[daveharty]

---

Matchpoints. If you don't like the pass over 1NT, assume you didn't have a convenient way to show this hand; what's your lead?

[Quartic]

daveharty, on 2012-July-06, 07:36, said:

---

Matchpoints. If you don't like the pass over 1NT, assume you didn't have a convenient way to show this hand; what's your lead?

I try the ♠6. ♦4 second choice.

[gszes]

see no reason why not low dia 4th or 5th depending on agreement

[Phil]

Spade.

Which one? OK, the 8.

[Free]

♠6

[mike777]

2d I will make a tricky lead and lead small from my longest suit.

[Statto]

♦4. We have potential entries to run the suit and only need one of them if declarer happens to have Axx opposite Jx.

[the hog]

Diamond.

[gnasher]

A diamond, because I have five of them. Not all lead problems are difficult.

It would never occur to me to lead anything else from this hand, but I see that two people have led a spade. Here are some reasons for preferring a diamond to a spade:
- We have more diamonds than spades.
- Dummy has implied length in one or both majors but not in a minor.
- Leading from a broken four-card suit through a four-card suit often costs a trick (eg AJxx-9xx-Qx or QJxx-xxx-A9).
- Leading from Kxxxx through shortage and into length rarely costs a trick and may still allow us to set up a long card (eg xx-Jx-AQ109).
- If the diamond lead does cost a trick it will usually be a good investment (eg xx- J10x-AQx).
- The suits aren't breaking well for the opponents, so a active defence is probably unnecessary.

[rmnka447]

1. This is one of the most misunderstood auctions in bridge. Everyone seems to focus on the fact that Dummy has a 4 card major. Most people just don't focus on what the NT opener is also telling you. Opener has no 4 card major. That means at least 7 (4-3-3-3) and more likely 8 cards in the minors (5-3-3-2 in either minor or 4-4-3-2 with both minors).

2. The objective for the defense at NT is essentially the same as the declarer to set up long suit tricks to defeat the contract or hold it to a minimum number of tricks made. This is especially important when the declaring side freely/strongly bids game. That involves two aspects - having a suit to set up and having the entries to be able to cash the suit later in the defense.

3. A third consideration is necessary in terms of matchpoints -- what are risks of giving something away with the opening lead.


Applying those to this hand, here's how I see it.

Declarer and dummy should hold at least 25 points between them and my hand has 9. That leaves at MOST 6 points for partner and often less. Applying #2, my hand has most of the points for our side, has entries, so if we are going to be setting up long suit tricks it should be my suit.

Looking at a stiff ♣, I'd rate it highly likely declarer has 5 ♣s.

If declarer has only 2 or 3 cards in either major, leading away from either K10 combination may well give a trick that declarer can't rightfully expect left ot his own devices when declarer holds honor doubleton or tripleton.

So, in the end, it leads me to the 4th best ♦ as the best lead.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2012-July-07, 01:05, said:

A diamond, because I have five of them. Not all lead problems are difficult.

It would never occur to me to lead anything else from this hand, but I see that two people have led a spade. Here are some reasons for preferring a diamond to a spade:
- We have more diamonds than spades.
- Dummy has implied length in one or both majors but not in a minor.
- Leading from a broken four-card suit through a four-card suit often costs a trick (eg AJxx-9xx-Qx or QJxx-xxx-A9).
- Leading from Kxxxx through shortage and into length rarely costs a trick and may still allow us to set up a long card (eg xx-Jx-AQ109).
- If the diamond lead does cost a trick it will usually be a good investment (eg xx- J10x-AQx).
- The suits aren't breaking well for the opponents, so a active defence is probably unnecessary.

There is a theory that when in doubt leading from your second best suit against 3NT when you hold two suits is on average more successful.

I do not know what is right here, I consider it close with a slight preference for the spade six.

Arguments for leading spades:

The fact that dummy has implied majors is probably more than counterbalanced by the fact that declarer has implied minors.
You are not a favorite to beat this contract anyway, if dummy comes down with 4 cards in spades.
Your intermediates are in spades not in diamonds, which looks very empty. It is significant that your lowest spade is as high as your second highest diamond
A diamond lead will often cost a trick, even if partner has an honor, and if diamonds can not be established the defense will be all but dead.
A spade honor in partner's hand may be all what we need.
For similar reasons if we can not beat this contract, a spade is less likely to blow a trick, significant at matchpoints.
Partner has at least 2 cards in spades. No such assurance in diamonds.

Rainer Herrmann

[Phil]

Surprised I'm not getting any love for my ♠8 lead from RHM

[rhm]

Phil, on 2012-July-07, 08:42, said:

Surprised I'm not getting any love for my ♠8 lead from RHM

Big deal

Rainer

[lalldonn]

Diamond, I believe in my longest suit.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

When Opener has denied a 4 card Major, that means he has at least 7 cards in the minors. I've always thought it is better to lead a major in this case.
Sooo, I'll lead my 4th best ♠.

If we can take 3 tricks in ♠, my 2 red Kings may prove to be the set.

If I initially lead a 4th best ♦, the tempo may be lost for clearing the ♠ as well as possibly providing an immediate 2nd ♦ trick to Declarer. [ Declarer might take 5c, 2d, and 2 major Aces ] .

[lalldonn]

rhm, on 2012-July-07, 06:40, said:

There is a theory that when in doubt leading from your second best suit against 3NT when you hold two suits is on average more successful.

Who propogates this theory, these people?

[gnasher]

There's a very sensible theory that when you have two suits like Qxxx and Axxx, you should lead the weaker suit because the ace will provide an entry to the queen-suit, but the queen won't provide an entry to the ace-suit.

I've never previously heard the suggestion that with two suits that are equal in high cards you should lead the shorter. I can't think of any reason for it, either.

[Phil]

rhm, on 2012-July-07, 08:53, said:

Big deal

Rainer

If blocking the suit isn't a big deal then sure..

Need to think about a few combinations. It seems there are some where the 8 surrounds some of declarer's holdings on some, although there may be a material loss on others.

Equally

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2012-July-07, 10:23, said:

There's a very sensible theory that when you have two suits like Qxxx and Axxx, you should lead the weaker suit because the ace will provide an entry to the queen-suit, but the queen won't provide an entry to the ace-suit.

I've never previously heard the suggestion that with two suits that are equal in high cards you should lead the shorter. I can't think of any reason for it, either.

To help you out some theories and thoughts:

http://viewsfromtheb...anap-leads.html

or since you are a frequent contributor to BBO maybe you prefer

http://www.bridgebas...ead-hypothesis/


Rainer Herrmann

[ggwhiz]

♦

Above all avoid the embarrassment of leading a major into declarers 3-3-2-5