[shevek]

---

Discuss the merits of leading ♠6

[benlessard]

I think its sometimes right to lead low when you know declarer got 2 stoppers, obv its not the case here.

[steve2005]

leading low from Qx can only possibly help if opp have singleton K or A. Even then it blocks the suit so would be an unusual lead.

[shevek]

steve2005, on 2015-April-22, 21:35, said:

leading low from Qx can only possibly help if opp have singleton K or A. Even then it blocks the suit so would be an unusual lead.

The idea is that partner is likely to have the entries to untangle all your spade tricks. There are at least 2 ways to gain:

1) Declarer may hook into your ♠ Q
(Give Partner ♠Axxxx and declarer ♠KJT say)

2) Partner may be able to attack spades from his side:
Dummy: ♠ATx
Partner: ♠J9xxx
Declarer: ♠Kxx

Or similar. Here ♠Q lead gives them 3 stoppers, while ♠6 allows partner to set them up for 3 rricks.

[Trinidad]

steve2005, on 2015-April-22, 21:35, said:

leading low from Qx can only possibly help if opp have singleton K or A. Even then it blocks the suit so would be an unusual lead.

Blocking the suit might not be bad at all, which -I admit- is unusual. Partner will probably have the entries to set up spades, anyway. But it could well be an advantage if, later in the play, we get to to lead through dummy's strength in one of the other suits.

Rik

[PhilKing]

steve2005, on 2015-April-22, 21:35, said:

leading low from Qx can only possibly help if opp have singleton K or A. Even then it blocks the suit so would be an unusual lead.

To be fair, although you are completely wrong, a simulation would probably prove that you are right.

[helene_t]

Are we talking about having the agreement to do this (and assuming that opps are bothered to look at our CC or ask), or are we talking about doing it with a pick-up partner?

[WesleyC]

A low spade on this hand has merit.

1. You have a very weak hand so partner might still have enough entries to untangle the spades.
2. Favourable spade distributions such as [Txx - KJx] or [xx - Jxxx] or [A - JT9x] are consistent with the bidding.
3. On other layouts, the ♠Q might become an important entry later in the hand.

However it might easily go wrong.

1. Partner could easily misread the spade position and fail to capitalize on one of the favourable layouts.
2. We might not need to do anything fancy to beat 2NT. RHO was under pressure when they bid 1NT, so they could have a weak hand and a bad stopper. Unblocking the ♠Q and clarifying the position to partner could be all that is needed.

With a partner good enough to recognize the possibility, I think a low spade has plenty of merit.

[kuhchung]

I think it would work quite well with an unthinking partner as well who will just return the suit regardless!

[jodepp]

If one does not wish to lead the spade queen, then maybe leading low from one of the four-baggers is preferable to leading a card that will surely get partner to question our sanity...

I get that the ♠6 might work on some layouts. It also might block the suit on others. Rather than give partner and opponents more ammo for thinking I'd rather be sneaky than reliable, if I don't want to lead the ♠Q I'll just lead something else.

[zillahandp]

You have no clear entries p either has five spades or more than 14 pts or both qs is only sensible lead

[Trinidad]

helene_t, on 2015-April-23, 04:51, said:

Are we talking about having the agreement to do this (and assuming that opps are bothered to look at our CC or ask), or are we talking about doing it with a pick-up partner?

I assumed we were talking about an imaginative lead, consciously deviating from our lead convention, because we think that a low spade is technically better in this situation.

Rik

[gnasher]

If all of these apply:
- Partner is known to have all the strength
- Partner is known to have at least five cards in the suit
- RHO has shown a stopper
Leading low will be right much more often than wrong.

This isn't a matter of being deceptive, it's a matter of giving declarer a losing option when he has KJx, AJx, AK10 etc. As this requires partner to be aware of the possibility, the right approach is to have an agreement to do this. And, of course, one would disclose such an agreement. Declarer will usually still go wrong, because he'll play with the odds.

[rhm]

There are quite a few layouts where leading low is technically correct.
For example partner has ♠KTxxx(x) and dummy ♠Jxx.
If you lead the ♠queen, declarer has two stoppers.

Since leading low blocks the suit partner will have to get in at least twice.

Rainer Herrmann

[masse24]

I recently read a CSBNews article from 2013 on this topic. Link here: Leading Low From a Doubleton Honor

Authored by Rixi Marcus, she writes: "This may well work better when the hand on your left is marked with strength in this suit, and especially when you have no re-entry to your hand."

I found it interesting.

[WesleyC]

gnasher, on 2015-April-24, 01:10, said:

As this requires partner to be aware of the possibility, the right approach is to have an agreement to do this. And, of course, one would disclose such an agreement.

I agree with the principle, but I'm genuinely curious about how you would disclose this 'agreement' to the opponents in a way that doesn't mislead them.

[PhilKing]

WesleyC, on 2015-April-24, 11:15, said:

I agree with the principle, but I'm genuinely curious about how you would disclose this 'agreement' to the opponents in a way that doesn't mislead them.

It's not an agreement (yep, I know Gnasher said it is). I mean, it's not like any reasonable partnership would agree not to do it having weighed up the pros and cons - it's a known expert technique.

[DAVDJ1]

6 should work more often than Q therefor is percentage play. Any other lead might give declarer a free finess

[jogs]

I lead low once about 30 years ago.

1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ - pass
4♥ - all pass

The spades were

---------♠ Axxxx

♠ Jxx ----------------♠ Kxx

---------♠ Qx

It went low spade to the ace.
Low spade. Declarer played small and my queen won.
Club to pd's ace and spade which I ruffed.
We were the only pair to beat 4♥.

[gnasher]

WesleyC, on 2015-April-24, 11:15, said:

I agree with the principle, but I'm genuinely curious about how you would disclose this 'agreement' to the opponents in a way that doesn't mislead them.

I'd say "Normally we lead top from two and low from three, but in this situation he might lead low from Qx or Jx. That doesn't seem very difficult.

PhilKing, on 2015-April-24, 11:33, said:

It's not an agreement (yep, I know Gnasher said it is). I mean, it's not like any reasonable partnership would agree not to do it having weighed up the pros and cons - it's a known expert technique.

The rules don't deal only with "agreements": the key phrase is "partnership understanding". If your partner knows from shared experience that you might lead low from Qx, it's a partnership understanding and disclosable under the Laws. If he merely surmises it from general bridge knowledge, it's not. I realise that it's often not as clearcut as that - it can be a bit of both, or it may be unclear where his knowledge comes from, but you should still do your best to identify and disclose your implicit understandings.