[mike777]

Scoring: MP

(1S)=(1NT)
(3NT)=P

YOU AND PARD ARE SILENT.

---

Please assume you are teaching an Intermediate level class on MP opening leads.
What do you want them to think about on this hand and lead?

[awm]

First, I wouldn't say that this is an example where there is a standout opening lead at matchpoints. If I was teaching a class I'd try to stick to hands where there's a pretty clearcut consensus choice among strong players.

There are a few pieces of advice I'd give for opening leads that apply to this hand, but I don't think my opening lead reasoning is exactly mainstream. In any case I'd lead a top heart on this one. Here's my reasoning:

(1) When in doubt, lead passive. As it turns out, passive leads work remarkably well at IMPs too (because people tend to overbid), but at MPs I think this is clearcut. You don't want to give declarer any tricks he can't find on his own.

(2) Leading five card suits against NT often works well, because often a simple 3-2 or 3-3 break in the opponents hands will beat the contract. In this case "4th best from longest/strongest" is good advice. But leading from four card suits is less appealing. I don't feel compelled to lead a diamond here, especially at matchpoint scoring.

(3) This auction could easily be pushing. The textbook meaning of 3NT is "a solid suit and a good hand" but a lot of people bid this way with 18-19 flat. If this is the case it definitely indicates a passive lead.

[mikeh]

I would remind them that we are playing mps, and that the goal is thus different that at imps. At imps, we make the lead that gives us the best, even if unlikely, shot at beating the contract: we try to set up tricks for our side, while at mps, when the opps are in what sounds like a normal spot, we shoulda t least think about not giving up tricks unnecessarily.

I'd them ask them what they think dummy's hand looks like: and I'd suggest they think in terms of a 5332 19 count, bearing in mind that nothing is for sure. Maybe ask them what they'd hold for a 1♠ 3N sequence.

I'd then ask them what they think of their ♠ holding and what that probably means in terms of trying to beat the contract. I'd encourage them to think negatively in answer to that question.

I'd tell them that the rule about 4th best from longest and strongest originated in forms of scoring in which overtricks were of relative unimportance. So the rule is good if one is trying to set the contract, but may not always be best if one is trying to not give away tricks.

If they doubt this, suggest that they consider various possibilities such as dummy holding Kxx and declarer Qxx, or dummy Jx and declarer K9xx.

I'd then explain the difference between passive and active leads and tell them the choice was between the active ♦ lead, hoping for great luck, and a passive ♥ lead, hoping to avoid giving away a cheap trick that declarer can't score on his own. I'd suggest a ♥ lead.

I would tell them very strongly that a lead away from Jxx (♣) is an extremely poor choice.... my idea of a nightmare lead is to hold Jxx in the 3 side suits and Jxxx in the suit bid to my right.

I'd also stress that my choice might work out poorly, compared to a ♦ lead, quite often, but that this is a game of percentages and the odds favour, in the long run, a passive lead on this auction at mps. With my luck, partner holds ♦Kxxxx and the suit breaks 2-2

BTW, I disagree with awm about the meaning of 3N here: to me it shows a balanced 18-19 count, although it may be done with a weaker hand and running ♠...unless you play that 2N is forcing, which is certainly not a concept you will find in amy intermediate text, 3N has to include 19 count balanced.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Sep 18 2006, 03:11 PM, said:

I'd then explain the difference between passive and active leads and tell them the choice was between the active ♦ lead, hoping for great luck, and a passive ♥ lead, hoping to avoid giving away a cheap trick that declarer can't score on his own. I'd suggest a ♥ lead.

I would tell them very strongly that a lead away from Jxx (♣) is an extremely poor choice.... my idea of a nightmare lead is to hold Jxx in the 3 side suits and Jxxx in the suit bid to my right.

Mike, while I agree with most of your thoughts and inputs above, I would like to comment a little further on these two......and remind you that the problem is listed as teaching an intermediate player how to select an opening lead (not necessarily, how you would select the lead yourself).

