[Jinksy]

---

IMP pairs. Also, do you agree with the 2♥ bid?

To be honest I was too groggy from a cold to ask, but let's say 3♥ showed 3-card support.

[MrAce]

I'd lead ♥J

Pd may have stiff Q or Qx or he may have xxx and they may have AQ vs Kx. (with Qx ♥ it is normal for pd not to dbl 3H since he was expecting them to play in spades)
Not leading ♥ may make pd believe that we are looking for a ♥ shift from his side..
I have side entries and pd maybe stopping spades since they decided to play 3 NT after finding spades.
I don't know man, I do not feel like to make a panic lead tbh. Leading under AJxx never has been my kind of thing.

[nige1]

Jinksy asked "IMP pairs. Also, do you agree with the 2♥ bid? To be honest I was too groggy from a cold to ask, but let's say 3♥ showed 3-card support."
2♥ overcall seems OK to me. I rank
1. ♥J = Safe but might concede a tempo.
2. ♥2 = Could be right.
3. ♣A = Speculative. Too brave for me.
4. ♣4 = Ditto.
5. ♦K = Requires more from partner (e.g. if partner has ♦QJ9xx. declarer can hold up).
6. ♠6 =

---

[nullve]

I think East has a double or triple heart stopper, and West probably a heart honour or 3 H since otherwise he might have chosen to correct to 4♠. So although it's certainly possible that partner has ♥Qx (although AK is maybe not the kind of double stopper that East would suggest 3N with), it doesn't seem likely and I won't risk losing a crucial tempo by leading a heart if there's a good alternative.

For a club lead to be crucial when the goal is to beat 3N, partner will probably need to have 5+ clubs, but that also seems unlikely given that both opps were happy to play 3N instead of 4♠.

But partner is extremly likely to have 5+ D on this auction, and he doesn't need to have much else in order for ♦K to at least be a non-losing lead. So I'll lead the ♦K. (Leading my singleton spade is of course out of the question.)

I agree with 2♥, but this is the absolute minimum I can have.

[SteveMoe]

♥J lead.
However I bid 3♥ earlier.

[Phil]

I just don't see how a heart can help that much when partner doesnt x 3H but a minor suit lead could just be ridiculously bad. So I'll juse hope they are a little bit overboard. With spades breaking badly we may have a shot as long as we don't do anything stupid.

If you removed all the the hearts in my hand and told me at gunpoint to lead I'd try the dK.

[SteveMoe]

Phil, on 2016-October-08, 18:21, said:

If you removed all the the hearts in my hand and told me at gunpoint to lead I'd try the dK.

Intriguing...

[rmnka447]

J ♥

You have a suit and what looks to be 2+ entries. With responder holding 4 ♠, I'd expect 3 NT would be pulled to 4 ♠. So, partner probably has 4 ♠. That may be enough to prevent them from running ♠ quickly. There's no guarantee that the opposition holds all 3 missing ♥ honors.

Trying to "hit" partner's suit is a pure guess anyway. But is partner likely to have the required entry/entries if you find it? Not very likely in view of your holdings.

So, this is a hand that screams "My suit" in answer to the question "Whose suit should we try to be setting up?"

[nullve]

rmnka447, on 2016-October-08, 23:01, said:

You have a suit and what looks to be 2+ entries.

Yes, but you don't expect 2 entries to be enough, do you?

rmnka447, on 2016-October-08, 23:01, said:

There's no guarantee that the opposition holds all 3 missing ♥ honors.

No. It's just very likely.

rmnka447, on 2016-October-08, 23:01, said:

Trying to "hit" partner's suit is a pure guess anyway.

Why? Don't you expect partner to have diamonds?

rmnka447, on 2016-October-08, 23:01, said:

But is partner likely to have the required entry/entries if you find it? Not very likely in view of your holdings.

Not very likely, perhaps, but I'm not giving up, i.e. by leading a heart.

[MrAce]

nullve, on 2016-October-09, 03:16, said:

Yes, but you don't expect 2 entries to be enough, do you?


No. It's just very likely.


Why? Don't you expect partner to have diamonds?


Not very likely, perhaps, but I'm not giving up, i.e. by leading a heart.

LOL

• 2 entries is more than enough, even when pd has no heart honor. Assuming that declarer will first try to establish spades, All you need is pd to play his 2nd ♥ if he stops spades.
• 2 entries is great when pd has a heart honor.
• Are you even listening to yourself? So what if pd has diamonds? Does that mean he has AQJxx !D? How will leading !Ds now will defeat but not leading them now will let them make their 3 NT? Listen to the auction, they are playing 24 + hcp game. Your pd has about 4-7 hcp. Even if you give him enough diamond honors to set 3 NT, he will have very hard time to hold hand to enjoy them. And if he has AQxxx(x), you can always shift to diamonds later. You are basically leading ♦K to hope that pd has QJxxx(x) ♦ and a certain ♠ entry. That is a small target. If I did not lead ♥ I'd lead ♣/ At least all club leaders will need to find their pd can be as low as xxxxx ♣.

