[awm]

RHO opens 1♣, LHO bids 1♥, RHO jumps to 2NT and LHO bids 6NT. You hold:

Scoring: IMP

---

What do you lead?

[willow23]

RHO seem to be the aggressor....I lead small ♦ ..think chances are that A♦ is on the right and K♦ should still make..but if p has an honor...we are good to go:)

[mikeh]

Sometimes the best approach is to eliminate obvious non-starters.

A ♣ is silly.. yes, it might work but it is still silly.

A ♦ is not quite as silly, but may easily blow a trick and/or cost a tempo

A ♥: interesting, but which one? The 'book' lead is the 9, but that will tell declarer that you hold no honour, or that you are being weird. If I am going to lead a ♥, it is the 2.... so that declarer, with AKJ10 in dummy may go wrong later (if not immediately).

A ♠: arguably the normal lead. Will usually not blow a trick, altho it may well (especially on this auction) remove a guess in a 2-way finesse position. However, that requires a pretty specific layout. It might also cost us a tempo... but tempo issues are not usually as significant at the 6-level as they are in lower contracts, where declarer has to knock out a number of cards.

My vote: ♠9, but I really like the ♥2... but it is too weird for me to make at the table. The fact that this is posted as a problem suggests that the 'normal' ♠ is a loser...oh well, at least I can't be accused of cooking my lead because it is a problem

[Winstonm]

If the slams are high-card slams, it usually is best to lead aggressively against small slams and passively against grand slams. There is just enough room for partner to hold the diamond Q, but if he holds the Club K then opps are on a 32-point slam - which is possible but less likely as responder didn't try to check for a secondary heart fit.

Against most small slams, I think it is a bad idea to give up the tempo by making a passive lead - after all, they have announced they think they can make 12 tricks, and a passive lead gives them a head start.

The diamond is not as risky as it appears. For it to blow the contract, declarer would have to have 8 major-suit tricks plus the AK of clubs. On the auction, his most likely shapes are 4333, 4234, 3244, or 3235. If partner has as little as the J10 of hearts, the hearts won't come in, and in half the shapes there are only 3 spade tricks to be had. However, if he is 3235, we might have to get our diamond established before the 4 club tricks are established.

The other reason I like the diamond lead is I've seen some strange blasts like this with a long, solid suits and little else, made a passive lead, and watched them cash their 12 tricks while we ate our A and K of diamonds.

I voted for a diamond before reading any responses, so if I blew it, oh, well, it was what I would do at the table.

[FrancesHinden]

Winstonm, on Jul 24 2006, 06:31 AM, said:

....it usually is best to lead aggressively against small slams and passively against grand slams.

This is usually true against suit contracts, or against 6NT bid with a source of tricks. It's not usually true against 32-34 high balanced hands when the emphasis is more on not losing two tricks than it is on finding 12 tricks. In particular, making an aggressive lead into a strong 18-19 HCP balanced hand is not usually recommended.

That's why mikeh says the 'standard' lead is a spade.

On this auction we aren't certain if the raise to 6NT is based on a balanced 15-count, or on long hearts. If the latter, we may well want to be aggressive. If the former, we probably want to avoid blowing anything.

I don't believe a low heart lead will particularly fool declarer, as you would basically never choose to lead from the HQ or HJ into this auction and he won't have any choice about who to play for the HK.

A heart lead is tempting anyway, because it's likely to be declarer's weakest suit, and we are least likely to screw the suit up leading it.

It's not difficult to come up with hands where anything works. A club does indeed look stupid, but if declarer could have a 4333 19-count with Axx in the suit it could also be the winning lead.

[Free]

low ♥. Read my blog about "odd but successful leads", this is one of them.

[whereagles]

heart for me as well. A random one will do.

[awm]

Suppose that instead, you heard the following artificial auction. Would this auction tend to convince you to make a different lead:

1♣ (1) - 1♦ (2)
1NT (3) - 2♣ (4)
2♦ (5) - 2♥ (6)
2♠ (7) - 6NT

(1) Strong artificial, 16+ hcp
(2) Either very weak or very strong
(3) 17-20, balanced
(4) Puppet to 2♦
(5) Forced
(6) Relay; game forcing hand
(7) Denies four hearts; denies four spades unless very max

[joshs]

awm, on Jul 24 2006, 07:32 PM, said:

Suppose that instead, you heard the following artificial auction. Would this auction tend to convince you to make a different lead:

1♣ (1) - 1♦ (2)
1NT (3) - 2♣ (4)
2♦ (5) - 2♥ (6)
2♠ (7) - 6NT

(1) Strong artificial, 16+ hcp
(2) Either very weak or very strong
(3) 17-20, balanced
(4) Puppet to 2♦
(5) Forced
(6) Relay; game forcing hand
(7) Denies four hearts; denies four spades unless very max

Let me guess. There was a hitch after the 2C bid and they lead a club against you....

[awm]

There were no ethical issues on this hand. Here's the whole thing:

Scoring: IMP

---

At my teammates table, they heard the natural auction 1♣-1♥-2NT-6NT. My teammate lead a heart. After the match he stated that he would "never even consider leading a spade" and that his second choice would've been a diamond.

At my table, the opponents heard the artificial auction. Personally, I think this conveys almost exactly the same information as the natural auction. Basically opener has a big balanced hand, responder has some interest in hearts but punts to 6NT when he finds out opener has no four-card heart suit. Nonetheless, my teammate who was on lead felt that our auction "made a spade lead much easier" than the auction at his table.

I found this curious, since I personally would lead a spade without a lot of thought on either of the two auctions, and I concur with mikeh that this is the "normal" lead. Nonetheless the poll results seem to indicate that I am in a distinct minority.

