[peachy]

I want to go as safe as possible and let declarer do his own work. Dummy will have no values except three card (or longer) spade support; otherwise he would have bid 3S, I assume. Therefore underleading either king is very risky not knowing which Q if any my partner might hold. At least leading diamonds I will be likely to find partner with either the ten or the Q. It seems impossible for opener to be missing all side kings so I think diamond is the safest.

[whereagles]

Very difficult. The only clue we got is dummy doesn't seem to have a long suit. Hence I'll try something passive.

Since I could be the one making our side's two tricks, I might just try a deceptive small diamond if I'm feeling lucky. Otherwise just the cookie-cutter systemic diamond.

[Tomi2]

i expect decl to have a side suit but no hearts since he would bid them maybe in mp, so i think its clubs. I lead a heart to partners queen and decl. ace and later I wait for my club and heart tricks

on a good day I lead king of hearts to avoid some squeeze against me later, but its too early to think about this now

[ochinko]

With two Kings behind the strong hand I'm definitely going for a passive lead. Trump is dangerous though, as partner can have ♠Qxx, and declarer could face a two-way finesse. So the only card left is a small ♦.

@ArtK78: Why would partner double 2♦ for a lead with Qxxx or 10xx?

[ArtK78]

ochinko, on Sep 11 2008, 04:10 AM, said:

@ArtK78: Why would partner double 2♦ for a lead with Qxxx or 10xx?

I did not say that. Quite frankly, I don't have any clue why you would infer that from what I said. All I said was that partner did not express a strong desire for a diamond lead.

[dake50]

I'm about to be pressed on a S-run, even 3-suit squeezed maybe, endplayed to lead into which tenace? What do I hope partner has? I guess CQ, so I lead CK. Have I just sold the farm?

[rogerclee]

dake50, on Sep 11 2008, 06:27 AM, said:

I'm about to be pressed on a S-run, even 3-suit squeezed maybe, endplayed to lead into which tenace?

I agree, it is obvious that we must break up the triple squeeze on opening lead.

[MFA]

I would definitely go passive. Dummy's hand type should be a very bad hand with a good fit. So declarer would be very lucky to find a source of tricks there, and he won't be counting on that. Better to hope for 2 slow tricks than lead into one of his tenaces. Perhaps he has AKQxxx, AQJ, AK, AQ or something.

It's a spade or a diamond. With xx of spades I'd try that, but against unknown opponents, I just don't dare to lead a singleton trump. So a diamond it is.

[skjaeran]

I'd lead from one of my kings, almost always.

It's very close, I buy most of Mikeh's analysis, and would lead a low club more often than a heart.

[pclayton]

Can we assume that 4♠ is the no aces, kings, stiffs or voids? It wasn't specified, but that is the usual meaning for 4♠.

Declarer is blasting slam knowing full well that he's missing at least two kings. Accordingly, I'm expecting a very distributional hand, that just needed trump support to make 6.

As far as whats 'active' and what's passive: A trump is completely passive on this auction, but a diamond may not be (imagine the Q in dummy and AT in declarer's hand). If the opponents are rational, there's never a concern about picking off pard's Qxx or Jxxx. If declarer was concerned about the trump Q, he could have gone slower. Both rounded suit leads are active, but I agree with Mike that a club is, in a vacuum. safer than a heart.

I think some representative hands are:

AKQxxx, A, A, AQxxx - We can't beat it. Either dummy can ruff clubs, or declarer's spots are sufficient to pick up the suit for one loser.

AKxxxxx, void, AKx, AQJ. A club lead doesn't work so hot here, since we will get strip-squeezed. Invert the clubs and hearts if you want, but this is a hand I want to go passive on - either with a trump or a diamond.

AKQxxx, AQJx, A, Ax. This is a very strange 6♠ call, but it's possible that a heart would let it in. Invert the round suits if you want.

AKQxxx, Ax, void, AQJxx. This is the only hand type where we really need to guess which King to lead from. Note that if declarer has diamonds for a 2nd suit, we should not be concerned, since dummy's side suit can't get pitched away.

If declarer has side clubs, we need to lead a heart. If declarer has side hearts, it's very possible that he can't do what he needs to do if I can count on pard to hold a reasonable doubleton (10-x) to stop the heart suit from providing too many pitches.

Note that its relevant to an active lead for dummy to hold a doubleton in declarer's suit, and three in declarer's Ax.

Hopefully this chain of reasoning isn't too flawed, but I've talked myself into a heart lead

[MFA]

@ Phil
I'm somewhat puzzled that you (imo very reasonably) analyze that declarer needs to hold

- a 2-suiter with a very strong side suit (running after we get a trick with the K)
- the right two suits (it won't work to lead his side suit)
- more or less exactly Ax on the side
- the right distribution in dummy to throw the losers in the Ax suit

to make an active lead correct, and you still are going to lead away from a king? What about all the hands where opener is simply just strong enough to take a stab at slam without a long side suit?