1) I do not consider this to be an auction that requires a "passive" defense. The opponents had no trouble reaching 3N, and they are expected to reasonably hold the values necessary to make. One hand has indicated that it is fairly strong. They are also reasonably expected to hold at least 4-5 spade tricks off the top (my spade holding would tend to indicate that the spades are breaking).

2) The most passive lead you could make is the J of spades, imo. You can be reasonably certain that this would give nothing away that isnt already there for the taking, so if you really wanted to lead passively, lead a spade.

3) A heart lead should be out of the question at any form of scoring, imo. Dummy or declarer will hold usually hold ample heart stops as a lead of the other major is normally expected. Declarer also may well hold 5 or 6 hearts and you just picked the suit up for him.

4) Dummy is expected to hold 5-3-3-2 or possibly 6-3-2-2 along with a 19'ish count. (I think there are better uses for the 3N bid, but thats another story). Combine that with your 6 and the 6-9 or so that declarer can be expected to hold (assuming an SAYC 1N response). This leaves opps holding approximately 25-28 hcp, so partner will hold somewhere between 6-10 (usually).

5) Assuming partner can hold 6-10, he can well hold the AQxxx of clubs or AKxxx or the KJ of diamonds or ♦KQ.....or etc.

6) The club suit is the Rodney Dangerfield of Bridge. It gets no respect and tends to be the least stopped suit when 3N is bid by opponents where the suit has never been mentioned. It should be given a little bit more consideration in this scenario. While I agree that leading from Jxx is not usually a good lead, this sequence is an exception to the norm, imo, making a small club a close second choice. Especially if I am trying to beat 3N, not quite as close if I am attempting to achieve a normal result.

7) While some may consider a heart lead is to be passive (I don't......it is pure speculation), it is also anti-field (along with a club lead). Too many players will automatically lead 4th best, and given the fact that you hold A10xx, it may also be critical to score your diamonds tricks immediately before declarer can take pitches on the spade suit or so that when partner wins a later trick, he can lead thru whatever remaining diamond honor declarer may have.

8) This hand, and auction, present me with absolutely no reason to do anything other than making the normal lead. If anything the diamond lead is more likely to reduce declarers chances of overtricks than to actually provide them, AND it is also the lead that I would expect the MAJORITY of the novice/rookie/advanced fields to make. It is also the lead that would most probably lead to the defeat of 3N, if it is possible to do so.

The 5 of diamonds should stand out by a mile. Yes, on this particular hand it may give up an overtrick, but then again, so could any other lead. I find that it usually does not pay to take an anti-field action without excellent reasons for doing so. On this hand, I see none.

[mikeh]

Several points arise:

1. I would assume, perhaps mistakenly, that an intermediate player has memorized the usual 'rules' that we all learn when we start. Thus they will approach a hand like this thinking 4th best from longest and strongest.

The point, I thought, was teaching someone who is at this level in an effort to improve their understanding of the game to the next level: not to simply reinforce the level of knowledge that qualifies them to be intermediate.

They will, if they play enough and are observant, notice that some more experienced players (especially the best players) make plays, and leads, that make no sense to them, given that they have been indoctrinated with simplistic rules. By explaining that mps is about overtricks as well as beating the contract and by asking them to construct images of the opposition holdings based on bidding, I am moving them slowly towards being a bridge player as opposd to someone who plays bridge.

2. If I were teaching beginners, I would be focussing them on getting to the most common lead. If I were teaching intermediates or advanced, I'd spend some time talking about staying with the field, but not on this type of problem. This is a good problem for starting to THINK ... I differ with the objection that this hand is not sufficiently clear for an intermediate... I agree it is too subtle for a beginner.

I'd be trying, with someone already at intermediate, to get them to acquire the thought process that would yield a 55% return on opening leads rather than the 48% (my estimates) that a 4th best would generate on this hand, in the long run.

