[jallerton]

---

Love All, IMPS

Opponents play 5-card majors, strong NT. 1♦ shows at least 4. A 1♠ rebid would show an unbalanced hand, so RHO has a weak NT (11-countis possible) with 4 or 5 diamonds and not 4-card heart support.

What would you lead?

[lamford]

Where was the board placed, or, if there were no screens, has partner written down the contract or taken a sip of water yet? As partner did not overcall 1S, I would reject that, as he would need at least a chunky four-card suit for that to be right. A heart is likely to help declarer, and a diamond may be awful if declarer has five as our pips are not that great. That just leaves a boring club.

[wank]

a club looks totally obvious

[Jinksy]

What would partner's double of the final contract have meant, and how much do you know about responder's options to correcting the part score on a 5-card H suit?

I'd lead a club regardless, but if partner doesn't have a lead-directing X, I wouldn't be shocked to find the heart lead works as well or better, esp if responder has semi-denied an unbalanced hand.

[WellSpyder]

wank, on 2015-September-03, 04:28, said:

a club looks totally obvious

Indeed. But the OP does not ask obvious questions without a reason, so perhaps the challenge is to work out the reason for the question. Maybe the thread title would provide some sort of clue if my brain wasn't a bit slow today....

[phil_20686]

wank, on 2015-September-03, 04:28, said:

a club looks totally obvious

I'd lead a club at MP, but I think a diamond is a pretty good lead at imps. I.ve only got a 9 count and partner did not double 1h so is probably isn't short in diamonds. He could double here, and often would even if 4324 since its pretty inexpensive. Partner was also in the pass out seat with some values at all white, so he definitely had the option of a 2C bid if he has a decent 5 card suit, or 6 card suit. I wouldnt expect partner to pass out 1N here with Ax QTx xx Kxxxxx, would you?

Also, sometimes in these situations declarer has the option of bidding 2D with a good 5 card suit, OP can probably confirm that. If a diamond was better minor then I would almost say its clear to lead a diamond. There is also the fact that dummy left in 1N, which could indicate that he is the one with long clubs. If dummy is some 3415 that would would be consistent and could mean that partner had no where to go with some 4432, dec having 3343. That would be consistent with the bidding even more than partner having long clubs I think.

It just isnt that clear to me how we are likely to beat this when delcarer has an estabilshable diamond suit, but if we can hit partner with QTx, or any XXx diamond holding we can likely beat this, and I think that is the main chance for a beat of 1N at imps. Its still close, as sometimes it can just be a total disaster.

[jallerton]

It's fair to say that 1♦-1♥-2♦ doesn't have to be a 6-card suit. It could be a 7-card suit.

[gszes]

The deck appears to be split about even so p hand is probably around our power + a tad more yet there was nothing but silence. The failure to balance seems to indicate some sort of problem. My guess if p has 5 hearts and a couple of clubs but the heart suit is somewhat broken so no x for a heart and no balancing 2h bid. Yet a heart lead might easily be the only way to set this hand. This is reinforced my lho failure to rebid hearts over 1n.


!h 9

I would probably consider a club lead at MP where setting their contract is not so important as avoiding giving a trick away (something the !H9 might do even if it sets up hearts).

[BillPatch]

A club lead may give up a tempo if it is one of opponents suits, but it is fairly safe, and even in that case it sets up a defensive trick. Partner, almost as likely has a fourth club, and, either we can force a length trick, or have another stopper or a running suit and can prevent the four two split from taking their length trick. Even when the club lead gives up a tempo, in the race to amass seven tricks first often two of the other suits will fare worst, and until we can see dummy, some signals from partner, and some play from declarer, we will not have a good idea which other suit would have been better, and then we might be able to develop it. Unless you have a long, unbid suit in your hand, leading against one no trump contracts is a time foe caution, and so QJT from an unbid suit lead is marked.

[BillPatch]

A double by partner in rebalancing position would be for penalty, as it is of a natural NT bid and not an exceptional auction. It would show length and strength in dummy's suit and relative shortness in the no trump bidder's suit. It would suggest a lead in dummy's suit, which with the current hand I would do.

