[phil_20686]

You are playing in grand vs defenders who are expert but not WC. (this is from the u25 europeans a few years back (?vienna?) - i *think* that your lho may be alex hydes, but am not sure, definately vs the english u25's though). This is the counterpart to the lead problem that I posted a few days ago.

Scoring: IMP

---

Uncontested you bid:
1d-1s
4d-4n
6c-6h
7s

lho has a short pause (3-5 seconds) and leads a low club. On the auction north showed solid diamonds and two keycards with a club void and the queen of trumps.

Your spade pips are not good enough to pick up any 4-1 breaks.

What is your line?

[Fluffy]

ruff 2 clubs in dummy draw trumps and claim if diamonds break or ♣-♦squeeze seems obvious

a heart lead would had worked better I guess

[mikeh]

You really need to be at the table, altho the description of the action was helpful. An under-25 internationalist is going to be familiar with many standard deceptive situations, and the underlead of an Ace when dummy is known to be void is a classic, altho I've never had the opportunity to do it. Consider....what holding would LHO have to make clubs a good lead? He lacks either the K or the Q....and declarer is unlimited in terms of his holdings.....if declarer holds AQ, the lead may be a disaster.

otoh, if one holds either 4 or 1 diamond, the chance to induce a ruff in dummy immediately is very attractive.....and there is little downside.

So against a weak player, ruff and hope that both pointed suits are 3-2, but against an intelligent, imaginative player with some knowledge, and the willingness to make interesting plays (and that sounds like it fits the circumstances here)...pitch a heart.....I'd put the chances of LHO holding the club Ace at about 80% and that makes the play better than hoping for 3-2 diamonds.

Of course, a genius defender is a step ahead of me: 'I hoped you'd think that I'd think that you'd think that....'

BTW, I haven't read the companion lead question and will do so now...hoping to see the club A in the leading hand

Edit: having looked at the hand, all I can say is that

Spoiler

at least everyone knows I was being honest

[Fluffy]

thx for the honesty mike, I admit I have my doubts that you weren't a bit biased because it is a problem thuogh.

I was surelly biased by knowing LHO hand also, I can't fail to preccess known data .

EDIT: There is no squeeze line, so ducking the club is appealing,

[jjbrr]

Ya. Mike's thought process is very reasonable, and a good indication of why a ♣ lead is better than the alternatives when you can see they're cold.

Am I miscounting or don't I just need one ♣ ruff if everything splits, Fluffy? Maybe it's better to ruff the ♣, pull two rounds of trumps, two rounds of diamonds, and hope to claim.

Edit: wrong, not enough transportation. ignore me. just need 1 ruff and pointed suited 3-2

[Fluffy]

no squeeze damnit, unless the guy with 4♦ and ♣A also has 5♥, my bad. Now discarding is much more appealing.

[phil_20686]

mikeh, on Mar 12 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

Edit: having looked at the hand, all I can say is that

Spoiler

at least everyone knows I was being honest

I didnt say that the companion hand was the hand on lead, only that it was relevant, what you need to know is

Spoiler

how many people find the club lead from a hand like that in teh companion thread, vs how many people would find the club lead from a hand including the ace and four or 1 diamonds?

EDIT: I am obviously trying to be ambigous until there are a few more comments, then i will tell you whether the hand on lead had the ace of clubs or not.

[Fluffy]

phil_20686, on Mar 12 2010, 05:22 PM, said:

mikeh, on Mar 12 2010, 12:07 PM, said:

Edit: having looked at the hand, all I can say is that

Spoiler

at least everyone knows I was being honest

I didnt say that the companion hand was the hand on lead, only that it was relevant, what you need to know is

Spoiler

how many people find the club lead from a hand like that in teh companion thread, vs how many people would find the club lead from a hand including the ace and four or 1 diamonds?

EDIT: I am obviously trying to be ambigous until there are a few more comments, then i will tell you whether the hand on lead had the ace of clubs or not.

doh!, I was gonna say that finally there was a problem where all you had to do is draw trumps and claim!, and you see some top players fail to do so . Nice problem anyway.

[jjbrr]

I think a low ♣ lead is still clear regardless of your ♣ holding. If the opponents aren't nuts, your lead won't matter. A low club disrupts some communication, hopefully.

The problem here is that if this is a junior event, anyone at the table might, in fact, be nuts.

[Fluffy]

Vienna '98?, ohhhh.. better try to forget that tourney

[gnasher]

Ruff, draw two trumps keeping a winner in dummy, cash two diamonds. If they're 3-2, draw the trump and claim.

If diamonds are 4=1 and spades are 3=2, ruff the diamonds good, draw the other trump and try to squeeze RHO in the round suits.

If diamonds are 1=4 and spades 2=3, I can play the same squeeze, but it requires RHO to have 14 cards.

Running the club at trick one strikes me as madness. As jbrr says, the auction calls for a club lead from almost any holding - if the diamonds really are solid, the only hope is a trump trick; if diamonds aren't solid, forcing dummy is almost certainly the best defence.

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on Mar 12 2010, 06:09 PM, said:

Running the club at trick one strikes me as madness. As jbrr says, the auction calls for a club lead from almost any holding - if the diamonds really are solid, the only hope is a trump trick; if diamonds aren't solid, forcing dummy is almost certainly the best defence.

When I was a junior I saw at least one grand slam let through by opening leader not leading his ace.

I once won a fairly serious KO match by leading my cashing ace against a grand when dummy had promised a void.

[atlantajon]

I have to assume 3-2 ♥ since it was said that our spots are not good enough to pick up 4-1 trump. So the whole issue is the ♦ suit. If it is 3-2....we have 13 by ruffing the ♣ lead. However, if the ♦ are 4-1, then I need the hand with the 4 ♦ to hold the long ♠ . So, that line is ruff ♣ and play K♠ and ♠ to A. Then AK ♦ ruff ♦ and ♠ to Q and claim.

all the while thinking of a good excuse to tell partner as to why I didnt just pull trump and play on the !d suit...when that was the line.... and trying to explain to partners why we lose 15.

atlantajon......LOL

[phil_20686]

---

was the actual leaders hand. Some very good players thoguht it was right to run the lead. Aparrently it should take longer than a few seconds to find the ace when you have xx(x) diamons and not the ace of clubs, but more obvious to lead a club when you have a stiff/4 diamonds including the ace.

[gareth]

phil_20686, on Mar 12 2010, 03:39 PM, said:

You are playing in grand vs defenders who are expert but not WC. (this is from the u25 europeans a few years back (?vienna?) - i *think* that your lho may be alex hydes, but am not sure, definately vs the english u25's though). This is the counterpart to the lead problem that I posted a few days ago.

LHO was Ollie Burgess. It must have been either Torquay 2002 or Paris 2003. I remember hearing that one match (perhaps Denmark v ?) was flat in grand off one when both sides underled their ace.