Let the field lead a ♦ and occasionally beat the contract and more frequently blow a trick and my students lead a ♥ and rarely beat the contract but give up fewer overtricks, and my students will be better bridge players than yours, and, more importantly, will have begun to see that and how one can think at the table... that is where the beauty of the game lies.

3. The ♠ is very passive, altho not completely 100% safe..... But the real objection to the ♠ is that it has no upside at all. There is almost certainly at least one suit that you can attack and it equally certainly is not ♠.

The ♥ lead is passive.... I think maybe you misunderstand the term in this context. The lead is passive because it is the one suit (other than ♠) in which you are probably not giving declarer a trick that he could not earn for himself.

Now, true, if he has (for example) a 2 way hook for the Q, you've guessed it for him, but nothing is perfect.... and he might have got it right anyway.

At the same time, catch partner with KQxx sitting behind declarer AJx and you look like a genius... so it is not simply a punt.

Spend a few minutes coming up with honour combinations in the red suits and I think that you will see that the ♦ lead has a high variability in terms of upside/downside... and, given that the odds are that any given honour rests with the opps rather than partner, most of the variance is negative for our side. So lay off the aggressive ♦ lead and go passive with the [HE

4. Your comment about the ♣ suit is correct in that it is the least bid suit, in terms of denomination. But there is nothing about this auction to suggest that ♣ is your suit.... neither your partner nor declarer have the high card strength to have bid a suit at the 2-level so there is no negative inference at all. In fact, to the limited extent that any inference is available, it favours the [he] suit: declarer may conceal a weakish ♣ suit but will never conceal any but an emaciated ♥ suit. Give declarer AKxxx Q10xx Kx AK and he shows the ♥ suit... give him AKxxx AK Kx Q10xx and he may well bid 3N.... not willing to play 5♣ and considering the chances of getting to a good 6♣ to be not worth the difficulties that sometimes flow from a jumpshift or the giving of information.

And Jxx is a horrible, horrible lead...... there should be a special place in hell reserved for those partners who lead away from this holding on such auctions.

[whereagles]

Any lead can turn out well or wrong. I'd go with a heart.

[Free]

There's no real point in this hand which you can teach to the beginner/intermediate. I personally would lead ♣ (after misclicking ♦ in the poll), which is a more active lead than ♦ imo.

What can you tell:
- LHO has a very strong hand with 5♠, which will probably run (3-3 split I guess)
- RHO can have any suit
- I probably have less than half of the remaining points, so I'd prefer to set up my partner's suit rather than trying to get a length trick in my own suit high without an entry
- partner's suit is probably ♣ or ♥. Since we don't have anything in ♥, we need partner to have too much to make the lead succesful.
- ♦A might be important to keep the pace for another suit.

Conclusion: ♣ might set up extra tricks a lot easier than any other lead.

This however might be too complicated, in which case you better suggest a ♦ lead following the rule "lead your longest suit"...

[SoTired]

mikeh, on Sep 18 2006, 07:10 PM, said:

And Jxx is a horrible, horrible lead...... there should be a special place in hell reserved for those partners who lead away from this holding on such auctions.

Seems a slight difference of opinion, since several have suggested a club lead

First rule for Intermediates: Ask opps what 1N and 3N mean. How can you defend well if you don't use the information from the bidding? How can you do that unless you know what their bids mean? So Ask!

Let's assume opps are playing SAYC. 1N was 6-9 and 3N was "I think we can make 3N if you have 6-9". That means dummy probably has 18+ HCP, balanced.

If the big hand was on my right, I would lead a diam, because if I catch partner with any diam honor, we are setting up diam when partner gains the lead.

But with the big hand in dummy, putting the diam honors to our left, it is more likely that a diam lead gives away more tricks than it sets up.

Spade lead is too passive, at least make an attempt to hit partner.

Club lead has advantage that it needs less honors from partner to set up clubs than hearts. But as mikeh pointed out, it tends to give away tricks. My "murphy's law" says that whenever I lead from ♣Jxx, I find dummy with ♣A10x, partner ♣Qxx and Declarer ♣K9xx and declarer takes 4 tricks in clubs.

