jillybean Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 [hv=d=s&v=e&s=sxxhxxxxxdjxxcjxx]133|100|Scoring: MPP (P) 1♣ (X)P (2♦)P (3N)[/hv] Does it matter what you lead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Often. Here I would just lead partner's suit - even if clubs could be short. If I had an entry I would give more consideration to leading my own five-card suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pooltuna Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 I lead a small ♣ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gwnn Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 ♣, we even have an honor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted August 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 Often.:rolleyes: right. I led a ♥ , opps made 3N+2, bottom board for us. Yes, I should lead a ♣ I dont have entires for my ♥'s.Shouldn't declarer make +2 on any lead here? [hv=d=s&v=e&n=sj75ha7da73ckt943&w=skt8hjt9dq9842c85&e=saq943hkq5dktcaq7&s=s62h86432dj65cj62]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Tu Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 *Can* make 11 tricks is not the same as *should* make 11 tricks. Think about what declarer has to do in order to accomplish this on a club lead, and what this risks ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdanno Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 On a club lead, declarer will just play safely by setting up 2 heart tricks, and make 3N=. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quantumcat Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 On a club lead declarer doesn't have time to get diamond tricks as well as heart tricks. One ace will knock out the 2nd stopper, and the second we'll be cashing five tricks. Without the club lead he can knock out both and we won't have set up our club suit yet. Although, I think most of the time when 1NT is overcalled over partner's minor opening, the opponents has an actual suit, and attacking it will either hurt the defence or else lose tempo if it were solid. This is kind of similar, he was just too strong to just overcall 1NT. I think if you have an ok alternative to leading the opened minor, you should take it (not that you really had one here). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 I think I play on diamonds at any form of scoring. At IMPs I might be able to make by playing on diamonds when spades don't behave. At MPs diamonds might set up more tricks although there is some risk but also see the reasoning for the line above for IMPs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 I think I play on diamonds at any form of scoring. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 hmmm i may have miscounted my tricks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Tu Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Maybe you are supposed to go for 11 tricks at MP. What % of the field is getting to spades? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effervesce Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 At MPs I think the opps _should_ (not necessarily will) play for 11 tricks given on a club lead there are 11 tricks in spades. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Maybe you are supposed to go for 11 tricks at MP. What % of the field is getting to spades? In spite of the above LOL, this was my thought too, but playing on diamonds on diamonds is so all or nothing. I'm not sure I want to throw away my 35% board for a zero trying for 90%. It does depend on the number of pairs in 4♠ and that's anyone's guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlall Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Maybe you are supposed to go for 11 tricks at MP. What % of the field is getting to spades? In spite of the above LOL, this was my thought too, but playing on diamonds on diamonds is so all or nothing. I'm not sure I want to throw away my 35% board for a zero trying for 90%. It does depend on the number of pairs in 4♠ and that's anyone's guess. Where did my lol imply that playing for 11 tricks at MP was bad? As far as I know "any form of scoring" includes imps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Maybe you are supposed to go for 11 tricks at MP. What % of the field is getting to spades? In spite of the above LOL, this was my thought too, but playing on diamonds on diamonds is so all or nothing. I'm not sure I want to throw away my 35% board for a zero trying for 90%. It does depend on the number of pairs in 4♠ and that's anyone's guess. Where did my lol imply that playing for 11 tricks at MP was bad? As far as I know "any form of scoring" includes imps. Sorry, thought you were referring to trying for 11 tricks at MPs. Simply misread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Maybe you are supposed to go for 11 tricks at MP. What % of the field is getting to spades? In spite of the above LOL, this was my thought too, but playing on diamonds on diamonds is so all or nothing. I'm not sure I want to throw away my 35% board for a zero trying for 90%. It does depend on the number of pairs in 4♠ and that's anyone's guess. Where did my lol imply that playing for 11 tricks at MP was bad? As far as I know "any form of scoring" includes imps. Sorry, thought you were referring to trying for 11 tricks at MPs. Simply misread. At least I got that one right. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts