[pclayton]

Scoring: MP

---

The opponents have an uninterrupted auction to 4♥ via 1N - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♠ - 4♥ - AP. 3♠ is alerted to show a GF 5-5 in the majors.

Whats your lead?

[P_Marlowe]

Jack of diamond
Why? Mainly a matter of exclusion of alternatives.

I am not leading my singleton trump.
I am not leading hearts.

A club is ok, and may be needed to
beat the contract, but I tend to go passive
with opening leads, and since you play MP,
this is not the worst strategy.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[jtfanclub]

P_Marlowe, on Dec 3 2007, 11:13 AM, said:

I am not leading my singleton trump.

You have 4 trump...they ended up playing in hearts.

[mike777]

pclayton, on Dec 3 2007, 10:57 AM, said:

Dealer: ????? Vul: ???? Scoring: MP

♠ 7 ♥ AQT8 ♦ JT83 ♣ K842

The opponents have an uninterrupted auction to 4♥ via 1N - 2♦ - 2♥ - 3♠ - 4♥ - AP. 3♠ is alerted to show a GF 5-5 in the majors.

Whats your lead?

4 of Clubs

Attack!

[P_Marlowe]

jtfanclub, on Dec 3 2007, 11:48 AM, said:

P_Marlowe, on Dec 3 2007, 11:13 AM, said:

I am not leading my singleton trump.

You have 4 trump...they ended up playing in hearts.

... thanks, still the Jack of Diamonds,
but I wont consider club anymore seriously,
even if I would play for IMPs.

Lets see, how declarer will get his tricks.

with kind regards
Marlowe

[jdonn]

I would lead the ace of trumps. My goal is to remain on lead to switch to the correct minor so we can cash out, rather than guessing on opening lead. I really don't think this is likely to cost a trump trick. A blind club lead could just turn out to be a disaster, but so could a diamond if we had clubs to cash.

I'm not worried too much about stopping spade ruffs, since I will just accept the overruffs.

Even at mps, I want to set them as long as my plan to do so seems relatively safe in the suit being led.

I sort of have visions declarer will think I have singleton ace of trumps and long spades and totally misplay the hand

[keylime]

With my trump holding, I won't touch trump.

I have a stiff spade, and is an attractive lead: the NT bidder did not take a preference back to spades so they likely have 2 of them. That means pard's on a lot of them, and this has the makings of a violent cross-ruff.

I have decent diamond spots, but I think it's too passive of a lead.

A club is hyper aggressive, but I'm not keen to it - it's leading into declarer.

I'm going to go for the gusto: spade.

[mikeh]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2007, 04:10 PM, said:

I would lead the ace of trumps. My goal is to remain on lead to switch to the correct minor so we can cash out, rather than guessing on opening lead. I really don't think this is likely to cost a trump trick. A blind club lead could just turn out to be a disaster, but so could a diamond if we had clubs to cash.

I'm not worried too much about stopping spade ruffs, since I will just accept the overruffs.

Even at mps, I want to set them as long as my plan to do so seems relatively safe in the suit being led.

I sort of have visions declarer will think I have singleton ace of trumps and long spades and totally misplay the hand

I like this approach: I was going to bank everything on a club lead, since if declarer is missing the ♣A, there is a high probability that one or two or all of dummy's putative club losers will disappear on hid diamonds, which would almost always have to be very good under those circumstances. But the club lead would be almost as disastrous if declarer was off the diamond A and held the club AQ (or the Q were in dummy).

If dummy has 76543 in hearts, I may be sorry But I'll pay to that.

[mikeh]

keylime, on Dec 3 2007, 04:37 PM, said:

I have a stiff spade, and is an attractive lead: the NT bidder did not take a preference back to spades so they likely have 2 of them.

I would vote for opener to be 3=3... it is, I think, slightly the higher probability. The fact that his hearts rate to be weaker than his spades isn't enough to overcome this, especially since, on many hands, the contract will play better in the weaker of equal-length trump suits... the Vondracek factor.

