Help
IMPS, strong field.
Page 1 of 1
opening lead
#1
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 815
- Joined: 2009-August-31
Posted 2012-July-10, 22:47
IMPS, strong field.
Aaron Jones Unit 557
www.longbeachbridge.com
www.longbeachbridge.com
#2
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 431
- Joined: 2008-November-02
Posted 2012-July-11, 02:36
I would lead a ♦
I'm not afraid that ♠ trick(s) are going somewhere and ♠ might serve as an entry to get ♦ ruff(s). I don't think this is one of those cases where forcing trumps by playing ♠ will work because my own trumps are weak and they rate to be in 9 card fit.
♥? Better try to get a ruff on your own.
I'm not afraid that ♠ trick(s) are going somewhere and ♠ might serve as an entry to get ♦ ruff(s). I don't think this is one of those cases where forcing trumps by playing ♠ will work because my own trumps are weak and they rate to be in 9 card fit.
♥? Better try to get a ruff on your own.
Seeking input from anyone who doesn't frequently "wtp", "Lol" or post to merely "Agree with ..." --sathyab
#3
- Andy Bowles
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 11,993
- Joined: 2007-May-03
- Gender:Male
- Location:London, UK
Posted 2012-July-11, 04:28
It's quite surprising to have this hand when partner doubles. I expect it will go down regardless of what I lead, so I should be aiming to maximise the penalty. I'd lead a spade, because the forcing defence looks quite promising. Suppose that they're in a 6-3 fit. We force declarer immediately, win the third trump, and force him again. Assuming partner has at least one diamond winner, we're now in control.
If that's my plan, I'd better start with ♠Q, catering for Kxx in dummy and a high singleton in declarer's hand
If that's my plan, I'd better start with ♠Q, catering for Kxx in dummy and a high singleton in declarer's hand
... that would still not be conclusive proof, before someone wants to explain that to me as well as if I was a 5 year-old. - gwnn
#4
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 431
- Joined: 2008-November-02
Posted 2012-July-11, 05:23
And what if dummy has 2/1/0 spades? Or they are in 5-4 fit? Or declarer can play loser on loser?
And why would declarer play ♥ from top? If dummy has short ♣ (likely given that 4♦+3♠3♥) declarer will probably want to score some ♣ ruffs 1st.
And why would declarer play ♥ from top? If dummy has short ♣ (likely given that 4♦+3♠3♥) declarer will probably want to score some ♣ ruffs 1st.
Seeking input from anyone who doesn't frequently "wtp", "Lol" or post to merely "Agree with ..." --sathyab
#5
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 3,090
- Joined: 2005-June-27
Posted 2012-July-11, 05:35
gnasher, on 2012-July-11, 04:28, said:
It's quite surprising to have this hand when partner doubles. I expect it will go down regardless of what I lead, so I should be aiming to maximise the penalty. I'd lead a spade, because the forcing defence looks quite promising. Suppose that they're in a 6-3 fit. We force declarer immediately, win the third trump, and force him again. Assuming partner has at least one diamond winner, we're now in control.
If that's my plan, I'd better start with ♠Q, catering for Kxx in dummy and a high singleton in declarer's hand
If that's my plan, I'd better start with ♠Q, catering for Kxx in dummy and a high singleton in declarer's hand
I agree and it seems unlikely to me that partner would bid that way with a void in hearts.
So it is anything but clear that declarer has even six hearts.
I only hope that it is not dummy, who is short in spades.
Diamonds could be dangerous if this is declarer's source of tricks in the side suit.
Rainer Herrmann
Page 1 of 1