So I put the ♥9 on the table. Of course, my "murphy's law" dummy has ♦Qxx and partner has ♦KJx.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Sep 18 2006, 07:10 PM, said:

Several points arise:

1. I would assume, perhaps mistakenly, that an intermediate player has memorized the usual 'rules' that we all learn when we start. Thus they will approach a hand like this thinking 4th best from longest and strongest.

The point, I thought, was teaching someone who is at this level in an effort to improve their understanding of the game to the next level: not to simply reinforce the level of knowledge that qualifies them to be intermediate.

They will, if they play enough and are observant, notice that some more experienced players (especially the best players) make plays, and leads, that make no sense to them, given that they have been indoctrinated with simplistic rules. By explaining that mps is about overtricks as well as beating the contract and by asking them to construct images of the opposition holdings based on bidding, I am moving them slowly towards being a bridge player as opposd to someone who plays bridge.

2. If I were teaching beginners, I would be focussing them on getting to the most common lead. If I were teaching intermediates or advanced, I'd spend some time talking about staying with the field, but not on this type of problem. This is a good problem for starting to THINK ... I differ with the objection that this hand is not sufficiently clear for an intermediate... I agree it is too subtle for a beginner.

I'd be trying, with someone already at intermediate, to get them to acquire the thought process that would yield a 55% return on opening leads rather than the 48% (my estimates) that a 4th best would generate on this hand, in the long run.

Let the field lead a ♦ and occasionally beat the contract and more frequently blow a trick and my students lead a ♥ and rarely beat the contract but give up fewer overtricks, and my students will be better bridge players than yours, and, more importantly, will have begun to see that and how one can think at the table... that is where the beauty of the game lies.

3. The ♠ is very passive, altho not completely 100% safe..... But the real objection to the ♠ is that it has no upside at all. There is almost certainly at least one suit that you can attack and it equally certainly is not ♠.

The ♥ lead is passive.... I think maybe you misunderstand the term in this context. The lead is passive because it is the one suit (other than ♠) in which you are probably not giving declarer a trick that he could not earn for himself.

Now, true, if he has (for example) a 2 way hook for the Q, you've guessed it for him, but nothing is perfect.... and he might have got it right anyway.

At the same time, catch partner with KQxx sitting behind declarer AJx and you look like a genius... so it is not simply a punt.

Spend a few minutes coming up with honour combinations in the red suits and I think that you will see that the ♦ lead has a high variability in terms of upside/downside... and, given that the odds are that any given honour rests with the opps rather than partner, most of the variance is negative for our side. So lay off the aggressive ♦ lead and go passive with the ♥

I guess what I was attempting to say, is that I do not consider this to be a hand to take an anti-field action on. And while certainly higher level players will occasionally select opening leads other than the norm.....the point of the lesson may be when do you decide to attempt one, and when do you not. In other words, they still need assistance on "well, do i lead fourth best as I have been taught, or do I try something else?". I am reading your take on the problem as being, "This is definetely a hand on which you should select something other than a normal lead and what should it be?"

In selecting my lead, I will consider the following:

The auction was fairly normal and straightforward.

You know approximately both dummies HCP and distribution.

You know the approximate hcp that each side is expected to hold.

You can reasonably expect the opponents to be able to rattle off 6-7 tricks off the top.

From looking at your hand, you know how many hcp your partner is expected to hold.

I do not hold a stiff or doubleton in any suit, making it less likely that partner holds a long suit of his own (and even if he does, it could be clubs, diamonds or hearts, so we would just be making a wild ass guess as to what suit he is actually holding).

Partner did not make a preemptive bid over 1S so he is unlikely to hold any suit longer than 5 cards that is headed by at least two top honors. Even if he holds a 5 card (or longer) suit, it is more likely to be clubs or diamonds (2-1), than it is hearts. If he happens to hold 5 or more diamonds, it may be critical to get the suit started now instead of yielding tempo in another suit. Leading a heart may not give away an overtrick, in and of itself, but it certainly MAY give up the tempo necessary to establish and cash your diamonds to hold declarer to the minimum number of tricks.

