[jmcw]

Scoring: MP

---

P - 1♦ - P - 1NT
P - 3NT (all pass)

My P and I agree! This lead is easy. Problem is we disagree on what it should be!Any thoughts....Do you lead something else at IMPs.

[dicklont]

A major.
Normally I don't mind leading from KJxx when it is the right suit to lead.
The auction told us that declarer holds some clubs and has no length in the majors.

[helene_t]

If p has enough values to beat the contract, he must have something in diamonds. So at IMPs I think I would lead a diamond.

At MPs I would go for a major which is less likely to give them an extra overtrick.

[rbforster]

helene_t, on Mar 13 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

If p has enough values to beat the contract, he must have something in diamonds. So at IMPs I think I would lead a diamond.

Doesn't 1D-1N-3N normally show a strong hand with a long running minor and outside controls? I think we've got the only diamond stop our side is likely to have, so we better lead a suit that they only have single-stopped if we're going to beat this.

[helene_t]

Rob F, on Mar 13 2009, 05:31 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 13 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

If p has enough values to beat the contract, he must have something in diamonds. So at IMPs I think I would lead a diamond.

Doesn't 1D-1N-3N normally show a strong hand with a long running minor and outside controls? I think we've got the only diamond stop our side is likely to have, so we better lead a suit that they only have single-stopped if we're going to beat this.

Good point. I thought that applied only after a major suit opening.

[mikeh]

My apologies to helene, with whom I often find myself in agreement, but the only part of this guess that I see as a no-brainer is avoiding the diamond lead, no matter the form of scoring.

Personally, in this kind of situation, I lead the top of my strongest major holding... ie. if I held 983 762, I'd lead the spade 9.. I am assuming I lack either 10. If I held 10xx in one, I'd lead the other.

As between, say, 873 and 653, leading the 8 is unlikely to lead to a better result than leading the 6, but since one needs to guess, my rule is lead the stronger.

If both are effectively equivalent then it is a guess and I'd mentally flip a coin and then, since my mental coins are not random, probably lead a heart Actually, there is a tiny bit of logic, in that if partner is like me, he is more likely to stretch to overcall 1♠ than he is to overcall 1♥, and so it is more likely that he has a useful heart holding than spades.. this is a tenuous inference.

Of course, a club might work, but rho will usually hold 4+ in that suit unless he is a mp maven who refuses to allow partner to play the hand. And, at mps, a club is far too likely to blow a trick/tempo.

[mikeh]

Rob F, on Mar 13 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 13 2009, 11:13 AM, said:

If p has enough values to beat the contract, he must have something in diamonds. So at IMPs I think I would lead a diamond.

Doesn't 1D-1N-3N normally show a strong hand with a long running minor and outside controls? I think we've got the only diamond stop our side is likely to have, so we better lead a suit that they only have single-stopped if we're going to beat this.

Or 19 balanced, of course.

[rbforster]

mikeh, on Mar 13 2009, 11:41 AM, said:

Rob F, on Mar 13 2009, 11:31 AM, said:

Doesn't 1D-1N-3N normally show a strong hand with a long running minor and outside controls?

Or 19 balanced, of course.

I'm used to 1D-1N-2N showing 18-19 balanced. Especially over 1D, 1N can be more wide ranging so I don't think it makes sense to always force to game.

(over 1C-1N, you might make a case that 1N can be 8-10 vs (5)6-10, since you can make a waiting 1D call with the weaker hand. Of course this is still a case for bidding 2N with 18-19 and 3N with the running minor, but make the 2N rebid forcing with transfer continuations )

[hanp]

I play that 3NT says "let's play 3NT". I can imagine bidding it on a 3451 hand for example. This is not the same as 1D-1H-3NT, where much less is known about partner's hand.

I think leading a major is a no-brainer.

[Free]

A Major, but which one is waaaay more difficult than choosing between minor vs Major...

[jmcw]

mikeh, on Mar 13 2009, 11:40 AM, said:

My apologies to helene, with whom I often find myself in agreement, but the only part of this guess that I see as a no-brainer is avoiding the diamond lead, no matter the form of scoring.

Personally, in this kind of situation, I lead the top of my strongest major holding... ie. if I held 983 762, I'd lead the spade 9.. I am assuming I lack either 10. If I held 10xx in one, I'd lead the other.

As between, say, 873 and 653, leading the 8 is unlikely to lead to a better result than leading the 6, but since one needs to guess, my rule is lead the stronger.

If both are effectively equivalent then it is a guess and I'd mentally flip a coin and then, since my mental coins are not random, probably lead a heart Actually, there is a tiny bit of logic, in that if partner is like me, he is more likely to stretch to overcall 1♠ than he is to overcall 1♥, and so it is more likely that he has a useful heart holding than spades.. this is a tenuous inference.

Of course, a club might work, but rho will usually hold 4+ in that suit unless he is a mp maven who refuses to allow partner to play the hand. And, at mps, a club is far too likely to blow a trick/tempo.

