Another Tale of Woe

[daveharty]

[hv=pc=n&e=skt86hkt8dk6542c9&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1np2cp2dp3nppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Matchpoints. If you don't like the pass over 1NT, assume you didn't have a convenient way to show this hand; what's your lead?

[Quartic]

[hv=pc=n&e=skt86hkt8dk6542c9&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p1np2cp2dp3nppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Matchpoints. If you don't like the pass over 1NT, assume you didn't have a convenient way to show this hand; what's your lead?

 

I try the ♠6. ♦4 second choice.

[gszes]

see no reason why not low dia 4th or 5th depending on agreement

[Phil]

Spade.

 

Which one? OK, the 8.

[Free]

♠6

[mike777]

2d I will make a tricky lead and lead small from my longest suit.

[Statto]

♦4. We have potential entries to run the suit and only need one of them if declarer happens to have Axx opposite Jx.

[the hog]

Diamond.

[gnasher]

A diamond, because I have five of them. Not all lead problems are difficult.

 

It would never occur to me to lead anything else from this hand, but I see that two people have led a spade. Here are some reasons for preferring a diamond to a spade:

- We have more diamonds than spades.

- Dummy has implied length in one or both majors but not in a minor.

- Leading from a broken four-card suit through a four-card suit often costs a trick (eg AJxx-9xx-Qx or QJxx-xxx-A9).

- Leading from Kxxxx through shortage and into length rarely costs a trick and may still allow us to set up a long card (eg xx-Jx-AQ109).

- If the diamond lead does cost a trick it will usually be a good investment (eg xx- J10x-AQx).

- The suits aren't breaking well for the opponents, so a active defence is probably unnecessary.

[rmnka447]

1. This is one of the most misunderstood auctions in bridge. Everyone seems to focus on the fact that Dummy has a 4 card major. Most people just don't focus on what the NT opener is also telling you. Opener has no 4 card major. That means at least 7 (4-3-3-3) and more likely 8 cards in the minors (5-3-3-2 in either minor or 4-4-3-2 with both minors).

 

2. The objective for the defense at NT is essentially the same as the declarer to set up long suit tricks to defeat the contract or hold it to a minimum number of tricks made. This is especially important when the declaring side freely/strongly bids game. That involves two aspects - having a suit to set up and having the entries to be able to cash the suit later in the defense.

 

3. A third consideration is necessary in terms of matchpoints -- what are risks of giving something away with the opening lead.

 

 

Applying those to this hand, here's how I see it.

 

Declarer and dummy should hold at least 25 points between them and my hand has 9. That leaves at MOST 6 points for partner and often less. Applying #2, my hand has most of the points for our side, has entries, so if we are going to be setting up long suit tricks it should be my suit.

 

Looking at a stiff ♣, I'd rate it highly likely declarer has 5 ♣s.

 

If declarer has only 2 or 3 cards in either major, leading away from either K10 combination may well give a trick that declarer can't rightfully expect left ot his own devices when declarer holds honor doubleton or tripleton.

 

So, in the end, it leads me to the 4th best ♦ as the best lead.

[rhm]

A diamond, because I have five of them. Not all lead problems are difficult.

 

It would never occur to me to lead anything else from this hand, but I see that two people have led a spade. Here are some reasons for preferring a diamond to a spade:

- We have more diamonds than spades.

- Dummy has implied length in one or both majors but not in a minor.

- Leading from a broken four-card suit through a four-card suit often costs a trick (eg AJxx-9xx-Qx or QJxx-xxx-A9).

- Leading from Kxxxx through shortage and into length rarely costs a trick and may still allow us to set up a long card (eg xx-Jx-AQ109).

- If the diamond lead does cost a trick it will usually be a good investment (eg xx- J10x-AQx).

- The suits aren't breaking well for the opponents, so a active defence is probably unnecessary.

There is a theory that when in doubt leading from your second best suit against 3NT when you hold two suits is on average more successful.

 

I do not know what is right here, I consider it close with a slight preference for the spade six.

 

Arguments for leading spades:

 

The fact that dummy has implied majors is probably more than counterbalanced by the fact that declarer has implied minors.

You are not a favorite to beat this contract anyway, if dummy comes down with 4 cards in spades.

Your intermediates are in spades not in diamonds, which looks very empty. It is significant that your lowest spade is as high as your second highest diamond

A diamond lead will often cost a trick, even if partner has an honor, and if diamonds can not be established the defense will be all but dead.

A spade honor in partner's hand may be all what we need.

For similar reasons if we can not beat this contract, a spade is less likely to blow a trick, significant at matchpoints.

Partner has at least 2 cards in spades. No such assurance in diamonds.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[Phil]

Surprised I'm not getting any love for my ♠8 lead from RHM :(

[rhm]

Surprised I'm not getting any love for my ♠8 lead from RHM :(

 

Big deal :unsure:

 

Rainer

[lalldonn]

Diamond, I believe in my longest suit.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

When Opener has denied a 4 card Major, that means he has at least 7 cards in the minors. I've always thought it is better to lead a major in this case.

Sooo, I'll lead my 4th best ♠.

