Rate this lead ...

[Tramticket]

[hv=pc=n&e=sq4hq85dq973ca964&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1h(System%3A%20Four-card%20Majors)p1nppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Playing in a good standard Teams of Eight competition you are on lead against 1NT.

 

What would you lead?

 

What do you think of the lead of the 4♠ as a deceptive lead?

 

 

I was declarer and the lead of the four of spades certainly fooled me. I took a finesse against East, believing that West was out of spades, only for west to run his winners. I'd never come up against this particular deception before.

 

[wank]

Pretty poor. That's likely declarer's suit.

 

I would lead a diamond and I think it's clear.

[wank]

You were pretty crazy to think west might lead a singleton.

[Tramticket]

You were pretty crazy to think west might lead a singleton.

 

I didn't make it clear. I won the second round of spades It was later in the hand and had placed East with long spades. I finessed in another suit to keep East off lead, only to find that west was running his winners.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I guess, I would go with a diamond.

Partner wont have a 5 card spade suit, hence spade wont achieve anything,

and it may kill something.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

I didn't make it clear. I won the second round of spades It was later in the hand and had placed East with long spades. I finessed in another suit to keep East off lead, only to find that west was running his winners.

The question is, how many problematic combinations exist, decalrer with 3 spades, opener with 4 spades,

we will lead through the 4 carder to partners 4 carder, declarer having only 6-10 points, ..., it may

be percentage.

I think this is a reasonable scenario, for Bird / Antias,going with a double dummy solver, although I

would guess,if spade is best, ... the Queen may be better than small (the dd ignores the deception /

play technique).

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[The_Badger]

Pretty poor. That's likely declarer's suit.

 

I would lead a diamond and I think it's clear.

 

Agree a ♦ lead is best but playing 4 card majors respectfully - this must be a first - disagree that declarer's likely to hold a ♠ suit. How was North to know that South was a bare minimum and was going to pass 1NT? And maybe South is 4-4 in the majors and by opening 1♥ gave his partner an opportunity to find both a ♥ or ♠ fit?

 

East holds 10HCPs, East/West are vulnerable, West might have just about have enough values to overcall 1♠ over 1♥ but has (possibly) decided against it because A) he is red against white with a passed partner B) his suit could be poor C) his hand is possibly as balanced as the others around the table.

 

As for the lead of the ♠4, well speculative leads work some of the time, but playing teams I would go with what other players would normally do.

[wank]

I meant opener's (second) suit. We know partner has some modest values. Even at the vul he will normally find a way to bid his 6 card suit so leading a spade is angling for exactly 2353 spades around the table.

 

As for leading low, that's a recognised strategy but for specific situations, i.e. when partner's expected to hold plenty of entries (to ameliorate the blocking issue) and where RHO has indicated a robust holding in the suit such that leading high will normally give them a second stop. Think something like 1H from p, 1nt overcall, all out, or 1m on the left, 1M from p, 1nt on right, all out and you have very little, marking p with a good hand.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&e=sq4hq85dq973ca964&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1h(System%3A%20Four-card%20Majors)p1nppp]133|200|

Playing in a good standard Teams of Eight competition you are on lead against 1NT.

What would you lead?

What do you think of the lead of the 4♠ as a deceptive lead?

 

I was declarer and the lead of the four of spades certainly fooled me. I took a finesse against East, believing that West was out of spades, only for west to run his winners. I'd never come up against this particular deception before.

[/hv]

The cunning small ♠ lead wouldn't occur to me. I rank

1. ♠Q. Partner might have 4+ ♠s. In 2nd seat he woudn't always open with say ♠ J T x x x ♥ J x x ♦ K x ♣ K J x
2. ♦3. You have lots of entries.
3. ♣4. Might work.

[Kaitlyn S]

I think the ♥Q is more likely to work than the ♠4.

 

And no, I'm not suggesting that the ♥Q is a good lead.

[aawk]

If you don't have a obvious lead use the Sherlock leads. First look what not to lead and what suit remains is most likely the best lead.

 

From the bidding we can deduce that partner holds a 4+ card ♠ and north most likely holds a long or both minors.

