[661_Pete]

Nearly every table was in 4♠ by west, on this deal. Game all, dealer South:

---

Don't know how the bidding went at other tables, but almost certainly most Norths mentioned their clubs.

As you can see, 4♠ cannot make on accurate defence, and it certainly didn't when I was West! But I was a bit dismayed to see that at some tables 4♠ did make. In each case (our travellers record opening leads) the lead was A♦, presumably followed by a second ♦ hoping for a ruff. Obviously that gives declarer that vital dummy entry for the ♠ finesse...

I suppose some Norths may have been reluctant to lead away from their AQJxxx club holding. Not the North at my table! South unblocked, and the third ♣ was over-ruffed. One down.

Is there a moral in this? I do tend to lead A from Ax - it's often a 'safe' lead. Except when it isn't....

[Cyberyeti]

I'd lead a heart if I didn't lead a diamond, would I fly the ace on the trick 2 diamond and play clubs ? not sure

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I would lead a heart, and I would most likely not raise with the Ace,
if declarer tries to get to the table with diamonds ... depends on
the auction.
Leading the Ace of diamonds should actually help the defence, if the opening
leader has mentioned his clubs.
Partner should signal discouraging, and opening leader will switch
back to his clubs.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[gszes]

When you say accurate did you mean double dummy? I ask this because it is not overly obvious (see Cyberyeti's comment) that I need to underlead my AQJxxx of clubs IF I fly with the dia ace at trick 2 after a "safe" heart lead. 4s will normally make IMHO because the backs of the cards are a constant source of irritation to the defense. This is especially true at MP where underleading the AQJxxx of clubs to get partner a possible ruff might all too easily lead to an overtrick that is disastrous to our MP score. ONE size does not fit all -- let us say you are on lead against 4s with Ax of diamonds after partner has opened a weak 2d. I would speculate that leading the A from Ax will have a greater than 75% chance of being the best way to start the defense unless you are looking at something even more glaringly obvious.

[661_Pete]

My north led A♣. Obviously that was taking a chance, but south immediately signalled by dropping the K. That's what I call good defence: no need for DD knowledge. But in reality there was no need for that play, because North can take A♦ on the first round and give South their ruff.

[The_Badger]

661_Pete, on 2018-December-18, 07:11, said:

I suppose some [most, the majority, 99.9%] of Norths may have been reluctant to lead away from their AQJxxx club holding. Not the North at my table! South unblocked, and the third ♣ was over-ruffed. One down.

Is there a moral in this?

Analyse your opponents results carefully in case other extraordinary defences occur, except if they are little, old ladies (old codgers, too), where leading away from a tenace, an unblock and an uppercut is just a series of unfortunate events where they extract their only top of the evening by doing precisely the opposite of everyone else in the room.

[Tramticket]

Some things are fashionable in some areas, often for bizarre reasons. Leading an unsupported ace is usually a bad lead, but it seems popular in your club. (lots led the ace of diamonds, your opps led the ace of clubs).

I can't imagine either lead receiving much support elsewhere.

[pescetom]

Tramticket, on 2018-December-18, 09:27, said:

Some things are fashionable in some areas, often for bizarre reasons. Leading an unsupported ace is usually a bad lead, but it seems popular in your club.

Some bizarre favourites in my area are effectively playing a natural 1♣/♦ opening as forcing, or responding 1NT after interference without promising a stop in your suit - and they haughtily refuse to alert either, but will call the Director if you fail to alert a 1♦ opening which does not deny 4-card clubs

[mikeh]

I think this is indeed an interesting hand, but for issues that are not yet discussed.

As others have suggested, the heart lead looks normal, which brings us to the first point of interest. What card should declarer play from dummy?

It doesn't matter, you say? Nonsense.

Declarer very much wants to do two things: find out where the missing high cards are and encourage mis-defence.

Play the Jack from dummy...forcing the Queen if South has it. I defy any player to smoothly duck the jack.

Now West knows that North has no heart Queen and he already 'knows' that South has the club K. Assuming a 2C overcall, North must have decent clubs and would have lead a club from a sequence headed by the KQ or the AK: therefore he lacks the King.

All west is now missing are the diamond Ace and the spade King. He may decide to play North for the stiff King, but there is no need to place North with that card with any certainty and, if he has it, it may well not be stiff. So the hook may seem best..I'd almost surely see it that way at the table.

Now what? Place North with the diamond Ace, which he has to have if he lacks the spade King, and probably has anyway.

Lead low and hope North ducks or wins and switches?

Or play the K and hope North wins, and fails to switch to clubs?

I'd lead low for two reasons. North might duck, hoping that South has the diamond King. Now, if West bid game, that reasoning would be suspect but if east foolishly jumped to 4S (foolish because the hand has too many losers), North is in the dark about West's strength.

The second reason goes back to the play of the heart jack at trick one, as I might play with A10x in hearts. Now North may decide that the way to get South in is to play another heart! After all, few club level players have seen or would think of the Jack from Jxx when holding AK tight in hand.

Note that the jack was completely free of cost. Say the 9 had forced the Queen....what are we planning on pitching on the now good heart Jack? Nothing...we cannot possibly gain a trick.

I think it extremely likely that most Norths would go wrong on a low diamond from hand, and even those who fly the Ace are quite likely to woodenly play a second heart.