 

If we can take 3 tricks in ♠, my 2 red Kings may prove to be the set.

 

If I initially lead a 4th best ♦, the tempo may be lost for clearing the ♠ as well as possibly providing an immediate 2nd ♦ trick to Declarer. [ Declarer might take 5c, 2d, and 2 major Aces ] .

[lalldonn]

There is a theory that when in doubt leading from your second best suit against 3NT when you hold two suits is on average more successful.

Who propogates this theory, these people?

[gnasher]

There's a very sensible theory that when you have two suits like Qxxx and Axxx, you should lead the weaker suit because the ace will provide an entry to the queen-suit, but the queen won't provide an entry to the ace-suit.

 

I've never previously heard the suggestion that with two suits that are equal in high cards you should lead the shorter. I can't think of any reason for it, either.

[Phil]

Big deal :unsure:

 

Rainer

 

If blocking the suit isn't a big deal then sure..

 

Need to think about a few combinations. It seems there are some where the 8 surrounds some of declarer's holdings on some, although there may be a material loss on others.

 

Equally :unsure:

[rhm]

There's a very sensible theory that when you have two suits like Qxxx and Axxx, you should lead the weaker suit because the ace will provide an entry to the queen-suit, but the queen won't provide an entry to the ace-suit.

 

I've never previously heard the suggestion that with two suits that are equal in high cards you should lead the shorter. I can't think of any reason for it, either.

To help you out some theories and thoughts:

 

http://viewsfromthebridgetable.blogspot.de/2007/06/canap-leads.html

 

or since you are a frequent contributor to BBO maybe you prefer

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/16087-frees-3nt-lead-hypothesis/

 

 

Rainer Herrmann

[ggwhiz]

♦

 

Above all avoid the embarrassment of leading a major into declarers 3-3-2-5

[SteveMoe]

I think pard won't have more than 5-6 HCP on this hand. I do not think we can beat this hand from my holding alone. If partner has a 5-card suit it stands to be ♥. I will lead the ♥10 (unblocking) and hope to find partner with AJxxx or similar. Even Axxxx or Qxxxx might be enough to beat this...if they have only one stopper...

[gnasher]

Arguments for leading spades:

 

You are not a favorite to beat this contract anyway, if dummy comes down with 4 cards in spades.

It's matchpoints. If you lead a spade and dummy has four of them, you're not a favourite to beat 30% on the board.

 

Your intermediates are in spades not in diamonds, which looks very empty. It is significant that your lowest spade is as high as your second highest diamond

Yes. This is one of the things that makes the diamond lead safer than the spade lead.

 

A diamond lead will often cost a trick, even if partner has an honor, and if diamonds can not be established the defense will be all but dead.

Often? Can you give some examples of the layouts where the lead will cost a trick and we can't set up the suit in two rounds?

 

For similar reasons if we can not beat this contract, a spade is less likely to blow a trick, significant at matchpoints.

Really? It seems to me that a spade lead will cost most of the time that declarer has the 9, or dummy has four of them including the 9.

[rhm]

It's matchpoints. If you lead a spade and dummy has four of them, you're not a favourite to beat 30% on the board.

 

 

Yes. This is one of the things that makes the diamond lead safer than the spade lead.

 

 

Often? Can you give some examples of the layouts where the lead will cost a trick and we can't set up the suit in two rounds?

 

 

Really? It seems to me that a spade lead will cost most of the time that declarer has the 9, or dummy has four of them including the 9.

 

Instead of answering your questions, which is easy but some work and which will not change your mind a iota I decided it would be best to do a simulation.

Yes, this is unlikely to change your mind either, but since leads are mostly a statistical issue, I believe they are the best I can do to decide such issues with a reasonable amount of effort at the moment.

 

I specified:

 

North balanced, 15-17 HCP, no 4 card major.

East given hand

South at least one 4 card but no longer major, at least 9 HCP

West not restricted, since there are few HCP left for West

 

1000 deals. Dealmaster PRO

 

Result: 3NT makes 712 times on any lead. Average number of tricks: 9.28

 

Best lead according to Dealmaster PRO:

 

♠K: 467 deals defeats contract: 119

♠T: 617 deals defeats contract: 161

♠8: 628 deals defeats contract: 162

♠6: 625 deals defeats contract: 162

 

♥K: 426 deals defeats contract: 125

♥T: 549 deals defeats contract: 151

♥8: 542 deals defeats contract: 150

 

♦K: 308 deals defeats contract: 71

low ♦: 667 deals defeats contract: 183

 

♣9: 731 deals --> defeats contract: 179 surprise surprise!

 

So yes, a low diamond is better than a spade, but the result is not a runaway for diamonds.

A club is even better!

 

Rainer Herrmann

[gnasher]

Rainer, it's still matchpoints, so I don't know why you're using the chance of defeating the contract as the measure of success. One of the biggest arguments against a spade lead is that it will often cost an overtrick.

[akhare]

I would lead a ♦ with no particular conviction, but a ♠ might be right as well.

 

The title seems to suggest that we are going to be subjected to more unpleasant discards on the 5 rounds of ♣s that will likely follow at the opening lead <_<...