Defense

[MarkDean]

[hv=d=w&v=b&e=st984hjt63d752ck3&s=skj5hkda83cj98642]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Opps bid 1♥-2♥-4♥.

You lead 3/5, first trick:

♦4-2-A-9.

What do you return?

[Fluffy]

♦8 next

 

oh sorry it is a problem, then I probably failed.

[Finch]

♦8 next

 

oh sorry it is a problem, then I probably failed.

Me 2.

Obviously other things could be right, but equally so can a diamond.

(If I'm switching, I'm switching to a low spade)

[wclass___]

So we know that partner has lead from ♦Hxx

 

If H=Q or K, i don't see any difference(can't imagine maybe) in what we return.

 

If partner has lead from Jxx then ♠K seems obvious.

 

e.g. declarer with ♠Axx ♥Axxxx ♦KQT9 ♣A

 

Hmmmm, but i think if ♠K wins it is indeed better to play ♦

 

I would never play small ♠ though, if declarer has Qxx i might have lost control of the deal.

[Finch]

So we know that partner has lead from ♦Hxx

 

If H=Q or K, i don't see any difference(can't imagine maybe) in what we return.

 

If partner has lead from Jxx then ♠K seems obvious.

 

e.g. declarer with ♠Axx ♥Axxxx ♦KQT9 ♣A

 

Hmmmm, but i think if ♠K wins it is indeed better to play ♦

 

I would never play small ♠ though, if declarer has Qxx i migh have lost control of hand.

Clearly lead style is relevant, but I don't play with anyone who would lead a diamond from Qxx Qxx Jxx Q10xx on this auction.

[wclass___]

I would never play with anyone who leads small from KQTxx, QJTxx, KJTxx vs. a trump contract.

 

You prefer to lead from ♠Axx? or ♠Qxx? or ♥Qxx? or ♣Qxxx?

 

And sometimes passive lead is best and the most logical even if the bidding suggest something else. Hate when people are so dogmatical.

[Finch]

I would never play with anyone who leads small from KQTxx, QJTxx, KJTxx vs. a trump contract.

 

You prefer to lead from ♠Axx? or ♠Qxx? or ♥Qxx? or ♣Qxxx?

 

And sometimes passive lead is best and the most logical even if the bidding suggest something else. Hate when people are so dogmatical.

I'm not being particularly dogmatic about leads in general. I said that neither I nor any of my partners would lead a diamond from one particular hand against one particular auction, and I stand by that; leading from Jxx on an auction that suggests an aggressive lead from a hand that has a much more attractive suit (Q10xx) looks obviously wrong to me.

 

When you are trying to construct ways to beat the contract, it's obviously correct to look at the hand you are giving partner and decide if the hand you are giving him is consistent with the opening lead.

[gnasher]

I would never play small ♠ though, if declarer has Qxx i might have lost control of the deal.

I don't see why that's a problem. Partner will win ♠A and play one back to our king, and now we play a club. That caters for both Qxx AQxxx KQ109 x and Qxx AQxxxx KJ109 -.

[wclass___]

I thought if declarer has ♠Qxx ♥AQxxx ♦KJT9 ♣A, he will be able to draw trumps, and avoid ♦ loser via discarding them onto ♠ and ♣K.

 

If i play ♠K i could still switch to ♦.

 

But yeah, deal is quite impossible as partner would surely lead from ♣QTxx.

 

Still i have a feeling ♠K should be better. If i play ♠K-small, declarer might sometimes misguess. Also it might help partner, if he wins your small ♠ return with A/Q and doesn't really know what to do next.