Then I will ask myself, Is it feasable and consistent on the auction for partner to be able to hold enough values and/or length in my suit for us to be able to establish and cash it? In this case, the answer is yes. Is it likely that Is there anything about my hand (a doubleton, a stiff) or anything about the auction that suggests that partner might hold a good 5/6 card suit of his own? Absolutely not.

Therefore, I do not believe there is any logical reason to do anything other than making your normal lead. As I said before, it is a wild ass guess to do otherwise.

I also think partner will have to hold two (or more) honors in the heart suit to make a heart lead effective, where as he will only have to hold one diamond honor (usually) for a diamond lead to (usually) work out ok. Given his limited holdings and the auction provided, I would much prefer to attempt to find partner with ONE (or two) honors in my suit......than trying to find him with TWO honors in another. Especially if the other suit is the OTHER major, as it becomes less likely that opps are bidding 3N on only one stop in the other major.

While you are claiming that a diamond lead "may" yield an overtrick, I can claim the same thing about a heart lead. Partner can easily hold KQx or KQxx or KJx of diamonds as well, but the heart lead lets them cash 5 spades 3+ hearts and a couple of clubs for the overtricks that they would not attain on a normal lead.

I think the lead of a diamond will yield much higher percentages than you suggest and that there is no overwhemingly convincing reason/evidence to make anything other than a normal lead.

Try to convince me otherwise but the reasons need to be better than the ones you have listed already, cause they havent worked. But I am willing to listen.....

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Sep 18 2006, 07:10 PM, said:

4. Your comment about the ♣ suit is correct in that it is the least bid suit, in terms of denomination. But there is nothing about this auction to suggest that ♣ is your suit.... neither your partner nor declarer have the high card strength to have bid a suit at the 2-level so there is no negative inference at all. In fact, to the limited extent that any inference is available, it favours the ♥ suit: declarer may conceal a weakish ♣ suit but will never conceal any but an emaciated ♥ suit. Give declarer AKxxx Q10xx Kx AK and he shows the ♥ suit... give him AKxxx AK Kx Q10xx and he may well bid 3N.... not willing to play 5♣ and considering the chances of getting to a good 6♣ to be not worth the difficulties that sometimes flow from a jumpshift or the giving of information.

And Jxx is a horrible, horrible lead...... there should be a special place in hell reserved for those partners who lead away from this holding on such auctions.

Dummy (not declarer) cannot hold AKxxx Q10xx Kx AK, I agree.

But given your second dummy, AKxxx AK Kx Q10xx,

Declarer may well hold Qx QJxxx xxx Kxx (certainly a reasonable 1N response), and the heart lead will leave declarer 11 tricks on top, whereas the diamond would have held 3N to 3.

Give declarer Qx QJxx Qxx Kxxx (about as max as he can be).....and a diamond lead again holds 3N to three with proper defence but a heart lead will allow 3N to make 10 (or more) tricks.

And yes, I fully realize that declarer could also hold KJ9x(x) of diamonds and the diamond lead will, on this hand, work out terribly. Them's da breaks sometimes, but I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence here to choose anything but a diamond. (And I am fairly certain that anything other than a diamond loses a lot more frequently than you suggest, but as I said, convince me otherwise.)

[awm]

The reasoning goes something like this. Suppose that declarer was allowed to lead to trick one from his own hand, instead of me being on lead. Suppose that on best play/defense declarer would take X tricks after being on lead to trick one. There are two possibilities:

(1) There is no opening lead I can make that will prevent declarer from getting X tricks. In this case there is no advantage to my being on opening lead. My goal should be to make a lead which doesn't somehow enable declarer to take X+1 tricks. In this case I need to lead a heart or a spade. There's virtually no chance that this will yield a trick declarer couldn't take on his own. On the other hand, a diamond or club lead could easily hand declarer trick X+1.