I voted for ♥ lead but I am not feeling strong about it. But I definitely think ♦ K is probably worse than leading ♠

[nullve]

MrAce, on 2016-October-09, 06:29, said:

2 entries is more than enough, even when pd has no heart honor. Assuming that declarer will first try to establish spades, All you need is pd to play his 2nd
♥ if he stops spades.

I concede that if declarer decides to play on spades first so that partner gets in and can play a second heart, then 2 entries are enough. But sometimes declarer will be able to remove one of my entries first (say, by taking a losing diamond finesse), so when partner finally gets in he won't be able to clear the heart suit by playing a third heart.

MrAce, on 2016-October-09, 06:29, said:

2 entries is great when pd has a heart honor.

Yes, but I've already explained why I don't think he has one.

MrAce, on 2016-October-09, 06:29, said:

You are basically leading ♦K to hope that pd has QJxxx(x) ♦ and a certain ♠ entry. .

Yes, basically. But e.g. ♠J9xx+♦QJ9x might be enough.

MrAce, on 2016-October-09, 06:29, said:

That is a small target.

Yes, but we're only comparing small targets, aren't we?

[rmnka447]

nullve, on 2016-October-09, 15:47, said:

I concede that if declarer decides to play on spades first so that partner gets in and can play a second heart, then 2 entries are enough. But sometimes declarer will be able to remove one of my entries first (say, by taking a losing diamond finesse), so when partner finally gets in he won't be able to clear the heart suit by playing a third heart.

But also sometime partner will be able to get in and return a heart early to defeat the contract. Or, declarer may not be able to knock out your entries early. There are any number of scenarios that may result in the opponents making or being set. The best you can do is pick an approach to defense that has a decent chance for success. Finding partner with a ♥
honor or an early entry with a ♥ to return seems more likely than guessing partner's suit and finding a specific holding that will beat the contract.

Quote

Yes, but I've already explained why I don't think he has one.

You just can't know exactly how the outstanding ♥ honors are placed. I grant that bridge logic would make it seem more likely that declarer "probably" has a double stopper of some sort. But putting three full stoppers in the opponent's hands is a pretty serious assumption about card placements beyond what you know by bridge logic. ♥ 8x in partner's hand might be enough even without an honor with an early entry.

Quote

Yes, basically. But e.g. ♠J9xx+♦QJ9x might be enough.

Playing for that specific holding or something like it is assuming a great deal. Use Ockham's razor -- Keep it simple.

Quote

Yes, but we're only comparing small targets, aren't we?

Playing on ♥ may allow you to switch to a different defense if necessary. While it is attacking in ♥, it also doesn't give something away in the side suits which may be critical if switching tacks is necessary. Wouldn't you be mortified if declarer held ♦ A, ♦ Q between his two hands and you gave away the suit with a ♦ lead? Or a ♠ lead let declarer roll up that suit. Or, you lead away from ♣ AJ into declarer's combined holding of ♣ KQ109.

[Phil]

nullve, on 2016-October-09, 15:47, said:

Yes, but we're only comparing small targets, aren't we?

The largest target may simply not to give up the 9th trick on the opening lead.

[Phil]

nullve, on 2016-October-09, 15:47, said:

Yes, but we're only comparing small targets, aren't we?

The largest target may be simply not to give up the 9th trick on the opening lead.

[neilkaz]

Phil, on 2016-October-09, 18:23, said:

The largest target may be simply not to give up the 9th trick on the opening lead.

Yes so I lead J♥

[msjennifer]

Club 4.I mark LHO with long diamonds on this sequence.

[nullve]

Phil, on 2016-October-09, 18:23, said:

The largest target may simply not to give up the 9th trick on the opening lead.

Good point. I'll have to think more about that.

rmnka447, on 2016-October-09, 18:05, said:

Wouldn't you be mortified if declarer held ♦ A, ♦ Q between his two hands and you gave away the suit with a ♦ lead?

Only if it meant that I also gave up the 9th trick. (We're playing IMP Pairs.)

[Jinksy]

Here's the full hand. You might not agree with N/S bidding, though I can imagine what they were both thinking (assuming I'm right about the 3♥ meaning). In some sense it was successful here - I led a heart, and many declarers went off in 4♠ (though deep finesse says the latter should make):

---

[miamijd]

Either a H honor or a small club seems reasonable. If you lead H, you have to hope partner has a spade trick and a H honor. Then declarer may only come to 8 tricks before you run H. If you lead C, you have to hope partner has K fourth or fifth.

And by the way, 4S makes 4 easily. Not sure how anyone went down. It will make 7 on a H lead if you guess the diamonds right.

[gane32000]

Lead a banana. Your partner's responding to your opening bid will give you some direction.