Opening leads in a particular situation

[whereagles]

So last weekend I was playing the national open pairs. One of the hands consisted of the following situation:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shdqj5c&w=shd872c&n=shd4c&e=shdakt963c]399|300|South plays 3NT after East opened 2D.[/hv]

 

Pard opened a weak 2♦ (not supported) and I led the systemic ♦8, showing either 8x or 8xx (with Hxx lead low). Since it was matchpoints pard, who had no side entry, just cashed ♦AK. Contract now made, but would easily have gone 2 down if he had ducked. Obviously at IMPs ducking is sort of automatic. Spot cards (10, 9) can matter a bit in this case, but in general ducking achieves nothing if I have xx, but may be crucial if I have xxx.

 

This got me wondering whether in NT it's more important to lead showing count or attitude in a suit pard is known to have 5+. What do you think?

[PhilKing]

I would go so far as to say this was not a matter of system failure, you basically made a bad lead.

 

Leading low is clear even if partner is confused. However, a bright partner may notice that since you never raised diamonds, you are unlikely to have Hxx, but you would not lead the suit with a stiff.

 

But yes - change the agreement while you are at it. "Where we have shown 5+ cards in a suit, lead low from xxx when we have not raised the suit, and top if we have raised".

[whereagles]

Hmmm.. are you sure it's clear to lead low? One can certainly think of situations where the it might blow a trick (e.g. KT9xxx: putting the king concedes 2 tricks to declarer's AQJ, while ducking gives nothing away).

 

Still, the agreement you suggested is good in this particular case. The question is whether is so in general. A priori I would say yes.

[mikeh]

I think that playing a lead method in which partner has no clue as to whether you hold xxx or xx is silly.

 

I generally play that I lead low from Hxx all the time, and low from xxx if we haven't raised, and high from xxx if we have raised. I've been doing this for 40 years and it seems to work reasonably well.

 

We are not given the auction, but one would assume that on most hands with Hxx, leader would at some point have raised diamonds. However, I understand that there will be hands on which that isn't a good idea, especially if vulnerable. It isn't possible, then, to have certainty about what holding a low card will be from.

 

And I see, also, that there are situations in which 3rd hand would like to know. However, your example of K109xxx popping the K in front of AQJ is far-fetched. One usually knows, from the auction, whether that holding is plausible, and even when one doesn't know, it will rarely cost to play the 9 (rare is not equal to never, but since we cannot cater to everything, we cater to the more probable)

 

Having said all that, it does seem odd that your partner didn't duck trick 1. How can it be right to win the first trick, unless the auction and the appearance of dummy suggested some risk that they would run the first 12 tricks? Since you say you could have beaten the contract by 2 tricks, it seems unlikely that your partner should have gone wrong.

 

So I think you were playing a terrible method, and with a partner who was having a bad board.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

In general:

" If you have NOT supported partner's suit, then leading LOW is from 3+ cards whether you have an honor or not.

 

If you HAVE supported partner, then leading LOW is from an HONOR . "

 

-- from Phillip Alder's newspaper bridge column ( ... he makes this point over and over again ) .

[PhilKing]

Hmmm.. are you sure it's clear to lead low? One can certainly think of situations where the it might blow a trick (e.g. KT9xxx: putting the king concedes 2 tricks to declarer's AQJ, while ducking gives nothing away).

 

Still, the agreement you suggested is good in this particular case. The question is whether is so in general. A priori I would say yes.

 

Yep, we lose in that scenario, but gain in other ones (not just when partner needs to know we have three low). Say partner has AQxxxx and declarer KJT - if low promises an honour, declarer can rise and block the suit (I've seen that one more than once).

[Fluffy]

low promises help for you, if I haven't raised it might be in the form of length. I have always played this way also.

[dboxley]

So last weekend I was playing the national open pairs. One of the hands consisted of the following situation:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=shdqj5c&w=shd872c&n=shd4c&e=shdakt963c]399|300|South plays 3NT after East opened 2D.[/hv]

 

Pard opened a weak 2♦ (not supported) and I led the systemic ♦8, showing either 8x or 8xx (with Hxx lead low). Since it was matchpoints pard, who had no side entry, just cashed ♦AK. Contract now made, but would easily have gone 2 down if he had ducked. Obviously at IMPs ducking is sort of automatic. Spot cards (10, 9) can matter a bit in this case, but in general ducking achieves nothing if I have xx, but may be crucial if I have xxx.

 

This got me wondering whether in NT it's more important to lead showing count or attitude in a suit pard is known to have 5+. What do you think?

 

I play (and I think the majority play) small from 3 small in pd's unraised suit, top otherwise to avoid just this situation.

[fromageGB]

I think it makes sense to show length, so if I have not shown my length by a raise, then I play our normal hi/lo style. If partner knows how long I am then I have the luxury of showing whether I have an honour, but that is a lower priority.

(But with Axx I start with the Ace against suit contracts.)