Obviously we lost a huge number of imps on the board. My table could've saved most of them by reaching the superior 6♣, but I did think my teammate made a poor opening lead and then tried to blame my partnership's bidding methods for somehow making things easy on the opponents.

[mikeh]

awm, on Jul 25 2006, 05:02 PM, said:

There were no ethical issues on this hand. Here's the whole thing:

Scoring: IMP

---

At my teammates table, they heard the natural auction 1♣-1♥-2NT-6NT. My teammate lead a heart. After the match he stated that he would "never even consider leading a spade" and that his second choice would've been a diamond.

At my table, the opponents heard the artificial auction. Personally, I think this conveys almost exactly the same information as the natural auction. Basically opener has a big balanced hand, responder has some interest in hearts but punts to 6NT when he finds out opener has no four-card heart suit. Nonetheless, my teammate who was on lead felt that our auction "made a spade lead much easier" than the auction at his table.

I found this curious, since I personally would lead a spade without a lot of thought on either of the two auctions, and I concur with mikeh that this is the "normal" lead. Nonetheless the poll results seem to indicate that I am in a distinct minority.

Obviously we lost a huge number of imps on the board. My table could've saved most of them by reaching the superior 6♣, but I did think my teammate made a poor opening lead and then tried to blame my partnership's bidding methods for somehow making things easy on the opponents.

Sounds like we need to put a team together

[Winstonm]

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Jul 25 2006, 05:54 PM, said:

Better include me on that team...between Mike's heart lead and my diamond lead there are two slam swings against us to start....

However, I still stand by my lead...a diamond lead did not blow the contract it just didn't beat it...a substantial difference.  And it is somewhat of a blind guess.  If opener's hand had been instead, KJx, Jx, AJx, AKJxxx we would be debating how to find the diamond lead.

On second thought, I think I am way too good for this team...perhaps NPC or coach?       

Sorry, Winston... you're not on the team, and the npc needs better reading skills than you exhibited .... I voted for the killing ♠ lead, while expressing a sneaking liking for the losing ♥ lead.

Maybe next event?

[Winstonm]

Quote

Sorry, Winston... you're not on the team, and the npc needs better reading skills than you exhibited    .... I voted for the killing ♠ lead, while expressing a sneaking liking for the losing ♥ lead.

Has nothing to do with reading ability....something called memory lapse instead. How do you expect me to remember today what you wrote the day before - I've slept since then.

[awm]

It seems like there are basically three categories of contract. Suppose declarer somehow was required to lead to trick one from his own hand. Assuming the contract is potentially beatable, we have three categories:

(1) Declarer would never make if forced to lead from his own hand.
(2) Declarer could make if leading from his own hand, but would often "misguess" something playing single-dummy and go down.
(3) Declarer would normally make leading from his own hand.

In case (1) we need a passive lead that doesn't give declarer anything he can't do himself. On this hand that means a spade or a heart will be the clear winner. Either minor suit lead could be disaster.

In case (2), we need a lead that won't give a trick, but additionally doesn't take away a two-way guess declarer needs in order to make. This is where a spade lead looks substantially better than a heart. Dummy is known to have heart length so declarer will probably need tricks from this suit. The same is not true of spades.

In case (3), we need to develop a trick via the tempo from the opening lead. This is where a diamond lead could win, since we need only for partner to hold the ♦Q. Most likely declarer will need to set up hearts and clubs in order to have 12 tricks anyway. However, the trick we need to set up could be the ♠K in partner's hand almost as easily as the ♦Q. Thus even if we need an "active" lead to beat the contract a spade is only slightly inferior to a diamond.

On the balance I think spade lead is tied for best in case (1), better than any other lead in case (2), and a close second-best in case (3), making it easily the best lead overall. Of course you can easily construct alternate hands where any suit lead is needed to break the contract, but probabilistically I don't think this is all that close a decision.

[Winstonm]

awm, on Jul 25 2006, 06:56 PM, said:

It seems like there are basically three categories of contract. Suppose declarer somehow was required to lead to trick one from his own hand. Assuming the contract is potentially beatable, we have three categories:

(1) Declarer would never make if forced to lead from his own hand.
(2) Declarer could make if leading from his own hand, but would often "misguess" something playing single-dummy and go down.
(3) Declarer would normally make leading from his own hand.

In case (1) we need a passive lead that doesn't give declarer anything he can't do himself. On this hand that means a spade or a heart will be the clear winner. Either minor suit lead could be disaster.

In case (2), we need a lead that won't give a trick, but additionally doesn't take away a two-way guess declarer needs in order to make. This is where a spade lead looks substantially better than a heart. Dummy is known to have heart length so declarer will probably need tricks from this suit. The same is not true of spades.

In case (3), we need to develop a trick via the tempo from the opening lead. This is where a diamond lead could win, since we need only for partner to hold the ♦Q. Most likely declarer will need to set up hearts and clubs in order to have 12 tricks anyway. However, the trick we need to set up could be the ♠K in partner's hand almost as easily as the ♦Q. Thus even if we need an "active" lead to beat the contract a spade is only slightly inferior to a diamond.

On the balance I think spade lead is tied for best in case (1), better than any other lead in case (2), and a close second-best in case (3), making it easily the best lead overall. Of course you can easily construct alternate hands where any suit lead is needed to break the contract, but probabilistically I don't think this is all that close a decision.

I think this is a fine analysis and worth a re-read. Thanks. The only slight point I also bring up is that if an aggressive lead is needed, the diamond only requires a 2-point holding in partner's hand rather than the 3 or 4-point holding that is required in spades. If a spade is right aggressively, the opps are in a 32-point slam.

[Codo]

Yes a great analysis, but in spade I need to know, that the ace is in dummy and that pd has the king. Much more then a lousy queen (or ace...) of Diamond..