What is the textbook lead?

[mikeh]

Although Mike and I and you seem to think alike on this hand about the shape, I neither would lead ♦ A nor small one. Tbh I would not be confident to lead small ♦. The point you make is very legit and logical, no doubt. But I'd probably lead small ♥ so pd can himself make the obvious lead of trumps. I for some reason almost always had hard time to take a precise shot like small ♦. Maybe because the people I play with are VERY VERY capable of bidding 7♥ with a stiff diamond w/o the K. Since I believe my 5♠ should have 3 keys. But I am not really strong on this, just my opinion.

what I don't understand is the layout on which you think that a trump lead is needed?

 

I think that most of the time an underlead to partner, for a trump shift, will cost at least a trick. I can appreciate that you may disagree.....but where do you say that the underlead ever gains a trick?

 

When one choice may or may not gain, and the other can never/very rarely gain, why choose the latter? it's not as if there is any plausible layout on which a diamond lead can cost.

[PhantomSac]

Justin:

 

what holding are you catering to with the low diamond lead?

 

Seems to me that the only holding where that can cost is Kxxx in declarer's hand, where we can, with a low lead, get two ruffs and sit back and wait for the AQ. Otoh, if partner has a stiff, and I agree that that is unlikely, we are going to be very sorry. So which is most likely? Kxxx in declarer or any singleton in partner? (Stiff King in partner probably makes no difference from stiff x, if we lead the A).

 

Yeah I am trying to cater to Kxxx. I guess how likely that is depends on how often the 3S bidder would bid 3S with 6-4 instead of 1S (or 2S) w/r.

 

Other less likely possibilities are partner having something like x KQJTx --- KQJxxxx, I am not sure if he would bid this way but it would make some sense, especially the 7H bid (since if partner doesn't hold both the C and H A, obv we are going down but there is some potential disaster of them making esp if they ruff the opening lead). Ofc he might try 7C with this? And it's hard to be dealt 7-5 obviously :P The 4N bid would also be debatable but from his point of view (at the time of the 4N bid) he is off 3 aces so he can't really bid 6H. He might try to bid more tactical with that though. Ofc now we are gaining when declarer has Kxx.

 

You gave an example hand of partner having Ax of spades, if that's the case then giving him 2 ruffs might be bad if the 2nd one is with the SA.

 

I will admit that at the table I doubt I would have the balls to lead a low diamond, in fact I'm sure I wouldn't, it gains so infrequently and is so LOL when it doesn't work, but I do really think it's the right lead.

 

You asked a good question, when does it gain (with the implicit answer of rarely), but I ask when does it lose? Do you really think partner should be able to have a stiff D when we have all the aces and bid this way? (honest question).

 

I am definitely aware that sometimes we think partner should not have something and they do irl though, so like I said I'm sure I would not try this low diamond lead in real life.

[PhantomSac]

Since I believe my 5♠ should have 3 keys. But I am not really strong on this, just my opinion.

 

You don't count the spade void as a key? If not, then I think requiring 3 keys on top of a void opposite a partner who has opened and bid 4N as way too much.

 

I mean usually opener for bidding 1C then 4N will have more than 1 key himself lol, I think a void plus 3 aces plus a double fit (which you will presumably have if you have a spade void) is basically a grand slam force. Certainly with the DQ. I would guess frances or whoever bid 5S was planning to drive to 7 already and was just trying to get to the right strain.

 

I only say that to emphasize how wtfbbqamazing our hand is imo (since partner didn't know we were driving to 7) given that partner drove to 7 himself when he even had the option of giving us a vote.

[mikeh]

<good stuff snipped>

 

You gave an example hand of partner having Ax of spades, if that's the case then giving him 2 ruffs might be bad if the 2nd one is with the SA.

 

Actually, my guess is that having to ruff with the A costs nothing. On almost (in fact I think absolutely every) layout where this is so, the opps don't gain anything by our trump Ace being 'wasted' on a diamond winner of their's.

 

 

I will admit that at the table I doubt I would have the balls to lead a low diamond, in fact I'm sure I wouldn't, it gains so infrequently and is so LOL when it doesn't work, but I do really think it's the right lead.

 

You asked a good question, when does it gain (with the implicit answer of rarely), but I ask when does it lose? Do you really think partner should be able to have a stiff D when we have all the aces and bid this way? (honest question).

 

I am definitely aware that sometimes we think partner should not have something and they do irl though, so like I said I'm sure I would not try this low diamond lead in real life.

