Leading an unprotected ace

[Wainfleet]

[hv=pc=n&s=s32h976dkjt9765c6&w=sq9875hkjd432ct54&n=s64ha832daq8c9873&e=sakjthqt54dcakqj2&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=2dp3ddp3sp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

A pickup partner led the ♥A. Could you explain the rationale please.

I ran this through Jack - Jack led the ♥A so it's obviously OK. I thought that vs a suit contract you should not lead the ace at trick 1 unless you also have the King.

[HardVector]

Its not unreasonable here. Most of the time, I tell people not to lead unsupported aces, but here it's got some play. Your side needs to get 4 tricks to beat 4♠, and partner can see the A♥ and maybe the A♦. Where are the other 2? Partner is hoping to find you with a singleton heart, get a ruff, get back in with a diamond and give another ruff.

[pescetom]

Or even just to see the dummy and figure out if there is any chance of one or even two diamonds tricks before declarer makes them disappear.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

I would assume, that the Ace of diamonds is better.

The idea is the same, you want to have a look at dummy, and decide,

if you have to switch.

As it is, the Ace of diamonds is worse, because partner opened a weak 2

with a 7 carder, and the remaining diamonds are 3-0.

Given the vulnerability, the weak 2 is not bad, but the 7 carder is still

not the most likely holding partner will have.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[TylerE]

Hi,

 

I would assume, that the Ace of diamonds is better.

 

I would assume the Ace of Diamonds is quite a bit worse, as given the X it's somewhat likely getting ruffed, and it's not that unusual for W to have the Kd here. Diamond preempts can be a bit suspect.

 

I think the real mistake here is to open 2♦. That's the kind of bid that destroys partnership trust. Open 3♦ or pass. By underselling the length you're impeding partner's ability to further the preempt considerably. Ax or even stiff A is pretty good opposite 7... much less good opposite 6.