[VixTD]

Another ruling at the same club (matchpointed pairs):

---

What would you lead? What would you consider leading?

What would a hesitation by partner before the final pass suggest?

Sorry, I meant to give their defence to 1NT (please don't ask me to elaborate, though):

2♣ = both majors, 2♦ = one major, 2M = bid major + a minor, 2NT = either both minors or both majors, X by a passed hand = "takeout" (PLEASE DON'T ASK ME TO ELABORATE!!!)

[Phil]

1. H8

2. What do we play over their NTs? If 2C is artificial then the tank probably suggests a club lead.

[helene_t]

It is difficult to say what the BIT suggests without knowing our system.

It also depends a bit who partner is. A good player would pass in tempo with a balanced hand, so the BIT probably suggests that I should try to find his suit.

I would have problems with a heart lead that successfully found partner's suit, and even more problems with a club lead.

Edit: this assumes that a balancing double would be artificial. If a balancing double shows (or includes) a balanced 11-count then the BIT doesn't tell me anything and I can lead what I want.

[StevenG]

The hesitation could suggest a nothing special two-suiter - which two-suiter depends on what their defence to 1NT is. It could also suggest a fairly weak single-suited hand (in a suit not covered by an artificial bid). I wouldn't feel contrained in my lead (playing Asptro) as the UI is too vague.

[barmar]

Balancing over weak NT is generally scary, because RHO will pass with many decent hands. So it's not clear to me that the slow pass shows anything other than that he's got about the strength you expect, and probably not any extreme shape. I don't think it suggests his strength is in any particular suit.

[WellSpyder]

Any lead seems possible to me. It is also pretty unclear what a hesitation suggests. It MIGHT suggest partner has clubs but couldn't call them naturally, but it might also be based on all sorts of other things. Maybe partner just doesn't like to let oppo play 1N, but couldn't quite persuade himself to stop them this time....

[blackshoe]

"Might suggest" is of course not good enough. I agree that the BIT does not meet the criterion to rule that North has UI constraining his choice of lead.

[peterb001]

Given that South had previously declined to open, it is also possible that South is wondering whether to protect you on this auction, as you could be much stronger, and stuck for a bid. So I'm not convinced that the hesitation points at any particular suit holding (we may have a fit in spades or diamonds ... or not), and I would protect my honours and lead probably a heart, otherwise a club.

[mycroft]

Questions:

• What are their first seat openers like? How about their first seat 1NT?
  
• What are *our* first seat openers like? Will partner have as much as 11 high? 10? Can they open 2♦ natural and weak? 2♥?
  
• 11-15 seems awfully wide for a *vulnerable* third-seat 1NT opener. Do they really open flat crappy 11s, or is this really "13-15, or weaker with cards in long suits"? What kind of safe invites does East have?

All of these questions are to determine where the cards could be.

It does look like we're about 13-8-9-10 around the room. At MPs, do I want to lead the KJT, likely giving up a trick, or be safe (and frequently pooching partner's trick)? I play this system vs weak NTs (although my passed-hand balancing would be 4M+longer m, like our strong NT defence), and the hands that are quiet are 1-minor, because you can't really show it (besides double-and-hope). However, I bet a round suit lead is best, hoping to give up a trick on the OL, but set up partner's long suit. Obviously it's more likely to be clubs than hearts (if it's hearts, it must be a bad suit to not balance with 2♦, yes?). Of course, that's exactly what the hesitation also implies (surely it's more likely to show a suit I can only bid at the 3 level than one I can bid at the 2 level?)

[Cyberyeti]

I would seriously question it if a club was led (they have no bid for one minor so this could be very mildly suggested), but can live with anything else.

[weejonnie]

Aggressive leads are best Vs a 1NT contract - and majors slightly over minors, so I'll lead a spade. With 8 points, partner's hand is probably a fraction stronger, but there is no need to try and seek out his 5-card suit (if he has one). I would like to know how aggressive partner is. If he is very aggressive then the pause most likely suggests a 1-suited minor (which appears to be the only combination that the defence does not cater for.) (I note this is suggested elsewhere so it is starting to become 'demonstrably suggested', even though technically it is not (as I write) a 'Logical Alternative' - which requires 20% (as a guide).) - The EBU cater for such, as I have pointed out elsewhere today.

[WellSpyder]

weejonnie, on 2017-January-04, 12:21, said:

Aggressive leads are best Vs a 1NT contract

Citation needed.

I think the opposite is actually the case. Aggressive leads may be needed against 3NT, but against 1NT you will often have time to switch later in the defence if you need to set up your tricks before declarer gets his.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2017-January-04, 08:22, said:

What would a hesitation by partner before the final pass suggest?

