[sceptic]

pard has A53 I have QJ987

dummy has K1062

I lead 8 4th highest and dummy played 2 pard played 3 the 8 held

I then switched as I assumed pard was discouraging, should I have read that better ?

[ArtK78]

Why would declarer let the 8 hold if he had the KTxx opposite the Ace? Perhaps someone can come up with some exotic construction of the lie of the cards where that makes sense, but I cannot.

When the 8 holds, you should assume that partner has the ace. He was probably misled by your lead. It is normal to lead the Q from QJ98(xxx). Partner probably assumed that the 8 would lose to the 9 or J or Q, since your lead looks like it might be from 843, J98, Q98 or something like that.

[skjaeran]

I don't understand why you switched at trick two.
It's possible that declarer ducked from Ax or Axx. As we don't know the bidding it's hard to judge the odds for declarer holding a singleton. I'd assume partner held Axx.

[lowerline]

Isn't it standard to lead the Q from QJ9x(x)?

[TylerE]

If you must underlead, at least least the 9 and give parter some chance of getting it right.

[jtfanclub]

lowerline, on Sep 27 2007, 06:13 AM, said:

Isn't it standard to lead the Q from QJ9x(x)?

I'm not sure it should be.

Seems to me that it should be the Queen if declarer is the strong hand (eg. 1NT-3NT) and 4th best if dummy is the strong hand (eg. 1♦-1NT-3NT). If you have that agreement, then your partner will certainly 'get it right' in a situation like this when you lead the 8.

Doesn't really matter. Any agreement is better than no agreement.

[Codo]

it surely should be the queen and you can check on your own when this loose and when it wins..

[jtfanclub]

Codo, on Sep 27 2007, 08:55 AM, said:

it surely should be the queen and you can check on your own when this loose and when it wins..

Should be an interesting exercise.

The opponents bid 1♦-1NT-3NT with no intereference. Looking at QJ987 in hand, Dummy should have...

Txxx or better
Kxx or better, or
Ax or better

Declarer could have nothing in hearts.

1) If dummy has Txxx, and partner has AKx, then the lead of the queen blocks the suit, while the lead of the 8 allows partner to overtake and come back. If partner has Ax, it shouldn't make any difference which card you lead. If partner has Kx, then it doesn't make any difference if partner puts up the king if you lead low, but may be worth another trick if he can duck the opening lead to declarer's ace.

2) If dummy has Kxx in hearts, and partner has the ten, (with or without the ace), it doesn't matter which one you lead. If partner has Ax and declarer Txx, opener can duck the lead of the queen to block the suit, which acutally makes things worse than if you'd led the 8. If partner has Axx, then the lead of the queen allows you to run the suit while the lead of the 8 allows the opponent to duck to force out the ace. If declarer has ATx, then leading low will get them three tricks but leading high will usually get them two. If declarer has exactly AT, then leading high will always get them only two heart tricks.

3) If dummy has KTx in hearts, and declarer has the ace, then you might get lucky if you lead the 8 but you'll never get lucky leading the queen. If partner has the ace, the opponent's might play the ten and get one heart trick, or the king and get none. If you lead the queen, they're guaranteed one heart trick.

4. If dummy has Ax(x) in hearts, and partner has either the ten or the king, it doesn't matter what you lead. If declarer has KTx or KT, then it's the same situation as #2.

5. If dummy has ATx(x), and partner the king, then it can never be worse to lead the 8 and it's frequently better, as the suit may block otherwise or the ten might set up. If dummy has ATx(x) and declarer the king, playing the 8 gives the opponents a chance to make a mistake while if you play the Q they always get 3 heart tricks.

I think that it's solidy in favor of leading 4th best when dummy is the strong hand, assuming that your partner is aware of this. I assume I'll get the usual dustoff, however.

[ralph23]

lowerline, on Sep 27 2007, 07:13 AM, said:

Isn't it standard to lead the Q from QJ9x(x)?

Yes. It doesn't always work out but it is indeed standard....

P thinks you are leading from top-of-nothing due to your .... er, idiosyncratic choice.

I would have assumed, as your partner, that we have zero nada zilch zippo in this suit, other than my Ace, would therefore win trick one, and shift to whatever suit you wanted me to lead back at trick two....

