[wank]

---

Ignoring the fact the opps' system is pony if they can't transfer and make the strong hand declarer, what do you lead?

[nige1]

wank, on 2013-May-21, 17:25, said:

Ignoring the fact the opps' system is pony if they can't transfer and make the strong hand declarer, what do you lead?

---

IMO ♣ = 10, ♦ = 8, ♥ = 6, ♠ = 4.

[mfa1010]

Heart queen is so tempting.

[PhilKing]

mfa1010, on 2013-May-21, 18:16, said:

Heart queen is so tempting.

To qoute Nigel:

♥Q = 11
all others = -111

If it's good enough for Moriarty ...

BTW I don't really mean it, but the hand has a certain historical resonance for me.

[Codo]

I lead a club too...

[gszes]

TOP dia not even sure what any other lead is trying to accomplish--

heart Q is just plain asking for trouble and needs luck to be worthwhile
at all. Most of the time it will nothing more than lose tempo for the defense.

Low club seems safer than hugely speculative heart Q but are we really
expecting our lead from a 6 card suit to be effective. Our singleton trump
does not mean a forcing defense will work since the bidding has given
us no clue how long the opps trumps are.

Top dia at least this gives us a great chance to lead through strength
and with our heart A maybe even time to do so again (if needed) and set
up defensive tricks. This lead can also work if we manage to find p with AQ
with K to our left and we get a dia ruff.

trump?? why all that will probably do is solve any trump suit problem
declarer might have and almost assuedly loses tempo for forming
defensive tricks.

IMO !DT = 10 low !C = 7 !HA = 4 !S = 2 anything else but !HQ = 1 !HQ = -2

[gnasher]

I have no imagination, so I'd lead a club. That can work in two ways: we may be able to get a force going, or we might be able to arrange a club ruff

[benlessard]

low club is a stand out.

Somewhat unlikely to cost a trick.Possible to develop a trick that might go away on good diamond.

Plus other good thing can happen like a club ruff or overruff.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2013-May-22, 10:16, said:

I have no imagination, so I'd lead a club.

lol couldn't have said my feelings better myself.

[jallerton]

mfa1010, on 2013-May-21, 18:16, said:

Heart queen is so tempting.

That was my first instinct too. Leads of this nature are rather less effective after a long trance, so I might have had it on the table before having a chance to reconsider! On reflection, our singleton spade gives us hope that partner may have trump tricks). ♥Q lead (likely to be either brilliant or stupid) is more worth trying if we change a small club into a small spade.

PhilKing, on 2013-May-21, 18:29, said:

To qoute Nigel:

♥Q = 11
all others = -111

Nigel did give 6 marks to a ♥, but he didn't say which one!

gszes said:

IMO !DT = 10 low !C = 7 !HA = 4 !S = 2 anything else but !HQ = 1 !HQ = -2

If you swap round ♦10 and ♥Q in the marking I might agree with you. ♦10 lead is horrible. Are you hoping to hit diamond honours in partner's hand? Give partner as much as AJx(x), with the other ♦honours split, and he won't be congratulating you at the end of the hand.

[wank]

my feelings were roughly what jallerton said. the player who held the hand led a diamond, which is the only lead to defeat the contract, and considered it 'automatic' as he chalked up his 12 imps.

[rogerclee]

I think someone who leads a diamond and thinks it's automatic has a basic flaw in his understanding of how tricks are taken at bridge.

[GreenMan]

Given that the diamond lead worked in practice, it's worth asking: How unusual or freakish were the opps' actual hands? Put another way, if the diamond is so much worse than the ♥Q, then with the actual result we should see some highly unexpected layout when we look at the whole deal. So: Do we?

[rogerclee]

GreenMan, on 2013-May-22, 21:11, said:

Given that the diamond lead worked in practice, it's worth asking: How unusual or freakish were the opps' actual hands? Put another way, if the diamond is so much worse than the ♥Q, then with the actual result we should see some highly unexpected layout when we look at the whole deal. So: Do we?

This logic does not follow at all.

[JLOGIC]

But a diamond lead works and it is not the percentage lead clee!

[cherdano]

rogerclee, on 2013-May-22, 19:53, said:

I think someone who leads a diamond and thinks it's automatic

thinks that doubleton leads are always automatic.

[PhilKing]

♥Q doesn't just gain when declarer holds the mythical Txx in hand and Kxx on the table. Sometimes you just hold the trick when declarer does not cover from Kxxx in dummy and Tx in hand. He may not even cover with KTxx in dummy and xxx in hand. It can also gain outright with Kxx in dummy and Jxx in hand when we build two heart.

A club is basically betting on "standard" losing layouts for declarer. We want declarer to hold the heart king and we need to build a club trick(s) before declarer can build or cash tricks in their most likely long side suit (obviously diamonds). And if partner has nothing in clubs, it will usually be fairly safe. It avoids blowing either red suit.

A diamond bets on .... Sorry, I got nothing! A diamond would probably do well in a sim, because when partner has Qxxx, declarer can just pick up the suit with a backward finesse, but in real life he needs help from the opening lead, and we can't fool the computer with the ♥Q.

[rogerclee]

PhilKing, on 2013-May-23, 04:01, said:

A diamond would probably do well in a sim

I actually seriously doubt this, even though I agree a sim would show a diamond lead to be much better than it is.

[GreenMan]

rogerclee, on 2013-May-22, 22:04, said:

This logic does not follow at all.

I'll go slower, then.

From previous posts, we have asserted, in effect:

1) The ♦10 lead could only work if the deal were a freak of nature.

2) The ♦10 lead worked.

So we conclude: 3) The deal was a freak of nature.

I simply want to know: Is the conclusion in fact a true statement?

If it is, then assertion 1 is not disproved.

If it is not, then assertion 1 IS disproved.

[wank]

the hand isn't freaky at all, though i still hate a diamond lead. well, actually i suppose you could argue the trump blockage is a bit freaky.

---