Your lead

[Finch]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sj9h742dj852cq962]133|100|Scoring: IMP

2♣ 3♦ P P

x all pass[/hv]

 

Your pass over 3♦ = a negative or penalties (double would be values)

Partner's double = strong balanced

[TylerE]

I lead trumps against doubled part scores unless I have a compelling reason not to.

[Hanoi5]

Isn't losing a trick in such suit a compelling reason? I usually lead a suit where I think I can get declarer to trump when I have a trump stack (Jxxx is probably not a stack and neither is Kxxx as I found out yesterday, but still).

[gnasher]

I lead a club. By leading the suit in which we have an honour, we reduce the risk of blowing one of partner's tricks.

 

A trump lead seems particularly pointless. Which suit do we think dummy is going to be ruffing, and with what?

[mtvesuvius]

6 of ♣. Any other lead will probably blow one of partner's tricks, and a trump is very rarely right.

[jdonn]

I would lead a spade, even with a 'sure trump trick' I would love to get a ruff or two, or exert pressure on declarer by leading suits through him that I can overruff.

[Apollo81]

Agree with spade lead; also since it's J9 it might just be the best lead to promote high cards even if it doesnt get us ruffs.

[mikeh]

Club

 

least likely to cost a trick or a tempo...

[Codo]

Spade, second choice club. If a black suit is forbidden, I lead a heart. Diamond is plain silly.

Why should I give two trumps for one from declarer?

Dummy rates to have at most one trump, so I do not fear many ruffs in the short trump hand.

[Fluffy]

if declarer's got ♠K I think we will have to give it to him sooner or later, however, the ♣K is doubleton we might be able to prevent him from collecting it. That's why I lead a spade.

[Phil]

I lead trumps against doubled part scores unless I have a compelling reason not to.

Is a compelling reason a trump void in dummy?

 

I don't like the spade lead. It's a crap shoot on whether or not the spades we ruff are tricks we would have otherwise made.

 

I'm leading a club.

[fred]

Maybe I woke up in an alternate universe today...

 

If you are really concerned about not blowing a trick, isn't a heart lead obvious (and isn't a club lead absurd)?

 

Anyways, I would not be concerned about that - I would be thrilled to lead the Jack of spades.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mikeh]

I usually find myself agreeing with Fred, and disagreeing with him on bridge issues is a tough way to earn a living, literally or metaphorically. But here... partner holds, ostensibly, a balanced 22+. He won't be loaded in diamonds...I would expect an honour, but not two. Declarer will have limited entries to dummy... any side suit honours in his hand will be promoted by our leading the suit.

 

I would expect the opps to hold (potentially useful) side values in hearts, spades, and clubs in descending order .. in the inverse order to which we hold assets/length.

 

So I rank the leads as :trump: silly, heart: almost as silly: spade and club tossup with slight edge to club.

 

I do see the spade as being the one with the higher upside, but also the greater downside. When I do this lead, dummy has Q10xxx, partner Kxxx and declarer Ax.. and our lead costs an immediate trick while affording a possibly useful entry to dummy. Yes, I realize that clubs are not a sure thing either :)

[jdonn]

Sure Mike anything is possible, but you are giving

 

- Partner 33% of the missing high cards in spades, and thus (let's say giving him the king only in diamonds) AT LEAST 89% of the high cards in hearts and clubs.

- The preempter an ace

- Dummy instead of partner the key ten

 

I don't think your layout is very representative of what to expect.

[fred]

I usually find myself agreeing with Fred, and disagreeing with him on bridge issues is a tough way to earn a living, literally or metaphorically. But here... partner holds, ostensibly, a balanced 22+. He won't be loaded in diamonds...I would expect an honour, but not two. Declarer will have limited entries to dummy... any side suit honours in his hand will be promoted by our leading the suit.

 

I would expect the opps to hold (potentially useful) side values in hearts, spades, and clubs in descending order .. in the inverse order to which we hold assets/length.

 

So I rank the leads as :trump: silly, heart: almost as silly: spade and club tossup with slight edge to club.

 

I do see the spade as being the one with the higher upside, but also the greater downside. When I do this lead, dummy has Q10xxx, partner Kxxx and declarer Ax.. and our lead costs an immediate trick while affording a possibly useful entry to dummy. Yes, I realize that clubs are not a sure thing either :)

Hi Mike,

 

I don't think it is at all likely that partner has "only a King" in any of the 3 side suits. Even if his only high card in spades is the King, maybe dummy has the Ace or maybe partner has the 10 or...

 

But if he can have only a King in spades, he can also have only a King in clubs. Maybe declarer has AJx opposite 10xx in clubs. Obviously it doesn't matter which hand has which holding - a club lead blows a trick. Then there are club layouts like King in dummy and Jack in declarer's hand and King in dummy with 109x in declarer's hand.

 

Of course it is possible to think of other layouts where either a spade lead or a club lead blows a trick. Really I am not trying to demonstrate why I think a spade lead is less likely to blow a trick than a club lead (even though I think this is probably true). As I said, I would not concern myself with blowing a trick.

