[MickyB]

IMPs. 1S-2S-6C-AP
H7 lead, low from dummy

---

[ArtK78]

The only issue is whether it is more likely that declarer is missing 3 first round controls or 2 top hearts. if the former, I must switch to a diamond at trick 2. If the latter, I must cash two hearts. The only thing that I know is that partner does not have the ♥Q. So, if declarer follows to trick one with the ♥2, I can cash the second heart. If declarer follows to trick one with the ♥Q, I have a guess.

Would declarer be more likely to jump to 6♣ holding:

xx
Q
x
AKQJTxxxx

or

x
Qx
A
AKQJTxxxx

I don't know. Perhaps the first hand is more likely and a diamond shift is required. Perhaps with 9 solid and an outside ace West would be more likely to try to bid constructively rather than just blast.

I suspect that a diamond shift is best, but I really don't know.

[ahydra]

 ArtK78, on 2014-January-08, 10:27, said:

The only issue is whether it is more likely that declarer is missing 3 first round controls or 2 top hearts. if the former, I must switch to a diamond at trick 2. If the latter, I must cash two hearts. The only thing that I know is that partner does not have the ♥Q. So, if declarer follows to trick one with the ♥2, I can cash the second heart. If declarer follows to trick one with the ♥Q, I have a guess.

Would declarer be more likely to jump to 6♣ holding:

xx
Q
x
AKQJTxxxx

or

x
Qx
A
AKQJTxxxx

I don't know. Perhaps the first hand is more likely and a diamond shift is required. Perhaps with 9 solid and an outside ace West would be more likely to try to bid constructively rather than just blast.

I suspect that a diamond shift is best, but I really don't know.

From what I can make of the OP, the bidding went East 1S, South 2S, West 6C, all pass. North led the H7. So declarer cannot have the HQ, because South has it.

Unfortunately you're stuck with the heart spots, no matter what declarer follows with - it could be North holding 7 singleton and declarer 62, or North holding 7x and declarer holding the other x. It's fairly tempting to play the H3 and let partner win in the very unlikely case he does have the DA - because nothing else seems to look promising, with the SQ onside if not in declarer's hand.

On the other hand, perhaps it's equally unlikely declarer would bid 6C holding xx in hearts on this auction?

ahydra

[mikeh]

Let's start by thinking about the auction and the lead.

Anybody wondering whether to play declarer for a stiff diamond is not, it seems to me, doing either. Do any of us think that partner will defend on this auction with 6 diamonds, that look at least as good as KQxxxx and may, if declarer has a stiff x, be AKQxxx? Bear in mind that we have to come up with a hand for partner on which we can beat this slam (nothing matters if the slam is cold) and on which partner wouldn't bid and didn't lead the diamond Ace.

I also think that if partner has say, Kxxx in diamonds and xx in hearts, he will lead a diamond most of the time.

So while these sorts of inferences always come with a warning label, I am going to place declarer with first round diamond control, and it will be the A (does partner have AKQxxxx? (See below)

I am picturing declarer as x xx AK AKQJ10xxx or maybe even Q xx AK AKQJ10xxx

I am not suggesting these are the only sorts of layouts consistent with the auction on which 2 rounds of hearts makes sense. A double-dummy partner might refrain from a diamond bid or lead with Qxx x AKQxxxx xx Heck, maybe he talked himself into the idea that I might have 5 clubs! That would give declarer x xx void AKQJxxxxxx .

Anyway, to my mind not continuing hearts is playing for partner to have done something bad.

[gnasher]

Can't declarer have x x AKQxx AKQJ109 or x x AKxx AKQJ10xx? Most opponents are far more likely to have slow diamond losers than fast heart losers. I'd win and play a spade.

[mikeh]

 gnasher, on 2014-January-08, 12:54, said:

Can't declarer have x x AKQxx AKQJ109 or x x AKxx AKQJ10xx? Most opponents are far more likely to have slow diamond losers than fast heart losers. I'd win and play a spade.

I can't see why declarer would commit to clubs with your first example. With only a 1 card discrepancy, he can't safely assume that our minor is diamonds. Besides, with that actual hand, the chances of a grand are far too much to simply blast a slam in what might be a poor fit. Wouldn't/shouldn't he bid 3♣ with that hand? Unless he is afraid that 3♣ might be passed, what does it cost him to bid out his hand, in case partner happens to be something like AJxxx Axx Qxxxx void?

I'd considered the spade switch as well, but you do need opener to have 4+ diamonds. And if he has 5, then partner is 2=2 in the reds and might well have chosen a diamond lead, even or especially from Qx, rather than a heart from 7x. After all, he is presumably playing us for a second trick, not just a first trick, and Qx seems more likely to grow that second trick than does xx.

The same reasoning suggests he might well prefer a diamond from Qxx rather than a heart from xx, but I admit that this is a weak inference and may not have any validity at all with many (most?) partners.

[PhilKing]

I would only switch if partner made a slow lead.

[ArtK78]

 ahydra, on 2014-January-08, 11:20, said:

From what I can make of the OP, the bidding went East 1S, South 2S, West 6C, all pass. North led the H7. So declarer cannot have the HQ, because South has it.