[keylime]

Mike,

Valid point there. I wonder what a 4C/D bid in their methods would mean in terms of setting trumps.

[dicklont]

jdonn, on Dec 3 2007, 04:10 PM, said:

I would lead the ace of trumps. My goal is to remain on lead to switch to the correct minor so we can cash out, rather than guessing on opening lead.

How wil you know which minor to switch to?
The dummy won't tell you, can partner signal his ♣A with his singleton hearts?
Mine can't.

I choose for the passive lead of ♦J. ♣K is too dangerous.
Let declarer solve his own problems.

[Codo]

A spade. There still is a chance that the Ace of trump will blow a trick. And the possibility that I can see where I have to switch to is remote.

[scoob]

i'm a notoriously poor opening leader, so i worry for all you who are also leading the spade

[pclayton]

This was a hand from the Wed stratified pairs in SF. After the 4♥ and before the auction was over, my RHO asked: "What is 3♠". He held ♠KT9xx over dummy's ♠AQJxx.

4♥ is just a bloodbath. I played it well (I thought) to go down 3 (hearts were KJx under the AQT8).

My LHO led the stiff spade from this hand. Nice to see that there are other LA's. It doesn't affect the hand much however.

On the very next board, Matt played 4♠. My RHO (the same one that asked the inappropriate question about 3♠) led the club 10 and this was the suit:

---

Matt's RHO won the K, and cashed the Ace. On the Ace, the opening leader briefly paused and said under his breath "just a second".

What a great way to tell partner you didn't originally lead from 10-2!

It's really amazing the difference in standards between the NABC events and the regional games.

[jdonn]

pclayton, on Dec 5 2007, 12:42 PM, said:

On the very next board, Matt played 4♠. My RHO (the same one that asked the inappropriate question about 3♠) led the club 10 and this was the suit:

QJ87 T92 AK64 53

Matt's RHO won the K, and cashed the Ace. On the Ace, the opening leader briefly paused and said under his breath "just a second".

What a great way to tell partner you didn't originally lead from 10-2!

It's really amazing the difference in standards between the NABC events and the regional games.

If they switched suits when it would have helped you had they continued, this is a director ruling you should get, or an appeal you should win if the director was out to lunch. There is precedence for this very situation, and the simple fact they cashed the second round is a suggestion they were playing their partner for a doubleton.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Dec 5 2007, 10:34 AM, said:

pclayton, on Dec 5 2007, 12:42 PM, said:

On the very next board, Matt played 4♠. My RHO (the same one that asked the inappropriate question about 3♠) led the club 10 and this was the suit:

<!-- ONESUIT begin --><table border=1> <tr> <td> <table> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <td> QJ87 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> <table> <tr> <td> T92 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <td> AK64 </td> </tr> </table> </th> </tr> <tr> <th> </th> <th> <table> <tr> <td> 53 </td> </tr> </table> </th> <th> </th> </tr> </table> </td> <td>  </td> </tr> </table><!-- ONESUIT end -->

Matt's RHO won the K, and cashed the Ace. On the Ace, the opening leader briefly paused and said under his breath "just a second".

What a great way to tell partner you didn't originally lead from 10-2!

It's really amazing the difference in standards between the NABC events and the regional games.

If they switched suits when it would have helped you had they continued, this is a director ruling you should get, or an appeal you should win if the director was out to lunch. There is precedence for this very situation, and the simple fact they cashed the second round is a suggestion they were playing their partner for a doubleton.

Like the 1st, Matt was destined for -1. He didn't need the pitch and no shift hurt him. He has 2 trump losers in the wash.

I'm pretty blase about the regional events even though I shouldn't be. Gnome and I were in training mode and really didn't care.

By the way I have played on teams with this offender. A pro he hires is a good friend of mine. Next time I see him I'm going to have a private word with him and tell him about these incidents.

Next time I won't be so lenient.