OleBerg, on Jun 17 2010, 12:20 PM, said:
The diamond lead might be obvious, but it is certainly not bullet-proof. (1 entry in dummy and the single ace with partner.)
Also, if partner has the ♦K single, a diamond lead might reveal this prematurely, giving declarer an easier time chosing the right line.
To a (much) lesser extent, even the ♦Q might do that.
But if there is a logical alternative to a diamond lead, is not obvious, but I would consider it.
Huh?
Remember we are talking bout the hypothetical 7
♣ contract, E-W were expert players who had tools besides RKC to bid this if East were void in
♦.
Also recall that East went to 7
♣ after West showed 1 key card. If Partner has the
♦A, East must be missing two key cards. He could hardly bid 7
♣ still missing a key card that might not be in his void suit. So we can rule out that possibilty.
Finally, I might mention that NS and their teammates were, at best, intermediate players who, in a longer match, would have been hopelssly outclassed. But this was the 7th board of a 7 board match where the previous 6 would have seemed fairly flat, with EW and their teammates likely picking up a couple of IMPs on overtricks. Bidding 7
♣ if it seemed at all risky, why not settle for 6
♣? Why risk a big swing on this if you need to locate a singleton honor?
Sure, it is not impossible that East has a
♦void, just unlikely. After the hesitation by North I would wager that if East is void, then West has 6
♦.
But the point of the post is not whether the diamond lead was bullet proof, but whether South had a logical alternative, and there seems to be agreement that there was none.
Help