[skjaeran]

ralph23, on Sep 27 2007, 04:57 PM, said:

lowerline, on Sep 27 2007, 07:13 AM, said:

Isn't it standard to lead the Q from QJ9x(x)?

Yes. It doesn't always work out but it is indeed standard....

P thinks you are leading from top-of-nothing due to your .... er, idiosyncratic choice.

I would have assumed, as your partner, that we have zero nada zilch zippo in this suit, other than my Ace, would therefore win trick one, and shift to whatever suit you wanted me to lead back at trick two....

Well, looking at 53 in hand and 62 in dummy an aware partner would recognize that the only missing cards below 8 it the 7 and 4. Depending on lead methods, the 8 could be top of nothing or from QJ98(x) if that's your alternatives, or it could be from J874/J8x/9874/98x or from QJ98(x). A high spot card isn't high when you can see all lower spot cards. And it's ambigous when you can see most of them.

Normally (not always) the bidding will make it clear which alternative partner will be holding. To just out of hand conclude that partner has nothing in the suit is very strange IMO. Of course if you always lead the queen from QJ98(x) you DO know this isn't partner's holding.

[ralph23]

skaeran, on Sep 27 2007, 01:10 PM, said:

Of course if you always lead the queen from QJ98(x) you DO know this isn't partner's holding.

Exactly my point, thanks!

[han]

ralph23, on Sep 27 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

lowerline, on Sep 27 2007, 07:13 AM, said:

Isn't it standard to lead the Q from QJ9x(x)?

Yes. It doesn't always work out but it is indeed standard....

I don't think so, not against NT. I don't even know what the word standard means here.

With QJ9x I usually lead the queen and with QJ9xx I usually lead fourth. But it depends on the auction.

[ralph23]

Hannie, on Sep 27 2007, 03:17 PM, said:

ralph23, on Sep 27 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

lowerline, on Sep 27 2007, 07:13 AM, said:

Isn't it standard to lead the Q from QJ9x(x)?

Yes. It doesn't always work out but it is indeed standard....

I don't think so, not against NT. I don't even know what the word standard means here.

With QJ9x I usually lead the queen and with QJ9xx I usually lead fourth. But it depends on the auction.

"Standard" means generally accepted. That is not the same meaning as "correct" or "best" of course; just generally accepted as the regular procedure and stated as such by acknowledged published authorities.

Root, How To Defend, states (p.2) standard as this: with a 3-card sequence, lead the top regardless of length, against NT or suit. QJT, lead the Q. QJTxx, same.

With the 1st and 2nd honors, lacking the 3rd but specifically holding the 4th, treat it as if it were a 3-card sequence. QJ9, treat as if it were QJT.

However, if declarer or dummy is known to have 4 cards in the suit, 4th best may be right; Root gives an example (#22) where leading 4th best from QJT43 is the winning play; but surely this isn't the case when you hold a string such as QJ987!

If you have a published authority who holds differently, it would be great to see it... there are a lot of considerations of course.

Here, leading 4th best fooled partner and a comedy of errors ensued.

Would you lead the 8 from specifically QJ987 ??

[jtfanclub]

ralph23, on Sep 27 2007, 02:53 PM, said:

Here, leading 4th best fooled partner and a comedy of errors ensued.

How did it fool partner? Partner played low, and your 8 held the trick. If it had fooled partner, he'd have played the ace.

The opening leader managed to fool himself.

[mikeh]

Hey... all those who denigrate the rule of 11 should take a look at this hand. See how easy it is for partner to play low on the lead of the 8, without having to woory about what you led from? Either the 8 is led (oddly.. this seems like a standard Q lead to me) from QJ98 or declarer has QJ9.. in either event, unless it is imperative to win an switch, partner has an easy duck.

Then, as others have pointed out, it is silly to think about switching.

[mikeh]

I should have added a smilie or two to my post

[ralph23]

jtfanclub, on Sep 27 2007, 03:58 PM, said:

The opening leader managed to fool himself.

lol, I think they both finagled to fool each other, as well as to fool themselves!

[sceptic]

I did fool myself, thats what happens when you never think at the table