Page 1 of 1
Opening Lead?
#1
Posted 2006-July-13, 08:40
IMPs, unfavorable, 4th seat
♠ K1087
♥ QJ73
♦ AJ107
♣ 7
(1♥)-p-(2♣*)-p
(2♥)-p-(3♣)-p
(3♠)-p-(3NT)-all pass
* game forcing
♠ K1087
♥ QJ73
♦ AJ107
♣ 7
(1♥)-p-(2♣*)-p
(2♥)-p-(3♣)-p
(3♠)-p-(3NT)-all pass
* game forcing
#3
Posted 2006-July-13, 08:56
spade 7 close.
With 2 close choices, D 10 or s 7 I tend to lead the non ace suit and use the ace as an entry.
With 2 close choices, D 10 or s 7 I tend to lead the non ace suit and use the ace as an entry.
#4
Posted 2006-July-13, 09:39
♦J
Looks right to attack the entry to the clubs asap as well as get our best suit established.
Looks right to attack the entry to the clubs asap as well as get our best suit established.
"Phil" on BBO
#5
Posted 2006-July-13, 10:22
Our choices appear to be between an essentially aggressive ♠ lead, hoping that partner has his meagre values in that suit, along with a slow ♣ stop, or a ♦, combining the hopes of setting up a trick there with an attack on declarer's entry position.
I strongly favour the latter.
The ♠ will not embarrass declarer at all unless partner holds the Q of the suit, which is a small target for us to aim for... indeed, he probably needs something like Q9x(x). With a lesser holding, declarer can win and drive out our partner's putative ♣ stopper (without which we cannot hope to beat the contract) and retain a ♦ entry when the hand is something like
AQx Jx
AKxxxx x
xxx KQx
x AKJxxxx
This is perhaps an extreme layout but demonstrates the point: declarer rates to need the ♣ suit to come home and, when he has to give partner a ♣ trick, rates NOT to have entries in the majors... so go after the suit where his entry is most likely.
I strongly favour the latter.
The ♠ will not embarrass declarer at all unless partner holds the Q of the suit, which is a small target for us to aim for... indeed, he probably needs something like Q9x(x). With a lesser holding, declarer can win and drive out our partner's putative ♣ stopper (without which we cannot hope to beat the contract) and retain a ♦ entry when the hand is something like
AQx Jx
AKxxxx x
xxx KQx
x AKJxxxx
This is perhaps an extreme layout but demonstrates the point: declarer rates to need the ♣ suit to come home and, when he has to give partner a ♣ trick, rates NOT to have entries in the majors... so go after the suit where his entry is most likely.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#6
Posted 2006-July-13, 11:37
mikeh, on Jul 13 2006, 11:22 AM, said:
Our choices appear to be between an essentially aggressive ♠ lead, hoping that partner has his meagre values in that suit, along with a slow ♣ stop, or a ♦, combining the hopes of setting up a trick there with an attack on declarer's entry position.
I strongly favour the latter.
The ♠ will not embarrass declarer at all unless partner holds the Q of the suit, which is a small target for us to aim for... indeed, he probably needs something like Q9x(x). With a lesser holding, declarer can win and drive out our partner's putative ♣ stopper (without which we cannot hope to beat the contract) and retain a ♦ entry when the hand is something like
AQx Jx
AKxxxx x
xxx KQx
x AKJxxxx
This is perhaps an extreme layout but demonstrates the point: declarer rates to need the ♣ suit to come home and, when he has to give partner a ♣ trick, rates NOT to have entries in the majors... so go after the suit where his entry is most likely.
I strongly favour the latter.
The ♠ will not embarrass declarer at all unless partner holds the Q of the suit, which is a small target for us to aim for... indeed, he probably needs something like Q9x(x). With a lesser holding, declarer can win and drive out our partner's putative ♣ stopper (without which we cannot hope to beat the contract) and retain a ♦ entry when the hand is something like
AQx Jx
AKxxxx x
xxx KQx
x AKJxxxx
This is perhaps an extreme layout but demonstrates the point: declarer rates to need the ♣ suit to come home and, when he has to give partner a ♣ trick, rates NOT to have entries in the majors... so go after the suit where his entry is most likely.
Maybe I am missing something but does not 3nt make on a D lead on this example hand?
2s
2h
2d
3c
I guess you go down if you attack clubs first and the opp switch to spades
#7
Posted 2006-July-13, 11:41
mike777, on Jul 13 2006, 12:37 PM, said:
mikeh, on Jul 13 2006, 11:22 AM, said:
Our choices appear to be between an essentially aggressive ♠ lead, hoping that partner has his meagre values in that suit, along with a slow ♣ stop, or a ♦, combining the hopes of setting up a trick there with an attack on declarer's entry position.
I strongly favour the latter.
The ♠ will not embarrass declarer at all unless partner holds the Q of the suit, which is a small target for us to aim for... indeed, he probably needs something like Q9x(x). With a lesser holding, declarer can win and drive out our partner's putative ♣ stopper (without which we cannot hope to beat the contract) and retain a ♦ entry when the hand is something like
AQx Jx
AKxxxx x
xxx KQx
x AKJxxxx
This is perhaps an extreme layout but demonstrates the point: declarer rates to need the ♣ suit to come home and, when he has to give partner a ♣ trick, rates NOT to have entries in the majors... so go after the suit where his entry is most likely.
I strongly favour the latter.
The ♠ will not embarrass declarer at all unless partner holds the Q of the suit, which is a small target for us to aim for... indeed, he probably needs something like Q9x(x). With a lesser holding, declarer can win and drive out our partner's putative ♣ stopper (without which we cannot hope to beat the contract) and retain a ♦ entry when the hand is something like
AQx Jx
AKxxxx x
xxx KQx
x AKJxxxx
This is perhaps an extreme layout but demonstrates the point: declarer rates to need the ♣ suit to come home and, when he has to give partner a ♣ trick, rates NOT to have entries in the majors... so go after the suit where his entry is most likely.
Maybe I am missing something but does not 3nt make on a D lead on this example hand?
2s
2h
2d
3c
Notrump bidder is to your right, so your AJTx of diamonds sit over the KQx. Thus, no 2 diamond tricks. One is the limit. Perhaps that is what you missed...
--Ben--
#8
Posted 2006-July-13, 12:01
Quote
Maybe I am missing something but does not 3nt make on a D lead on this example hand?
2s
2h
2d
3c
I guess you go down if you attack clubs first and the opp switch to spades
2s
2h
2d
3c
I guess you go down if you attack clubs first and the opp switch to spades
3NT can be made on a ♦lead , if declarer wins and plays three rounds of ♥s
#9
Posted 2006-July-14, 09:23
either spade or diamond,
holding the diamond ace,
is a pointer for spade.
But I prefer unbid suits.
With kind regards
Marlowe
holding the diamond ace,
is a pointer for spade.
But I prefer unbid suits.
With kind regards
Marlowe
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#10
Posted 2006-July-14, 17:47
I would go with the 10♦ ..only suit not bidded ..and declearer probably has KQx/KQxx..so knock one off and hope that p can lead through the other if he gets on lead..
Hope for the best..
Hope for the best..
♥Willow23♥
Page 1 of 1

Help
