Good hand

[Finch]

[hv=pc=n&w=st94ht532d963cq53&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2cp2dp2np3cp3hp3nppp]133|200[/hv]

 

3H showed no 4- or 5-card major

 

edit: imps

[mike777]

ten of spades

[phil_20686]

I prefer the spade ten to a heart.

[mikeh]

We have to assume we can beat this. Therefore partner has to take a lot of tricks.

 

We aren't leading clubs, and diamonds seems unlikely to be best.

 

At mps, the 10♠ stands out, as the most passive lead.

 

But here, as stated above, we are hoping for a set. While partner will have 5♠ more often than he has 5♥s, it is the latter holding that offers the best chance for a set, finding the opps hopelessly duplicated in their 2-2 fit, so I am leading a heart.

 

There are other holdings on which the heart works: Kx in dummy, with Qxx in declarer's hand, for example. While the spade suit also offers some possibilities, I think the heart is slightly more likely to produce a set if a set is available.

 

It stands more chance of blowing a trick immediately than does the spade 10, but I'm not looking to make a safe lead on this auction.

[rmnka447]

If 3 NT can be beaten, it will have to be with long suit tricks from partner's hand. Opener has advertised no 4 card or longer major, so is more likely to have 4=4, 5=3, or 3=5 in the minors than any 4-3-3-3 hand.

 

♠ 10 seems best guess for hitting partner's major holding, if any, and more likely not to give anything away.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

@ mikeh

 

Declarer has shown 4 cards ♥ ( Stayman reply ).

And has denied 4 cards ♠ ( since no "correction' to 4S ) .

 

I missed the "Muppet" reply.

 

Still, I'm leading the ♠ 10 .

[Statto]

@ mikeh

 

Declarer has shown 4 cards ♥ ( Stayman reply ).

And has denied 4 cards ♠ ( since no "correction' to 4S ) .

3H showed no 4- or 5-card major

[MrAce]

♠ T for me.

[phil_20686]

what was the layout?

[rhm]

We have to assume we can beat this. Therefore partner has to take a lot of tricks.

 

We aren't leading clubs, and diamonds seems unlikely to be best.

 

At mps, the 10♠ stands out, as the most passive lead.

 

But here, as stated above, we are hoping for a set. While partner will have 5♠ more often than he has 5♥s, it is the latter holding that offers the best chance for a set, finding the opps hopelessly duplicated in their 2-2 fit, so I am leading a heart.

 

There are other holdings on which the heart works: Kx in dummy, with Qxx in declarer's hand, for example. While the spade suit also offers some possibilities, I think the heart is slightly more likely to produce a set if a set is available.

 

It stands more chance of blowing a trick immediately than does the spade 10, but I'm not looking to make a safe lead on this auction.

 

I agree completely.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gszes]

I agree completely.

 

Rainer Herrmann

i completely agree with this agreement:)) go mikeH

[Finch]

The 10 of spades was led at both tables.

A heart lead beats it. Declarer has two spade stops and two heart stops and needs to knock out two minor suit cards. However, once you have knocked out the two heart stops you have two long heart tricks to cash along with the ace of spades. Once you knocked out the two spade stops, you only have one spade to cash, because you don't have enough spades between you to set up the long ones.

 

I was declarer, but I thought a heart was obvious and was surprised it was a flat board.

[han]

I like this thread. The arguments for the heart lead are quite convincing, but I would like to check it with a double dummy simulation. In order to get the specifications right I wonder if your partner would often bid 3C without holding a 4-card major. What do you think?

[Fluffy]

I think the less you have, the more you have to lead a long suit, more often than people think the only real hope is to find a suit with 2-2 distribution on the opponents.

[Finch]

I like this thread. The arguments for the heart lead are quite convincing, but I would like to check it with a double dummy simulation. In order to get the specifications right I wonder if your partner would often bid 3C without holding a 4-card major. What do you think?

 

We were discussing how to run a simulation on this. Some questions are answerable and some aren't.

 

The auction was similar at both tables, although I think at the other table it was simply 2C-2D- 2NT - 3C Stayman - 3D no major - 3NT, so dummy had promised a 4-card major.

 

We play 2NT-3NT (or via 2C) as artificial, so in our auction dummy had not promised a major. But responder could have bid 3S to force 3NT rather than go through 3C and reveal something of opener's shape. That means either that he was interested in a major suit fit (including a 5-3 one if responder was, say, 1354), or that he thought 3C was less likely to be doubled for the lead than 3S. That might encourage a spade lead in theory, but the opponents didn't ask any of these questions before leading.

 

The style of responses to 2C might be relevant; at both tables it was the 'English' approach where 2D is any negative or a positive with no suit and 2H/2S/2NT are all natural FG. This gives less information about responder's high cards than control showing responses, or semi-negative or similar.

 

Also I made the vulnerability game all. The position is different NV, because some pairs are very aggressive overcallers after 2C P 2D; if you were playing us then 4th seat would virtually have denied, say, AJ8xx in spades.