RE the trump situation.

I have seen bad players bid like this (4♠) without the adequate trump support so often. I would be nervous about leading a trump against an unknown and pickle partner's Jxxx or Qxx or something, when dummy's has misbid and declarer is expecting more trumps.

[pclayton]

MFA, on Sep 11 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

@ Phil
I'm somewhat puzzled that you (imo very reasonably) analyze that declarer needs to hold

- a 2-suiter with a very strong side suit (running after we get a trick with the K)
- the right two suits (it won't work to lead his side suit)
- more or less exactly Ax on the side
- the right distribution in dummy to throw the losers in the Ax suit

to make an active lead correct, and you still are going to lead away from a king? What about all the hands where opener is simply just strong enough to take a stab at slam without a long side suit?

Hi Michael:

To me, these two suiters seem to be the relevant positions. When declarer is, say 3-3 in the off-suits, it won't matter what we lead.

I'm very curious to see the entire hand.

[MFA]

pclayton, on Sep 11 2008, 07:35 PM, said:

MFA, on Sep 11 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

@ Phil
I'm somewhat puzzled that you (imo very reasonably) analyze that declarer needs to hold

- a 2-suiter with a very strong side suit (running after we get a trick with the K)
- the right two suits (it won't work to lead his side suit)
- more or less exactly Ax on the side
- the right distribution in dummy to throw the losers in the Ax suit

to make an active lead correct, and you still are going to lead away from a king? What about all the hands where opener is simply just strong enough to take a stab at slam without a long side suit?

Hi Michael:

To me, these two suiters seem to be the relevant positions. When declarer is, say 3-3 in the off-suits, it won't matter what we lead.

I'm very curious to see the entire hand.

I don't think we'll see it, since this is a master solvers' problem, as I understand it .

[paulg]

MFA, on Sep 12 2008, 12:42 AM, said:

pclayton, on Sep 11 2008, 07:35 PM, said:

MFA, on Sep 11 2008, 04:20 PM, said:

@ Phil
I'm somewhat puzzled that you (imo very reasonably) analyze that declarer needs to hold

- a 2-suiter with a very strong side suit (running after we get a trick with the K)
- the right two suits (it won't work to lead his side suit)
- more or less exactly Ax on the side
- the right distribution in dummy to throw the losers in the Ax suit

to make an active lead correct, and you still are going to lead away from a king? What about all the hands where opener is simply just strong enough to take a stab at slam without a long side suit?

Hi Michael:

To me, these two suiters seem to be the relevant positions. When declarer is, say 3-3 in the off-suits, it won't matter what we lead.

I'm very curious to see the entire hand.

I don't think we'll see it, since this is a master solvers' problem, as I understand it .

Generally the problem setter will give the real hand or, at least, tell us what worked.

However, it will probably be 3-4 months before it is published.

I think SBU News is one of the better magazines and is always looking for new writers. If you want to get a copy then contact the editor, 2Hplus4, when he is online.

Paul

[mike777]

Walddk, on Sep 10 2008, 04:35 AM, said:

Dealer: East Vul: N/S Scoring: IMP

♠ 6 ♥ K874 ♦ J9753 ♣ K73

2♣ - 2♦*
2♠ - 4♠
6♠ - pass

* waiting.

This lead problem is from the bidding contest in the Scottish Bridge News. Since I submitted my answers already, I am not looking for help. What would you lead, and why?

Roland

As i said before I guess i really miss what the heck this post is all about...


I lead a novice heart.

shocking 4th from my lowest and best.....

[Walddk]

cardsharp, on Sep 12 2008, 10:06 AM, said:

I think SBU News is one of the better magazines and is always looking for new writers. If you want to get a copy then contact the editor, 2Hplus4, when he is online.

Paul

Or by e-mail to jimmpatrick(at)aol.com

Perhaps he would also appreciate to have competent players like Michael and Phil on the panel. Current panelists are mostly Scottish of course, but we have a couple of Englishmen and a lone Dane. The problems are usually interesting, not only for experts, but also for the average club player.

Here is an interesting hand from the bidding department:

♠ 1094
♥ K2
♦ K65
♣ Q10965

At IMPs, non-vul against vul, partner opens 1♦. Your RHO bids 3♠ passed to your partner who re-opens with a double. Now you. Plenty to choose from.

If someone wants a set to see what the problems are like, just send me an e-mail and I will forward a copy. roland_wald(at)hotmail.com

Roland