[mikeh]

I'm leading a heart, the only suit in which partner is almost sure to hold 4+ cards. I would lead the boring club at mps unless in need of a swing, but the heart seems the most aggressive lead. We have too much for partner to have a clear double of 1N on, say, KJ97(x) in hearts.

I have read that the best players tend to make passive leads, so I guess I am revealing my limitations with this choice.

Btw, I wouldn't even consider a diamond unless I held at least A10xxx. Lesdiing from A9xxx into a known suit seems far too dangerous even if, or when, partner holds say the queen or Jack.

[gnasher]

wank, on 2015-September-03, 04:28, said:

a club looks totally obvious

Me to. On this auction I'd lead a club almost without looking at my hand. The fact that I have QJ10 is a bonus.

[lamford]

I wonder if the heading is anything to do with the current allegations in bridge. From Wiktionary:

Just deserts (idiomatic) A punishment or reward that is considered to be what the recipient deserved.
It may appear that they're getting ahead by cheating, but they'll get their just deserts in the end.

[BillPatch]

lamford, on 2015-September-04, 04:19, said:

I wonder if the heading is anything to do with the current allegations in bridge. From Wiktionary:

Just deserts (idiomatic) A punishment or reward that is considered to be what the recipient deserved.
It may appear that they're getting ahead by cheating, but they'll get their just deserts in the end.

I for one will continue to spell the idiom "just desserts". I must admit I did not recognize the now rare alternate definition of desert. The Grammarist notes that most 21st century quotes no longer use the older spelling and while some may not like it, I now choose to be avant-garde.

I wonder if the heading has anything to do with the bridge hand. Surely none of the choice here are outlandish enough to be evidence of cheating. This is not a "smoking gun".

[lamford]

BillPatch, on 2015-September-04, 10:46, said:

I for one will continue to spell the idiom "just desserts". I must admit I did not recognize the now rare alternate definition of desert. The Grammarist notes that most 21st century quotes no longer use the older spelling and while some may not like it, I now choose to be avant-garde.

I wonder if the heading has anything to do with the bridge hand. Surely none of the choice here are outlandish enough to be evidence of cheating. This is not a "smoking gun".

I think the spelling "just desserts" is only used by a few. If a pudding raise to game had gone wrong, I might agree with you.

[gnasher]

The menu looks good.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2015-September-04, 12:20, said:

The menu looks good.

Looks like waffle to me.

[jallerton]

Thanks for the replies. Currently 80% have voted for ♣Q with the rest split between the red suits.

I was declarer on this hand which was played four months ago in a very close final (fortunately, my team managed to win by a small margin).

This was the full deal:

---

The popular club lead works well. Although it does not hit partner's length this time, it sets up a trick to go with the six tricks the defenders have on top in the other suits (with spades 3-3).

At the table, my LHO found the surprising lead of ♠2 without any great thought. Interestingly nobody in this poll chose to lead a spade or even mentioned it as a possibility.

The ♠2 lead was won by the king and low spade came back to the queen. South switched to ♣Q but it was too late. I judged to win this with dummy's king and start on diamonds [A lead from ♠AQxx is usually avoided, so LHO appeared to have led from a 3-card suit. He had not acted over 1♦ so it seemed to me that he probably had diamond length so was more likely to hold ♦A than ♥A.]. South won the 3rd round of diamonds and played another club, but when East got in he only had major suit cards left and had to give dummy another heart trick at the end. Contract made.

It occurred to me that I would not have found the same opening lead, but I thought nothing more of it. Until last week, that is. Why? Well, my LHO was a young man called Lotan.

[FrancesHinden]

...the match was played with screens, by the way

[steve2005]

With both east and east not having denied 4♠ leading a ♠ from Qxx does not look enticing. Maybe if east has denied ♠. Even then partner is as likely to have ♣ as ♠. so ♠ lead is very unusual.