likely to set them if we cant? Sure you put all your eggs in the diamond basket when it might not be necessary, but the diamond basket looks by far like the best shot.

But the diamond queen lead sets up diamonds many/most of the times you need to set up diamonds anyway, so it's not like you are anywhere near giving up on that chance.

 

I'm not sure how to quantify it other than my gut, but I think they will be down a fair amount of the time even if we can't set up and run diamonds. Maybe 1 in 5 or so?

 

I actually think this would be a good hand for a sim.

I've been trying to find a simulator for like the last 30 minutes and the few I did find that didnt require me to compile the code myself (sorry if this is really easy but it sounds really hard) etc were not compatible with vista (or they were and I messed up).