[MrAce]

---

2NT was ♦+♥. What would you lead and do you agree with 3♠ ? (IMPS)

[the hog]

MrAce, on 2010-December-11, 01:07, said:

---

2NT was ♦+♥. What would you lead and do you agree with 3♠ ?

3S is idiotic and I will lead the Q of Hearts.

[gwnn]

3♦ was best, try to use that ♣ singleton in diamonds... But of course 7 is 7 so it's not so bad to bid spades either methinks. the problem is they may easily get some ♦ ruffs going in ♠ and also we will give away a lot of spades anyway when partner turns out with his usual stiff or void in spades. But the ♦ losers are the same in a ♠ or ♦ contract. So no, I do not like 3♠. Erase that second sentence please. Again, the point would be to have some interiors in ♠ because those are the cards that they will take now that they wouldn't have taken in 3♦ (of course when partner has a singleton he can ruff some but that is uncomfortable from the long hand)

[Hanoi5]

I also voted for the ♥Q but a small diamond could work fine, too.

[pooltuna]

MrAce, on 2010-December-11, 01:07, said:

---

2NT was ♦+♥. What would you lead and do you agree with 3♠ ?

2♦ our known 8 card fit

[dake50]

I would assume 2NT=H+D would be chosen over
1H, then show diamonds when the diamonds are good, hearts weak.

I lead a diamond.

[mtvesuvius]

Disclaimer before reading: My leads suck.

Also, what's the form of scoring?
So on this auction, what is RHO's hand? He didn't make a club raise, so clearly he has a fairly strong desire to penalize (at least) 1 of partner's suits. He then didn't want to penalize spades, but has a stopper. IMO, he must be something like 2434 or 3424 or something. Partner rates to have a doubleton club and a stiff spade, and I think that a Diamond lead is better. Partner should hopefully have a couple diamond cards, and hopefully if I lead the ♦6, he'll figure out to put a heart/spade through. I'd definitely lead a diamond at MPs. At IMPs I think that a heart has more chances of beating this. So... I'd lead the ♦6 at MPs, and ♥Q at IMPs.

[MrAce]

Sorry, it was imps. I edited and added now to the original post.

[MrAce]

pooltuna, on 2010-December-11, 08:44, said:

2♦ our known 8 card fit

Unfortunately 2♦ would be unsufficient bid over 2 NT, i assume u meant 3♦.

[mtvesuvius]

As a side note, I would have bid 3♦ before.

At IMPs I still think the ♥Q is a better choice though

[MrAce]

pooltuna, on 2010-December-11, 08:44, said:

2♦ our known 8 card fit

Pd's likely ♠ holdings are void, stiff, doubleton, three cards. 3 out of 4 (except void) also gives you 7+1 7+2 7+3 cards fit, and it is a major suit. Finding partner with void or 3 cards are extreme scenarios, i admit. Besides he could have started dbl with 3550...I also posted my ♠ holding weaker than what it was i guess.

I do not think this hand necessarily should bid 3♠, but i don't think bidding your 7 cards ♠ suit headed with AQ is too bad. After all it is imps, not mp. for me it is still too early to give up my hopes for a ♠ contract. I have stiff in their suit and reds are mentioned by partner and i am not bidding 4 ♠ after all.

I also led ♥Q, it turned out to be wrong. Very wrong

Here is the original deal, i finally found it.

---

3♠ makes, so does 3♦. Interesting, defense has to be at the top of their game to defeat 4♠.

If WEST leads his stiff and EAST gives him a ruff 4♠ is cold.
If WEST starts with ♣A and then plays his stiff, East has to duck first ♦ in order to defeat 4♠.
If WEST starts with ♣A and continue ♣K, declarer may try to go dummy with ♦K for ♠ finesse, if EAST takes that first ♦, 4♠ is cold.
If WEST starts with ♣ A nd shifts to a ♥, this is probably the best for defense to prevent an accident. But i dont think it is obvious to play through those ♥ suit from your 3 small xxx (not saying it can not be played, but in some other hands the ♥ play by WEST at trick 2 can be disaster)

[han]

the hog, on 2010-December-11, 03:18, said:

3S is idiotic.

Could you explain why 3S is idiotic? Should we bid 3D first and run to 3S when that gets doubled? Or are you recommending that we bid 3D and play 3DX?

I don't agree with north's 2NT by the way, I don't think the suits are good enough for 2NT. Perhaps that is a good argument for the claim that 3S is indeed idiotic.