 

IMO the chances of establishing a position whereby partner can lead spade winners through declarer are quite good and the upside so high that (as I said) I would be really thrilled to lead a spade.

 

I tend to be a cautious player, but on hands like this (where setting the contract is not something I would be concerned about) my style is to go for the big number.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kgr]

I did setup a deal profile in Jack with bidding and with given cards for opening leader.

I dealt a deal and Jack did bid as requested in the deal profile, so contract was 3Dx.

Analyse position for lead:

♠J: -17.5

♥4: -44.0

♠9: -48.6

♣2: -53.4

♦5: -191.6

- I'm not sure how this works and what Jack uses for possible deals for this bidding (maybe does does not correspond to biddigns we would do).

- It seems like the exxpected score for this deal is negative for us.

[kgr]

I would have lead a ♦ here.

If anyone could explain when a trump lead is good against low level DBLed contracts (I thought most of the time) and why it is bad here that could be very usefull.

...Is reason that partner promised a balanced hand and therefor dummy will probably also be balanced and not much trump possibilities?

[Fluffy]

trump is normally good to prevent ruffs in dummy, here dummy is void in trumps.

[mtvesuvius]

I would have lead a ♦ here.

If anyone could explain when a trump lead is good against low level DBLed contracts (I thought most of the time) and why it is bad here that could be very usefull.

...Is reason that partner promised a balanced hand and therefor dummy will probably also be balanced and not much trump possibilities?

It is bad here because you are finessing partner's trumps. Dummy has a singleton or void in ♦ and no entry. Opposite almost any ♦ holding from partner, a ♦ lead will give up a trick.

[nige1]

[hv=d=n&v=n&s=sj9h742dj852cq962]133|100|Scoring: IMP

2♣ 3♦ P P

x all pass

Your pass over 3♦ = a negative or penalties (double would be values)

Partner's double = strong balanced[/hv]

IMO ♠J = 10, ♣x = 8, ♥ = 5, ♦ = 1

At the table, I confess that I might have led a ♣ but the expert arguments have convinced me that a ♠ is better.

[mikeh]

I did setup a deal profile in Jack with bidding and with given cards for opening leader.

I dealt a deal and Jack did bid as requested in the deal profile, so contract was 3Dx.

Analyse position for lead:

♠J: -17.5

♥4: -44.0

♠9: -48.6

♣2: -53.4

♦5: -191.6

- I'm not sure how this works and what Jack uses for possible deals for this bidding (maybe does does not correspond to biddigns we would do).

- It seems like the exxpected score for this deal is negative for us.

if your constraints resulted in, on average, a minus score, I suggest that something is very wrong with either or both your constraints or the program that did the analysis

[nige1]

I did setup a deal profile in Jack with bidding and with given cards for opening leader.

I dealt a deal and Jack did bid as requested in the deal profile, so contract was 3Dx.

Analyse position for lead:

♠J: -17.5

♥4: -44.0

♠9: -48.6

♣2: -53.4

♦5: -191.6

- I'm not sure how this works and what Jack uses for possible deals for this bidding (maybe does does not correspond to biddigns we would do).

- It seems like the exxpected score for this deal is negative for us.

if your constraints resulted in, on average, a minus score, I suggest that something is very wrong with either or both your constraints or the program that did the analysis

Perhaps, because the expected score from 3♦X is less than the score of a game for us. Unfortunagtely, opponent's pre-empt deprives us of the bidding space to find the right game, so we do the best we can in the circumstances.

[dburn]

I would lead a spade. After all, if I blow a trick in spades I may get it back by scoring the eight of diamonds on a promotion.

 

If you told me I could not lead a spade, I would lead a heart. If you told me I could not lead either major, I would bid 3NT.

[y66]

Anything but a diamond.

 

Per 500 deal simulation, expected results in descending order are

H2 555

H4 555

H7 555

 

SJ 553

S9 551

 

C2 551

C6 551

C9 550

CQ 548

 

D2 424

D5 424

D8 369

DJ 163

In this sample, a spade lead produced 1100 slightly more often than other leads (23 times out of 500 vs 19 times for heart leads and 17 times for club leads). But it also produced more 100s and 300s at the other end of the histogram. And in one case, a spade lead let them make 3DX when North had AK4 AKQT 64 AKJ4 and East had Q8632 8 AKQT973 --.

 

Simulation specs:

 

North: balanced, 22-24

East: 7 diamonds (can't have 8)

South: as given

West: the rest

 

Hands generated by Jack. Leads analyzed using PM Cronje's and Bo Haglund's Double Dummy software,

[Finch]

I think some of these simulations are a bit off.

East only had 6 diamonds, and the 3D overcall was found at both tables.

(Edit: may I should have mentioned that the overcaller is a junior, and team-mate at the other table is a 64-year-old junior-at-heart)

 

The good news is that, on the actual hand, any lead except for the obviously insane jack of diamonds leads to +800, so in some sense this is not an interesting problem.

 

I posted it because my partner led a club, which I was slightly surprised by. I would have led a spade.

 

At the other table they justified my teammate's 3D overcall by having no idea how to bid the strong hand over intervention, and ended up in 6NT-3.