Why underleading the K is such a taboo?

[delmo]

Why “under-leading the K” is such a taboo?

The other day, we encountered a hand as shown. Every pair in the field made 6 or 7, but nobody else made a Slam bid, except our pair with some possible overbidding on the part of my partner or a misunderstanding on my part.

As mutual understanding, a response of 2/1 is meant to have 12+pts with 10+HCPs. So, my landing on 6♥ was based on my expecting partner to hold either the K of ♠ or the Q of ♥ with some distributional points.

But as the cards lie, I realized that my partner had either over-counted the J of ♥ for 2 HCPs in support of my 1♥ opening, or assigned an extra point to the forth ♥.

It’s clear that an opening lead of ♠ will beat the contract. But nobody made such a lead.

For me, the opening lead was a ♦, and I made my small slam with an extra trick for a score of 1010 points and 11 IMPs.

[hv=pc=n&s=sj64hak542dajca52&w=sk9873hqtd974cj76&n=st5hj873dkq852ck8&e=saq2h96dt63cqt943&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1hp2cp3np4hp4np5cp6hppp]399|300[/hv]

[Tramticket]

I disagree that leading away from a king is "taboo" against a suit small slam. You have to listen to the auction of course, but a suit slam often requires an attacking lead with the aim of setting up defensive tricks before they can disappear on declarer's long suits. The type of auction needing an attacking lead are when the opponents have bid a slam with too few high card points - so are likely to be winning 12 tricks by establishing length winners. An attacking lead away from a king is less likely to be fruitful against 6NT contracts and suit slams bid based on high-card strength.

 

I was taught this lesson by one of my early partner's - a lady many years my senior, who had played in the Acol set in the pre-war years. We played in a day-long tournament and I twice let slams through by failing to lead my king-high suit. This lead is now one of my first considerations against a small slam.

 

Would I lead a spade on your example hand? I'm not sure, since I don't understand very much of the bidding - I would want to ask a few questions first. But it certainly would be a strong candidate and would require the least from partner to defeat the slam. I can envisage the slam failing if partner has nothing but the ♠Q and declarer makes an unfortunate guess in hearts.

[pescetom]

For me, the opening lead was a ♦

How did you explain 2♣ ?

 

You say possible overbidding by partner - are you comfortable with your 6♥ without checking for the Q of trumps and knowing that he has at most the K opposite your J in spades?

[FelicityR]

2♣ could be some Drury-type bid here. However, the reason I'm leading a ♠ here is

 

1. Attacking leads against suit small slam contracts are the norm these days.

2. The opponents haven't used cue bids to progress to slam so there is a possibility that they have a worthless doubleton and are hoping for a favourable lead.

3. The opponents haven't mentioned the ♠ suit as a suit, so its likely if any losing cards in their hands may be discarded on a longer minor fit.

4. If 2♣ was Drury, with North now bidding 4♥ suggests that the partnership have a 9 card ♥ fit and the ♥Q is useless and is going to drop.

5. A lead in a minor suit could make things difficult for partner if he/she has one of the minor suit queens.

 

That said, the small ♠ lead may turn out badly, but I'd rather make an attacking lead here than a passive lead that may cause problems to partner, and even lose a tempo in play.

[mikeh]

The bidding by south seems unduly optimistic to me. Partner is a passed hand. Obviously north thought he was playing drury and apparently south did not

 

In any event, for south to bid slam is, frankly, silly. Even with the apparent misunderstanding, it is trivial to construct hands where north has an opening hand (which of course he cannot have) where the AK of spades are missing.

 

As for the taboo nature of underleading kings, the OP must play in a weak environment. Such underleads are common amongst experience players

[wank]

you're wrong about the bidding. 2C shows a maximum pass. north has that. you grossly overbid.

[Cyberyeti]

you're wrong about the bidding. 2C shows a maximum pass. north has that. you grossly overbid.

 

If you can rely on partner splintering with x, Qxxx, KQ10xx, Kxx then yes S has grossly overbid, not sure if the OP can, but he's massively guessing, should have played in 5 after asking for Q on the actual auction.

[nige1]

[hv=pc=n&s=sj64hak542dajca52&w=sk9873hqtd974cj76&n=st5hj873dkq852ck8&e=saq2h96dt63cqt943&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1hp2cp3np4hp4np5cp6hppp]399|300| delmo asks 'Why "under-leading the K" is such a taboo? The other day, we encountered a hand as shown. Every pair in the field made 6 or 7, but nobody else made a Slam bid, except our pair with some possible overbidding on the part of my partner or a misunderstanding on my part. As mutual understanding, a response of 2/1 is meant to have 12+pts with 10+HCPs. So, my landing on 6♥ was based on my expecting partner to hold either the K of ♠ or the Q of ♥ with some distributional points. But as the cards lie, I realized that my partner had either over-counted the J of ♥ for 2 HCPs in support of my 1♥ opening, or assigned an extra point to the forth ♥. It's clear that an opening lead of ♠ will beat the contract. But nobody made such a lead. For me, the opening lead was a ♦, and I made my small slam with an extra trick for a score of 1010 points and 11 IMPs.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Reputedly, Tony Forrester disapproves of leading from a King.

 

Here, North should call the director if his 2♣ reply is alertable, in case that might affect the auction or lead.[/hv]

[grynbryn]

Goren once said that there is a special place in warm, dark, nether regions for those who do not want to underfed a king: They are always on opening lead, with all four kings.

[dsLawsd]

You tricky fellow- bidding as if you had spade control which put the opening leader under the delusion that a passive lead was the best hope here. And perhaps hoping that you would somehow win a heart trick too. Otherwise, even against NT it is often best to lead a card closest to winning a trick- here the ♠K!!

[helgev]

The bidding by south seems unduly optimistic to me. Partner is a passed hand. Obviously north thought he was playing drury and apparently south did not

 

In any event, for south to bid slam is, frankly, silly. Even with the apparent misunderstanding, it is trivial to construct hands where north has an opening hand (which of course he cannot have) where the AK of spades are missing.

 

As for the taboo nature of underleading kings, the OP must play in a weak environment. Such underleads are common amongst experience players

[helgev]

The environment can't that weak. No one else bid the slam :rolleyes:

[bluenikki]

Goren once said that there is a special place in warm, dark, nether regions for those who do not want to underfed a king: They are always on opening lead, with all four kings.

 

Goren also wrote that it is safer to underlead a K than a J. The K may still take a trick later. Much less likely that the J will

[delmo]

How did you explain 2♣ ?

 

You say possible overbidding by partner - are you comfortable with your 6♥ without checking for the Q of trumps and knowing that he has at most the K opposite your J in spades?

 

Already explained in the text. Please read once more.

[pescetom]

Already explained in the text. Please read once more.

 

Welcome back.

I read the text once more but did not find an answer to either of my questions.

 

You say that your understanding is that a response of 2/1 has 12+pts with 10+HCPs. But how if at all was 2♣ explained to opponents? As "12+pts with 10+HCPs, does not promise clubs or deny 5-card diamonds" ? If not, the opponent who lead diamonds might well recriminate.

 

Why are you comfortable with your 6♥ called without checking for the Q of trumps (by bidding 5♦) and knowing that he has at most the K opposite your J in spades? Your text only says you expect him to hold either Q♥ or K♠ (not both) and even then it's just a supposition.

[pigpenz]

Marshall Miles was famous for underleading Aces against slams....to each his own

[sfi]

Marshall Miles was famous for underleading Aces against slams....to each his own

In the recent Australian open team trials, one player underled aces on opening lead so often that an opponent finally played for him to have done it. Declarer was wrong again.