[nekthen]

When partner leads an Ace and the Q appears in dummy our signal is suit preference not attitude or count. Partner should now continue the A♣ as it would be embarrassing to under lead the Ace to partner's singleton! Now we must hope that partner has the Q♣ and unblock the K

[P_Marlowe]

Tramticket, on 2018-December-18, 09:27, said:

Some things are fashionable in some areas, often for bizarre reasons. Leading an unsupported ace is usually a bad lead, but it seems popular in your club. (lots led the ace of diamonds, your opps led the ace of clubs).

I can't imagine either lead receiving much support elsewhere.

Leading the Ace of diamonds is better than leading the Ace of Clubs, and the auction may well
indicate that you should lead "stich fest" / in a way, that maximizes the chance of seeing dummy
and still being on lead. To decide if this is the case, you need the auction.

[RD350LC]

661_Pete, on 2018-December-18, 07:11, said:

Nearly every table was in 4♠ by west, on this deal. Game all, dealer South:

---

Don't know how the bidding went at other tables, but almost certainly most Norths mentioned their clubs.

As you can see, 4♠ cannot make on accurate defence, and it certainly didn't when I was West! But I was a bit dismayed to see that at some tables 4♠ did make. In each case (our travellers record opening leads) the lead was A♦, presumably followed by a second ♦ hoping for a ruff. Obviously that gives declarer that vital dummy entry for the ♠ finesse...

I suppose some Norths may have been reluctant to lead away from their AQJxxx club holding. Not the North at my table! South unblocked, and the third ♣ was over-ruffed. One down.

Is there a moral in this? I do tend to lead A from Ax - it's often a 'safe' lead. Except when it isn't....

I really do not like making an opening lead of an unsupported ace. I will underlead an ace at NT (not at a suit contract). If I happen to be defending, and have 4 aces, I will underlead the ace of trumps-that trick is not going away.
Often enough, I will lead a singleton ace of trumps.

[haka9]

Is there a moral in this? I do tend to lead A from Ax - it's often a 'safe' lead. Except when it isn't....

No, absolutely no moral in bridge. I have seen (and played and defended) a lot of hands, where "the only right bid or lead" runs into a catastrophe.

[nige1]

661_Pete writes "Nearly every table was in 4♠ by west, on this deal. Game all, dealer South: Don't know how the bidding went at other tables, but almost certainly most Norths mentioned their clubs.As you can see, 4♠ cannot make on accurate defence, and it certainly didn't when I was West! But I was a bit dismayed to see that at some tables 4♠ did make. In each case (our travellers record opening leads) the lead was A♦, presumably followed by a second ♦ hoping for a ruff. Obviously that gives declarer that vital dummy entry for the ♠ finesse...I suppose some Norths may have been reluctant to lead away from their AQJxxx club holding. Not the North at my table! South unblocked, and the third ♣ was over-ruffed. One down.Is there a moral in this? I do tend to lead A from Ax - it's often a 'safe' lead. Except when it isn't....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rixi Markus recommended an A lead after an RHO pre-empt.
At double dummy, an A lead often succeeds, because you retain the lead, allowing an inspired switch.
Thus, here, GIB tells us the only fatal leads are ♠x or ♦x.
For example, after his ♦A lead, North can recover by switching to ♣s. If North switches to ♣A, South must unblock ♣K to get his over-ruff

---

[pescetom]

nige1, on 2018-December-20, 20:03, said:

If North switches to ♣A, South must unblock ♣K to get his over-ruff

Would any South actually do this ?

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2018-December-21, 07:16, said:

Would any South actually do this ?

100% of the time if playing double dummy. A peek is worth 1000 finesses.

[nige1]

pescetom, on 2018-December-21, 07:16, said:

Would any South actually do this ?

On the left is a deal from a robot tournament, where
GIB (North) found the reasonable shot of unblocking ♥K when I led ♥A
Had I held ♥Q rather than ♠A, GIB would have been eligible for a brilliancy prize

---

[nullve]

The auction matters, as usual. The following defence, which makes use of the Obvious Shift Principle, is only poosible if North's primary suit is known to be clubs.

---

Here the ♦8 is encouraging wrt the Obvious Shift suit, clubs (Overcaller's suit). That doesn't necessarily mean, regardless of context, that South has a club honour (or club shortness), only that South prefers a shift to a low club* over a diamond continuation.

But here North knows that South knows that North can see that South would have discouraged the Obvious Shift (by encouraging a diamond continuation) without a club honour or club shortness. North also knows that South knows that North knows that if South has ♣Kx, then it's not only sufficient, but may also be necessary, to underlead the ♣A. So when North lays down the ♣A, South knows that it must be to cater for the possibility that South has club shortness. But South knows that North knows that that play can't gain a trick unless North also has the ♣Q. So South unblocks the K to make sure North is on lead after two club tricks.

* Instead of just a club shift. Encouraging the same kind of club shift (a low club or the A) both with ♣Kx(x...) and a small singleton club doesn't work in general, so I (currently) believe that if South wants North to play the ♣A and another club, he should play the ♦T (an unusually high diamond, intended as a wake-up signal) instead of the ♦8. The wake-up signal is also used on the relaitively rare occasions (compared with when he either wants partner to continue the suit or make the Obvious Shift) when the opening leader's partner is desperate for a shift to the remaining (non-led, non-OS, non-trump) suit, but hopefully partner if he really is awake, will see what's going on.