 

Playing for IMPs a attacking lead is better than a passive lead.

 

A ♥ lead is out of the question. And 3 suits remain.

 

Leading ♦ from Q9xx could kill the 9 and reduce the chance of 2 ♦ tricks and after seeing the dummy we could always decide to attack the ♦ in a later stage. And 2 suits remain.

 

Leading ♣ from Axxx is bad if north holds a 5+ card and we play for IMPs so trying to set 1nt is our goal. And the ♠ suit remains.

 

Holding Qx trying to find your partner long suit it's better to start with the Q. Being deceptive leading a small ♠ is a tactic that works better in MP play.

[Kaitlyn S]

Holding Qx trying to find your partner long suit it's better to start with the Q. Being deceptive leading a small ♠ is a tactic that works better in MP play.

Spades probably isn't your partner's long suit. Partner didn't overcall 1S.

[RD350LC]

[hv=pc=n&e=sq4hq85dq973ca964&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1h(System%3A%20Four-card%20Majors)p1nppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Playing in a good standard Teams of Eight competition you are on lead against 1NT.

 

What would you lead?

 

What do you think of the lead of the 4♠ as a deceptive lead?

 

 

I was declarer and the lead of the four of spades certainly fooled me. I took a finesse against East, believing that West was out of spades, only for west to run his winners. I'd never come up against this particular deception before.

 

Not one that I would do, but as Robert Ewen states in his book "Opening Leads", any lead can strike oil if the distribution is right. That is not to say that I recommend it, but it can work.

Sorry that you were deceived by this lead, but if they play like this...

[maartenxq]

[hv=pc=n&e=sq4hq85dq973ca964&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1h(System%3A%20Four-card%20Majors)p1nppp]133|200[/hv]

 

Playing in a good standard Teams of Eight competition you are on lead against 1NT.

 

What would you lead?

 

What do you think of the lead of the 4♠ as a deceptive lead?

 

You may have an incidental succes at the cost of fooling yr partner the other 9(9) times longest and strongest. Maybe♦better because ♣ace sure entry.

Maarten Baltussen

[aawk]

Spades probably isn't your partner's long suit. Partner didn't overcall 1S.

 

North denied a 4 card ♠ and south is marked with a 0-4 card ♠ (otherwise he would not pass on 1nt or would open 1♠ instead of 1♥) so partner has at least 4 ♠ and a 5 card is still possible. Just the fact he did not give a overcall does not change that. You got 10 HCP and both opponents bid so west hand is likely not worth a overcall.

[miamijd]

North denied a 4 card ♠ and south is marked with a 0-4 card ♠ (otherwise he would not pass on 1nt or would open 1♠ instead of 1♥) so partner has at least 4 ♠ and a 5 card is still possible. Just the fact he did not give a overcall does not chance that. You got 10 HCP and both opponents bid so west hand is likely not worth a overcall.

 

West's hand could easily be worth an overcall with the right cards. The opponents have stopped in 1NT, so they ought to have 18-24 of the HCP (opener has 12-15 or so; responder has 6-9). If they have more than that, who cares what we lead (they are making 1NT, and likely making 3NT). So assume our side has 16-22, which leaves partner 6-12.

 

Your partner didn't overcall 1S. Why not? Well, either his hand wasn't good enough or his suit wasn't good (or long) enough. If his hand wasn't good enough, you aren't beating 1NT, so since this is IMPs, we need to ignore that possibility and assume he has a fair hand, so that we can have a shot to beat the contract. If he has 8+ HCP or so, then either (A) he doesn't have 5 spades or (B) he has 5 spades, but they aren't very good, and leading one is likely to give a trick.

 

Seems like a low diamond is the normal lead, but of course, depending on the lie of the cards, just about anything could work.

[johnu]

If you have access to a simulator and double dummy analyzer, you'll be surprised that even the worst looking leads work a fair amount of the time. Far more often than you might have guessed originally. The corollary is that the best looking leads are rarely as good as you think they would have been.