Sorry, I meant to give their defence to 1NT (please don't ask me to elaborate, though):

2♣ = both majors, 2♦ = one major, 2M = bid major + a minor, 2NT = either both minors or both majors, X by a passed hand = "takeout" (PLEASE DON'T ASK ME TO ELABORATE!!!)

A hesitation suggests partner was thinking of bidding. It always does. But, unless you are playing standard Fantunes, you are not able to codify the breaks in tempo, so nothing is demonstrably suggested. It is possible that partner was thinking of bidding clubs or diamonds and realised that he would have to bid at the three level and decided against it. It is also possible he was wondering what a passed hand double really showed ("takeout" is ridiculous, although something like majors/minors/diamonds is sensible, or any modified form of Meckwell). So he might have been thinking of doubling. It is possible that he was considering bidding 2M but thought he was too weak. Any lead is permitted.

[weejonnie]

WellSpyder, on 2017-January-19, 11:02, said:

Citation needed.

I think the opposite is actually the case. Aggressive leads may be needed against 3NT, but against 1NT you will often have time to switch later in the defence if you need to set up your tricks before declarer gets his.

Bird, D., & Anthias, T. (2011) Winning Notrump Leads, Ontario, Master Points Press, pg118

Hand quoted

KJT4
8652
AJT8
8

Beats 1NT

J Spades : 52.7%
6 Hearts : 45.8%
J Diamonds: 48.9%
8 Clubs : 41.5%

Beats 3NT

J Spades : 35.7%
6 Hearts : 37.6%
J Diamonds : 26.8%
8 Clubs : 33.4%

(J Spades beats J Diamonds because of major suit bias)

[Cyberyeti]

weejonnie, on 2017-January-20, 16:15, said:

Bird, D., & Anthias, T. (2011) Winning Notrump Leads, Ontario, Master Points Press, pg118

Hand quoted

KJT4
8652
AJT8
8

Beats 1NT

J Spades : 52.7%
6 Hearts : 45.8%
J Diamonds: 48.9%
8 Clubs : 41.5%

Beats 3NT

J Spades : 35.7%
6 Hearts : 37.6%
J Diamonds : 26.8%
8 Clubs : 33.4%

(J Spades beats J Diamonds because of major suit bias)

The "beats 3N" section looks odd, surely depends very much on the auction, leads change in value loads depending on whether the points are 13:13 or 24:2 either way. I'd suspect J♦ is much better if most of the points are on the right.

[weejonnie]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-January-22, 04:59, said:

The "beats 3N" section looks odd, surely depends very much on the auction, leads change in value loads depending on whether the points are 13:13 or 24:2 either way. I'd suspect J♦ is much better if most of the points are on the right.

The auction is assumed to be 1NT : 3NT in the book - Analysis in the book suggests that it does not matter much whether the auction is with a weak 1NT, a strong 1NT or 2NT - 3NT. (although the chance of beating 3NT reduces on a 2NT - 3NT auction, the relative positions remain the same.) If LHO has bid NT and not used Stayman or a transfer then there is a significant bias in favour of leading a major suit.

[TMorris]

At matchpoints you are of course trying to minimise the tricks the opponents take, not the same as trying to beat the contract. This will presumably bias the results you give from the Bird/Anthias book, in my view more towards a heart.

[weejonnie]

TMorris, on 2017-January-22, 11:36, said:

At matchpoints you are of course trying to minimise the tricks the opponents take, not the same as trying to beat the contract. This will presumably bias the results you give from the Bird/Anthias book, in my view more towards a heart.

B/A quote both : beats contract and average tricks

The tricks (for the KJT4 8652 AJT8 8 ) i.e. matchpoint score performance were:-

1NT

J ♠ : 6.60
7 ♥ : 6.45
J ♦ : 6.44
8 ♣ : 6.31

So you are correct that a heart improves for Matchpoints (but does not beat spades). In fact for

3NT

J ♠ : 3.88
7 ♥ : 3.89
J ♦ : 3.62
8 ♣ : 3.76

which confirms that at matchpoints you want to find the safest major suit lead Vs a 3NT contract with no suits shown. (There are other good leads e.g. KQ, QJ(x) in the majors or the weaker major if you have a weak hand, but I won't go through them all).

[TMorris]

Thanks for that - interesting figures.

[ggwhiz]

I picked a diamond or a spade but know a handful of local players that proudly state that they ALWAYS lead from 3 or 2 small against notrump contracts of any size (and they do).

I'm not buying another lead barring evidence of that tendency and btw, everyone knows you don't need stoppers to bid 3nt against the above locals but they haven't caught on yet.