Find a lead

[akhare]

4♥ unless I am resulting this particular hand... :lol:

[MFA]

The idea of leading ♥Q in this sequence is ok imo, but I think the spots are simply a little too weak here.

[Cyberyeti]

So, in your opinion, when is the 4 right from QJ642 and when isn't it?

I'd lead small with only one side entry. Here I think I have 2 so barring a high singleton, I will often recover when the queen is technically wrong, and it's less likely to be a complete disaster.

 

If doubler has an obvious lead of his own, I may have done the wrong thing by pulling, but if it's in the suit in which I have a stiff, an obvious lead may not be good enough. Sure if he's got KQJ10x and an ace I'm wrong, but KQ109xx and an ace may well not be enough. I'm unlikely to pull with a 5422, much more likely will be 5431/6331/6421 or any hand with a void. Pulling at this vulnerability is likely to be cheaper than 1Nx if both are going wrong for us.

[whereagles]

I would lead a heart as well, though diamond could easily lead to a bloodbath (pard is like 99% likely to have 5+ of those).

[helene_t]

Do I hate my partner or something?

Remember what Han told you: love thy partner as you loveth thy opponents.

[rhm]

So, in your opinion, when is the 4 right from QJ642 and when isn't it?

The normal lead is a low ♥ but in this case

 

1) Dummy is weak and it is unlikely that a high ♥ honor will appear in dummy.

2) you are a favorite to get 1NT down. (Otherwise why did you double?) You are not looking for the highest number of undertricks but for safest way to get at least down one. A low ♥ is more likely to establish the ♥ suit, but is also more likely to cost a trick and a tempo, if unsuccessful.

3) Since partner is unlikely to have 15-17 balanced, he may be unbalanced.

 

I think the ♥Q is safer, but might be disastrous if partner has a singleton honor and if partner is short in a suit chances are it is in ♥. Otherwise if partner is short in a black suit dummy would likely have run from 1NTX.

 

My experience is not good leading singletons against notrump, even if partner has bid the suit.

For one you can not continue the suit and often it simply cuts communication with partner when needed at a later stage.

I admit, since I expect a weak dummy and partner to be short in ♥, I would have strongly considered a ♣ in search for a passive lead. Apparently not successful either.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gwnn]

2) you are a favorite to get 1NT down. (Otherwise why did you double?) You are not looking for the highest number of undertricks but for safest way to get at least down one.

I don't really understand what you mean by these two sentences. If you are a favourite to beat it, why not look for down 2 or more?

 

just making=-180

down 1=+200

down 2=+500

 

so it looks like you're risking a loss of 380 points or 9 imps for a gain of 300 points, or 7 imps. If we are a clear favourite to beat 1NT it would definitely look like the case where a change of lead results in down 2 instead of down 1 is more likely (more than a 9:7 favourite) than where it results in = instead of down 1.

[rhm]

2) you are a favorite to get 1NT down. (Otherwise why did you double?)  You are not looking for the highest number of undertricks but for safest way to get at least down one.

I don't really understand what you mean by these two sentences. If you are a favourite to beat it, why not look for down 2 or more?

 

just making=-180

down 1=+200

down 2=+500

 

so it looks like you're risking a loss of 380 points or 9 imps for a gain of 300 points, or 7 imps. If we are a clear favourite to beat 1NT it would definitely look like the case where a change of lead results in down 2 instead of down 1 is more likely (more than a 9:7 favourite) than where it results in = instead of down 1.

I admit my argument is stronger at match-points than IMPs, where +200 is likely to be close to a top anyway.

But even at IMPs when you are defending a deal, which is very likely a part-score deal my top priority goes to beating the contract, not risking the contract by trying to maximize the number of undertricks on the opening lead.

 

In notrump contracts the variation in the number of tricks is on average greater than at trump contracts, depending on random factors not disclosed during the bidding and, in particular, the fate of the opening lead.

A low ♥ will often either be very successful (if partner has at least 2 cards in ♥ with an honor and you can establish the suit) or (about as likely) cost a trick and if the trick does not come back by establishing the suit, declarer may suddenly have a good chance of making his contract, where none existed.

In normal no-trump contracts you as a defender need to invest something in search of a favorable outcome, because given time declarer with a preponderance of points is likely to establish enough tricks.

 

Here the scenario is different. Declarer does not have a preponderance of high cards at his disposal and will face a weak dummy. All you know is that the deal looks like a misfit and partner's shortage is likely to be in ♥. I much prefer partner to play ♥ through declarer.

But if I choose to lead ♥ I would lead the ♥queen not to give declarer an immediate unnecessary trick. The queen is normally not safer than a low card, but here dummy is unlikely to come up with a high heart honor. If partner has at least one or more small cards in ♥ it is unlikely that the queen will do worse than the ♥4, but it is much less likely to cost. The less frequent scenario, where the queen will do worse than the ♥4 is when partner has only high cards in ♥.

A blockage of the suit (another important advantage of a low ♥ lead) is unlikely to matter, when you have entries to your hand.

 

Rainer Herrmann