If a M is to be led (I agree) then your point on which one lead is quite subtle, and something that I did not consider.
I think it is a good point and I,m quite certain the inference could be applied in a number of so called toss up leads.

[whereagles]

Would lead a heart, on same grounds as mike.

At imps, however, since this contract probably makes unless we find a wierd lead, I would try a club.

[dburn]

Would lead a club, and do not consider it weird in the least. If partner did not overcall, at love all to boot, how can it be right to lead a major?

Put it this way: how are we going to take five tricks to beat the contract? If we lead a club and, horror of horrors, declarer has ♣AQ, what else should we have done? Led a major, and hoped that partner could get in twice to lead clubs through declarer (even if he worked out that this is what he should be doing)? then hoped for a fifth trick somewhere to go with partner's two entries and our two clubs? Can't I just play partner for a club honour and one trick, and myself to have a diamond entry?

One other small point: if your style is to lead top of nothing or second from three small, then if you feel you must guess a major, you should choose the suit in which your card will be least confusing. For example, from ♠932 and ♥875, you should lead ♠9 if playing top of nothing, but ♥7 if playing second highest. Otherwise, the chance that partner will know to switch to clubs if need be falls from 2.7% (the chance that the average partner will ever get anything right) to 0.027%.

[jdonn]

I agree with a club for two reasons. Partner did not overcall in a major. And even if xxx in a major is right I have to guess which one.

[peachy]

First, NEVER a diamond. Then - partner did not overcall on the one level so he does not HAVE a hand that overcalls on the one level, meaning he does not have a good five+ card major. Then - looking for the suit where they may only have a single or deficient stopper, clubs offers the greatest likelihood of that. So I am leading a club.

[the hog]

Club lead. We overcall even with 4 card suits and partner did not overcall.

[jmcw]

dburn, on Mar 13 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

Would lead a club, and do not consider it weird in the least. If partner did not overcall, at love all to boot, how can it be right to lead a major?

Put it this way: how are we going to take five tricks to beat the contract? If we lead a club and, horror of horrors, declarer has ♣AQ, what else should we have done? Led a major, and hoped that partner could get in twice to lead clubs through declarer (even if he worked out that this is what he should be doing)? then hoped for a fifth trick somewhere to go with partner's two entries and our two clubs? Can't I just play partner for a club honour and one trick, and myself to have a diamond entry?

One other small point: if your style is to lead top of nothing or second from three small, then if you feel you must guess a major, you should choose the suit in which your card will be least confusing. For example, from ♠932  and ♥875, you should lead ♠9 if playing top of nothing, but ♥7 if playing second highest. Otherwise, the chance that partner will know to switch to clubs if need be falls from 2.7% (the chance that the average partner will ever get anything right) to 0.027%.

Using the same logic. Responder did not bid a major either. Surely he has ♣'s.

[mikeh]

dburn, on Mar 13 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

Would lead a club, and do not consider it weird in the least. If partner did not overcall, at love all to boot, how can it be right to lead a major?

Put it this way: how are we going to take five tricks to beat the contract? If we lead a club and, horror of horrors, declarer has ♣AQ, what else should we have done? Led a major, and hoped that partner could get in twice to lead clubs through declarer (even if he worked out that this is what he should be doing)? then hoped for a fifth trick somewhere to go with partner's two entries and our two clubs? Can't I just play partner for a club honour and one trick, and myself to have a diamond entry?

One other small point: if your style is to lead top of nothing or second from three small, then if you feel you must guess a major, you should choose the suit in which your card will be least confusing. For example, from ♠932 and ♥875, you should lead ♠9 if playing top of nothing, but ♥7 if playing second highest. Otherwise, the chance that partner will know to switch to clubs if need be falls from 2.7% (the chance that the average partner will ever get anything right) to 0.027%.

what's with the obsession about beating the contract? This is mps.. and the odds are that they will make, given our diamond holding and shape.. so the object is NOT to give up an unnecessary overtrick. I agree with the club lead at imps, but that has nothing to do with the problem.

[dburn]

mikeh, on Mar 13 2009, 09:05 PM, said:

what's with the obsession about beating the contract?

Oh, I'm not obsessive about it. It's just that I tend to find that minus 400 scores fewer match points on balance than plus 50. It's a bit of a fallacy to say that you should spend your life trying not to give away overtricks at matchpoints - if some of the field might not be in game, you should put some effort into trying to beat the contract even at the risk of blowing a trick. Would lead a major against one notrump for sure, but not three notrump.

As to "surely RHO has clubs" - no, he does not. What would you respond to a 1♦ opening at matchpoints (or even at marbles) with such as ♠Kxx ♥Kxx ♦Qxxx ♣xxx?

No doubt I will end up with a face covered in egg when the full deal is revealed by the original poster. But it's all right. That egg-covered face rests on a broad pair of shoulders.

[Phil]

Club for me.

4th best from longest and strongest and all that jazz.