Unfortunately you're stuck with the heart spots, no matter what declarer follows with - it could be North holding 7 singleton and declarer 62, or North holding 7x and declarer holding the other x. It's fairly tempting to play the H3 and let partner win in the very unlikely case he does have the DA - because nothing else seems to look promising, with the SQ onside if not in declarer's hand.

On the other hand, perhaps it's equally unlikely declarer would bid 6C holding xx in hearts on this auction?

ahydra

Well, at least I was right that partner didn't have the ♥Q.

I don't know what I was thinking about, but the problem is certainly a strange one.

[ArtK78]

 PhilKing, on 2014-January-08, 14:26, said:

I would only switch if partner made a slow lead.

I can't imagine that he would make a fast lead on this auction.

[MickyB]

North led a heart thinking that South must have good ones to justify an unfavourable Michaels off the AKQ of diamonds, and we were much more likely to have tricks to cash/set up in our 7+card fit than our 10+card fit.

Overtaking and playing a spade can't be right, I think. Surely it's better to leave partner on lead, where he can cash DA if he has it and play a spade otherwise?

---

[WellSpyder]

 MickyB, on 2014-January-09, 05:22, said:

Overtaking and playing a spade can't be right, I think. Surely it's better to leave partner on lead, where he can cash DA if he has it and play a spade otherwise?

Perhaps. But overtaking to play a spade looks a lot more successful than trying to cash a second heart, which would allow the contract to make. Was the difference between 1 off and 2 off significant at imps?

[MickyB]

 WellSpyder, on 2014-January-09, 06:28, said:

Perhaps. But overtaking to play a spade looks a lot more successful than trying to cash a second heart, which would allow the contract to make. Was the difference between 1 off and 2 off significant at imps?

Yes - two off will win you the event, one off leads to you losing it on a split tie

[mikeh]

 MickyB, on 2014-January-09, 05:22, said:

North led a heart thinking that South must have good ones to justify an unfavourable Michaels off the AKQ of diamonds, and we were much more likely to have tricks to cash/set up in our 7+card fit than our 10+card fit.

Overtaking and playing a spade can't be right, I think. Surely it's better to leave partner on lead, where he can cash DA if he has it and play a spade otherwise?

---

I truly think that your partner was overthinking the hand, and that the notion of leaving him on play with the heart 7 is doing the same. Leaving him on play when he has a stiff heart and no diamond Ace isn't a good idea. I do see that I missed the vulnerability when suggesting that he couldn't hold great diamonds and not have bid, but even so, to assume that he thought that we had 2 heart tricks to cash on this auction is strange.

Presumably N talked himself into the idea that declarer 'must' be void in diamonds to bid the slam. But he didn't go the next step: if his partner has 2 quick heart winners, then declarer has bid slam with xx in hearts...if declarer would do that, why would he be promising a diamond void? You can't infer that declarer has to have a first round diamond control and no heart control...it might easily be the other way around or, as here, neither.

Meanwhile, the heart lead may be a losing proposition if only because partner may go wrong, as this thread suggests is quite likely. Sometimes the obvious lead is the obvious lead.

[MickyB]

 mikeh, on 2014-January-09, 09:12, said:

Leaving him on play when he has a stiff heart and no diamond Ace isn't a good idea.

Of course. I wasn't saying that leaving partner on lead was the correct play, merely that leaving partner on lead seems a better bet than overtaking to play a spade [or, indeed, a diamond].

Quote

Presumably N talked himself into the idea that declarer 'must' be void in diamonds to bid the slam. But he didn't go the next step: if his partner has 2 quick heart winners, then declarer has bid slam with xx in hearts...if declarer would do that, why would he be promising a diamond void? You can't infer that declarer has to have a first round diamond control and no heart control...it might easily be the other way around or, as here, neither.

Clearly, there is no reason this West could not hold xx xx - AKQJxxxxx or similar. It is highly unlikely that he holds the same hand with the red suits reversed, this would mean LHO holding five hearts and partner holding six [or vice-versa], many hands with a sixth heart would not have bid Michaels. Maybe a diamond lead will be best in practice, but it feels to me like a heart lead will very rarely let the contract through at trick 1, and I have sympathy for hoping that partner will have enough information to work out what to do at trick 2.

[mikeh]

 MickyB, on 2014-January-09, 10:02, said:

I have sympathy for hoping that partner will have enough information to work out what to do at trick 2.

Part of the information that partner will have is that we chose to lead a heart rather than a diamond. To me, and obviously to others, this is information that implies that partner doesn't have the diamond Ace and/or has a stiff heart.

I have written about this before, and this may not be the best example of the problem I identify, but it seems to me that to argue that we can lead a heart and expect partner to work out that we hold the diamond Ace is allowing our knowledge that we have the diamond Ace to influence our view of what partner will be able to work out. In real life, the fact that we have led hearts is a huge indicator to partner that we lack the diamond A.

As for assuming that partner will work out 'what to do', we are assuming that we have two defensive tricks. If it is 'right' for partner to switch to a diamond, not only won't he likely work it out, but it also means that we could have led a diamond and then WE could work out what to do.


We can infer that we have no black suit trick coming. So leading a heart requires specifically that declarer be void in diamonds and have 2 fast heart losers. If he is 1-1 reds, leading a heart almost always lets the contract through in real life...see above. I understand the reasoning used by to justify the lead, but I think it to be mistaken since it focuses on his hand and not on partner's problems created by our lead.