(2) There is some opening lead I can make which holds declarer to fewer than X tricks. It's fairly easy to construct hands where it any of the suits, but some are obviously more likely than others. Typically the key will be to use the tempo of the opening lead to establish some honors which wouldn't take tricks if declarer was leading to trick one. The diamond lead is most likely to hold declarer to fewer than X tricks by setting up the long diamond, but this is only by a small margin over a heart or club lead. Since the strength is in dummy, leading through dummy will set up tricks if partner has honors behind him. Sure, a diamond lead wins if partner has KQx of diamonds, but a heart lead wins if partner has KQx(x) of hearts. If partner has one diamond honor, then leading a diamond both establishes tricks and gives tricks, and it's hard to tell whether this will fall into case one or two.

Looking at these cases, a heart lead seems to have a reasonable chance to win in either case. Any other suit lead is clearly bad in one of the two cases.

Note that at IMPs the argument is substantially different, being based upon: "since spades are breaking and opponents have at least 25 or so points, X is probably 9 or more; therefore in case (1) my lead is essentially irrelevent so I will assume case (2)."

[Al_U_Card]

Time for the minority report. Intermediates want to learn. We learn from our mistakes but we often remember our successes. If we lead anything but a spade, we are giving up a trick fairly often and only occasionally striking the pot of gold. Also when the 5 spades are "run" we have to now find discards from our sources of tricks. Showing the intermediate that there are considerations that reflect the type of hand that the opps hold is of value. Indicating prudence in dangerous situations as when you don't hold QJT9x of H for the easy lead....also count. State of the game can also come into play. An intermediate might get into more trouble than he could handle with any lead but the "nice" spade J lead. He will then be able to see his pard's discard(s) which because they will be under less stress, may be more useful.

[mikeh]

Al_U_Card, on Sep 19 2006, 02:59 PM, said:

Time for the minority report.  Intermediates want to learn.  We learn from our mistakes but we often remember our successes.  If we lead anything but a spade, we are giving up a trick fairly often and only occasionally striking the pot of gold.  Also when the 5 spades are "run" we have to now find discards from our sources of tricks.  Showing the intermediate that there are considerations that reflect the type of hand that the opps hold is of value.  Indicating prudence in dangerous situations as when you don't hold QJT9x of H for the easy lead....also count.  State of the game can also come into play.  An intermediate might get into more trouble than he could handle with any lead but the "nice" spade J lead.  He will then be able to see his pard's discard(s) which because they will be under less stress, may be more useful.

Sorry, but one should not teach poor leads merely because sensible leads may cause stress. How on earth is an intemediate player learning anything about this game if taught to lead a ♠?

Put this into a random game amongst experts and I doubt that you'd get a single vote for a ♠ lead no matter how large the field. I'd expect the expert community to be split about 60-40 in favour of a ♥ over a ♦ with negligible votes for a ♣ and zero for a ♠. Amongst stronger experts, I think the vote would more strongly favour the ♥... maybe 70-30, but that may be my bias coming through. I like awm's explanation, and completely agree that the ♦ suit gets the preference at imps.

To argue that we should not teach intermediates how to think like experts is overstating, by a mile, the degree of difficulty involved in this question.

I think that any player claiming to be advanced (capable of occasionally winning at a local tournament, for example) should grasp the concepts behind the red suit choice, and I thought the thread was about teaching intermediates to improve, not to stagnate or fall further behind.

[HeartA]

Without too much information, I always lead from my best suit which is diamond.

[Trumpace]

This discussion about spade leads reminds me of the following rule which intermediates apply blindly: "Lead through dummy's strength".

Dummy had bid spades with AKTxx of spades and LHO had QJx. The opening lead was the spade Q (against a NT game). Pretty silly application of the rule.

[inquiry]

I sit squarely with the heart leaders... Only choice at Matchpoints.