 

I basically agree with you 100% on what partner 'should' have, but it seems that you agree with me on what one would actually do at the table.

 

I'd like to claim that at my age I have learned that the hard way more than you have simply because I've played more bridge, but I suspect you've played more than I have by now :D Either way: we seem both to be leading the diamond A.

[PhantomSac]

Actually, my guess is that having to ruff with the A costs nothing. On almost (in fact I think absolutely every) layout where this is so, the opps don't gain anything by our trump Ace being 'wasted' on a diamond winner of their's.

 

 

Yes that's true, I was thinking if declarer had Kxxx of diamonds it would cost but it actually would not as we would still get 2 diamonds, 1 ruff, and the SA.

[wanoff]

Actually, my guess is that having to ruff with the A costs nothing. On almost (in fact I think absolutely every) layout where this is so, the opps don't gain anything by our trump Ace being 'wasted' on a diamond winner of their's.

 

I basically agree with you 100% on what partner 'should' have, but it seems that you agree with me on what one would actually do at the table.

 

Either way: we seem both to be leading the diamond A.

 

Did he agree? He said more than once that a small diamond is right.

Anyway ♦A costs against the more likely Kxx with declarer in say 7231 and partner holding Ax KQxxx - KQxxxx.

[Finch]

I posted this hand because I thought it was interesting for two reasons.

 

The first is that the auction took a long time (every time the tray was on the N/E side of the screen after the opening bid it was there for a while, which you probably won't find surprising). After that sort of auction you know mentally that the main potential for gaining or losing imps - the 17+ potential swing - is over. Defending 7Sx feels like an anticlimax. The contract was the same at 3 of the 4 tables that played the hand (two semi-final matches) albeit on slightly different auctions and at all of them, the opening lead was made with very little thought.

 

The opening lead is worth thinking about. Undertricks are 300 a shot, and if the other table is in 6H, 6Sx or 7Sx (all plausible) there are 6-7 imps per trick going begging.

 

The other reason is that the textbook lead against this sort of contract is a trump (as Aardv helpfully observed) and you haven't got one.

I think that you should be leading a low card at trick one, putting partner in to play trumps. He has to have both the rounded suit kings to have anything resembling his bidding. The problem is that you would like to lead the suit that dummy isn't short in, but you don't know which one that is.

At the time I didn't like a low diamond lead as too risky, but Justin's analysis that partner must have a void or the king is convincing and that isn't very likely to be dummy's shortage.

 

If you do lead a non-ace (in any suit) I am certain that you should lead your systemic length card e.g. the 2 of hearts, 6 of diamonds or 8 of clubs if you play 3rd and 5th. It might be important to give partner the count.

 

On the actual hand, a low diamond lead, a low heart lead or the ace of hearts and a low diamond switch all result in +1700; cashing 3 aces is +1100; all other sane defences are +1400.

 

Dummy is 3=3=6=1. Partner is 3=4=1=5 with singleton king of diamonds. That leaves declarer to be 7=1=2=3

7NT was making, but partner decided not to make a forcing pass because she wasn't at all certain that 7H was making (between you, you are also missing the CQ).

 

The fourth table played in 6H. Responder was fairly certain 7H was making but expected 7S to be cheaper than 6H and was hoping to be pushed into 7H; the defensive side also suspected that 7H was making but were less certain about the cost of saving.

We lost 7imps on the board. The other match had a 2 imp swing for 1460 vs 1400. Both matches were decided by single figure imps.

 

p.s. I see in spite of the discussion, nobody has actually voted for a low diamond.

[PhantomSac]

 

At the time I didn't like a low diamond lead as too risky, but Justin's analysis that partner must have a void or the king is convincing and that isn't very likely to be dummy's shortage.

 

Given partners actual hand it is clear that my analysis was wrong, the CQ would be a much more valuable card than stiff K of diamonds so if partner can bid this way with their actual hand they can presumably do so with the CQ and DK switched.

 

I think partners bidding was nutso myself but in rare auctions sometimes different people have different expectations on what each person has shown/should do which is probably why no one actually voted for the low diamond lead.

[Aardv]

I didn't express a view because I recognized the hand. But it seems to me that partner couldn't possibly read me for these three aces unless (s)he had the three kings. Singleton king of diamonds is in fact a likely holding. And a small diamond is the right lead, because the alternative is to lead the round suit dummy isn't short in, and that's just a guess.

 

All these things are of course more obvious when you know the hand.