[Kaitlyn S]

If you have access to a simulator and double dummy analyzer, you'll be surprised that even the worst looking leads work a fair amount of the time. Far more often than you might have guessed originally. The corollary is that the best looking leads are rarely as good as you think they would have been.

Double dummy isn't a good gauge. If I lead the S4 on this hand, my double dummy partner will defend perfectly, but it's likely my human partner will be totally misled and misdefend as a result.

[marklaf]

If you say it a good standard--that is you can depend on your opponents to bid reasonably---I think it is reasonable--partner is marked with spade length and a not so good suit--so a smattering of points. I wouldn't find it at the table but other leads are just as dangerous if not more so.

[johnu]

Double dummy isn't a good gauge. If I lead the S4 on this hand, my double dummy partner will defend perfectly, but it's likely my human partner will be totally misled and misdefend as a result.

 

Or declarer will misread the lead as in this case and misplay so that tends to even out the results. If you had nothing else to do, you could take the simulations and try to decide what would happen single dummy. Maybe you could do it for 1 or 2 test cases, but even the smallest of changes in bidding or cards can dramatically change the results. For me, double dummy simulations are good enough for most guesses.

 

But you bring up a point frequently brought up by double dummy haters. My question is if not double dummy analyzers, what??? Where and how are going to find 10, 50, 100, 200+ hands to do a single dummy analysis and then adjust for strength of bidding and play by all 4 players in the hand?

[P_Marlowe]

Double dummy isn't a good gauge. If I lead the S4 on this hand, my double dummy partner will defend perfectly, but it's likely my human partner will be totally misled and misdefend as a result.

The argument is partially true, but also misses something.

 

If deciding, what to lead, it is common advice, to ask, what lead requires the least from

partner. Which holding in the 3 unknown hands are good for a specific lead, which are not.

And to do this, you should construct sample hands in your mind.

In the given situation, if we choose spade, we lead from our suit shortage through their

suit length to our suit length. We also lead through most of their honors, to some of our

honors.

A DD simulation can give you a pretty good idea, how likely you are blowing a trick, if you

go for spade vs. not going for spade. And the DD will construct 100-1000 hands.

The only read free parameter is, how good the spade suit is, that partner can still hold,

lots of peoble would go in with ATxxx and 10 HCP, most will go in with AKxxx even red,

for some 9xx xxx will do, with 10 HCP on the side, not for me, ...

 

Finally: We have a situation, when touching every suit is risky, and the only information we

have is, that heart is their suit, and that the spades will be likely break, giving each side

combined 6 or 7cards.

If spades hits partners 5 carder, it will be brilliant, if we hit his 4 carder,it may or may

not cost.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

 

PS: The argument, that partner is misdefending id also only half true, the knowledge that partner

goes for DD leads, what ever this means in a sheat free context, should be a partnership agreement,

and if oppoenents ask, you can tell them that.

[Kaitlyn S]

But you bring up a point frequently brought up by double dummy haters. My question is if not double dummy analyzers, what??? Where and how are going to find 10, 50, 100, 200+ hands to do a single dummy analysis and then adjust for strength of bidding and play by all 4 players in the hand?

I wasn't a double dummy hater until someone ran a simulation with thousands of deals to "prove" that four queens were better than two aces.

[Winstonm]

I shall rate this lead: it sucks....when you are declarer....and it works.

[P_Marlowe]

I wasn't a double dummy hater until someone ran a simulation with thousands of deals to "prove" that four queens were better than two aces.

Than you are also a statistics hater?

I understand the point, ..., the simulation is not the issue, but that peoble, dont try

to figure out, why the result of a given simulation is as it is.

If a simulation / statistical analysis tells you something that is contraire to any common

logic, repeat it, and if the same result showes u,p check the input again and run the whole

process again. Try even to restart from scratch.

And only after a while, if the output is still the same, try to believe it, ..., and the hardest

part begins, try to understand it, what have you overlooked the whole time.

[johnu]

I wasn't a double dummy hater until someone ran a simulation with thousands of deals to "prove" that four queens were better than two aces.

 

Sounds like an "interesting" idea. In poker, no question that 4 queens beat 2 aces every day of the year.