[Wackojack]

---

1NT was 12-14.
You may wish to apportion the blame (if any) for the bidding. However, it was the worst of all worlds when I made the normal looking lead of Q♥. What would you do differently?

Team mates were in 5♠x-2, so -13 imps against -5 when I don't make the (I think) unlikely lead of A♦. Or a certain? -9imps if we take the 5♥ (phantom?)sacrifice.

[ahydra]

We had the exact same auction, lead and result T_T

I think 5H is better than doubling 4S - with a likely heart void in either N or S, it really doesn't look like you're going to beat 4S. Leading HQ is perfectly normal.

Spoiler

Indeed 5H normally makes in practice - requires an unlikely club lead from South's ♠QJ8532 ♥- ♦QT7 ♣A972

ahydra

[mr1303]

5H X made at our table, when partner led the Q of spades.

[Vampyr]

We made it on a diamond lead, but we weren't doubled.

Anyway I think that double is best in the West seat. Well, that's what I did, anyway.

In the OP case I think that ♦A is clear.

[Vampyr]

Duplicate

[mikeh]

I agree that the heart lead is probably 'normal', but I don't think that makes it 'correct'.

We tend to instinctively lead partner's suit, but there are times when I think one needs to sit back for a moment and think about the lead.

Partner bid 4♥. Now, he may well have the heart A and even the AK.

However, that trick (expecting 2 tricks on defence in the suit is fanciful even if he has AK) to go away if we lead diamonds seems.....implausible.

Meanwhile, if the opps have first round control (as in fact they both did), leading the heart surrenders a tempo.

In the interim, partner may be very short in our longest suit. I don't think it is playing on results to argue that the diamond Ace is the correct lead on this auction.

I'm not saying it would always work....if partner held a stiff and dummy had, say, Kx in hearts, we might well not get the continuation right...and there will be other times when, on the lead, partner wins, can tell that there is no future in the suit, and switches to a diamond, such that we have no choice but to win and give him a ruff. However, I think the odds favour leading the diamond Ace so as to get a look at dummy, while also maybe finding out that partner can ruff this suit. After all, we doubled(!) with 2 defensive tricks.....thus we are playing partner for 2 as well, and a ruff is far more viable a candidate for his second than is a high card.

As it happens, I think the problem was in the auction more than in the lead. I cannot imagine doubling 4♠ on this auction...I think 5♥ was clear. I think it to be an excellent rule that when partner makes a high-level pre-empt and we have a fit we should assume that partner has no defence. Thus, to make a penalty double one needs to have a decent chance of beating the contract in one's own hand.....and we have no semblance of even a 3rd trick, let alone a 4th.

Incidentally, I assume that at the other table the diamond Ace was led. I appreciate that at the 5-level one sometimes thinks differently than at the 4-level, but I think that that can be overdone.

[gszes]

your p 4h bid is a form of unilateral decision that essentially states that given the

right circumstances 4h should be our best possible game and slam should be very

unlikely given the bidding. These types of hands have a rather large range and most are

preemptive in nature (ie weak). When you think of the 4h bid this way the x of 4s starts to

look like a little to no upside decision since there are few if any weak hands p will be able to

produce the needed 2 defensive tricks with a fair amount of downside and that assumes they

wont make 5s).

If you think you can set 4s pass and save x where things look at least a bit more certain. A pass

of 4s is not forcing or suggesting any action to partner. 5h might also be a winning action with the

heart Q and 2 aces making it far less likely the opps will want to x. If you want to bid beyond 4s

IMO your best bet is 4n (rkc) and at least pretending to be interested in slam intending to sign

off in 5h no matter what p bids (since you have the heart Q they cannot bid 5s). If the opps

compete over your 4n at least p can now have a say in the proceedings as they can expect at least

2 aces from you for your 4n bid. If you bid 5h they will have no rational reason to do anything.

One last upside to 4n is that p (expecting at least 2 aces from you) might have the right sort of hand

to consider 6h void Kxxxxxxxx Kx Ax for ex:)




IMO 4n=9 pass=6 5h=4 x=3 nothing is perfect and 5h takes a lower rating because it is 1 dimensional.

[mfa1010]

To get unbiased answers it would be better to show only the west hand.

Fwiw, I think west has a 5♥ bid.

[gnasher]

My partner bid 5♥ after (1♣)-4♥-(4♠). 5♥ looks obvious to me, in either auction.

As East, I was also thinking that I might remove a double. With a nine-card suit it's not often right to defend at the four-level.

[broze]

gnasher, on 2014-January-02, 12:16, said:

As East, I was also thinking that I might remove a double. With a nine-card suit it's not often right to defend at the four-level.

Does this imply that you would also have bid 5H after 4H-(4S)-Pass-(Pass)?

[Vampyr]

mfa1010, on 2014-January-02, 11:10, said:

Fwiw, I think west has a 5♥ bid.

I think that partner's bid is a bit wider-ranging than others seem to. Perhaps partner has decent defence, but is hoping to buy the contract and avoid having to compete over 4♠. That's why I like double, and why I chose it at the time.

[mikeh]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-02, 12:57, said:

I think that partner's bid is a bit wider-ranging than others seem to. Perhaps partner has decent defence, but is hoping to buy the contract and avoid having to compete over 4♠. That's why I like double, and why I chose it at the time.

I don't get this at all.

You have to decide whether you want double to be penalty or card-showing, with transferable values, such that partner will convert with defence and bid 5♥ otherwise. What you can't do is to play it as meaning both, since that reduces your agreement to having partner become an inspired guesser.

In a vacuum, either approach has merit, but in this case, the utility of the second approach is reduced (not eliminated) by the fact that a pass by us is not forcing but does allow partner to reopen with a double if his 4♥ were bid to make, with side cards.

By contrast, if the opps have, under the pressure of the 4♥ call, guessed wrong, we have no way to punish them unless double is penalty. It makes little sense to have to sit there with a loaded-for-bear defensive hand, such that partner is vanishingly unlikely to hold the bid to make variety of 4♥ and have to pass, hoping that he can reopen....and this is exactly the wrong time to make a 'do something intelligent' double, since we can be virtually certain that he's going to run.

My view is that when the opps pre-empt, our doubles should be oriented to takeout or, as the level of the auction increases, to 'do something intelligent', but that when it is our partner who has pre-empted, our doubles (not partner's) are pure penalty.

[wank]

why would i want to X this with only 2 tricks and decent length in partner's pre-empt suit?

[gnasher]

broze, on 2014-January-02, 12:41, said:

Does this imply that you would also have bid 5H after 4H-(4S)-Pass-(Pass)?

I don't think it necessary implies it, but yes, I would have bid on in that sequence.

[JLOGIC]

The ace of diamonds seems like a very normal lead to me

[Wackojack]

Yes I have taken this on board suitably chastised. So:

Mistake 1: MY initial double. I now buy the argument for bidding 5♥. And yes if opps fail to lead ♣then I make 5♥

Mistake 2: My lead of Q♥. The A♦lead now makes sense to me.

So thanks guys particularly Mikeh and thanks Justin for making me smile.

Incidentally of the 15 pairs in 4♠ doubled or undoubled all 15 led the Q♥. Of the 17 pairs in 5♠ 15 led Q♥ and 2 (strong) pairs led the A♦other than our opps. There were 48 pairs in 5♥ doubled or undoubled 46 of them making and 2 going off.