[mfa1010]

---

Imps.

[Hanoi5]

Scoring?

I might try the ♦6. But they seem to have a slam so it might not matter. ♠A to give partner a ruff? Too creative, ♣A to cash out, maybe at MP's.

[mfa1010]

Hanoi5, on 2011-June-14, 06:35, said:

Scoring?

Thanks, Imps. Forgot.

[bluecalm]

I find the lead of A♠ as clear 1st choice.

[JLOGIC]

Ace of spades would be my last choice...well I guess a low spade would be.

[gnasher]

♣A. RHO probably has some spade length, so the club trick might be going on a diamond immediately. Once I've seen dummy I may have a better idea as to whether to wait for two spade tricks, or to cash the spade and hope for two trump tricks.

[pooltuna]

JLOGIC, on 2011-June-14, 07:06, said:

Ace of spades would be my last choice...well I guess a low spade would be.

Based on these statements I can infer that a ♥ lead is a more favorable choice than a ♠

[Phil]

RHO's failure to open a weak 2 or to open the bidding hints that he is not sitting with a wasted ♠K. This is not an absolute, but its enough of a clue that I think its safe to either cash some spades, develop a slow spade (pard has Jx) or give pard an immediate or spade ruff.

I admit the ♣A (mps), low♣ is the first thing that came to my mind, but I really think the pass/4♥ sequence rings a loud enough bell to lead the spade.

[bluecalm]

Quote

RHO's failure to open a weak 2 or to open the bidding hints that he is not sitting with a wasted ♠K

Well, admittedly one reason he didn't open the bidding could be that he is either 4-6 in majors or has Kxx (some people hold a view that opening 2H with good 3 spades and 6hearts should be avoided, I think that they at least have a point and more probably are just right).

[bluecalm]

Quote

Ace of spades would be my last choice...well I guess a low spade would be.

I have trouble believing you would prefer trump or low club as well as a diamond

[mfa1010]

Phil, on 2011-June-14, 10:04, said:

RHO's failure to open a weak 2 or to open the bidding hints that he is not sitting with a wasted ♠K. This is not an absolute, but its enough of a clue that I think its safe to either cash some spades, develop a slow spade (pard has Jx) or give pard an immediate or spade ruff.

I admit the ♣A (mps), low♣ is the first thing that came to my mind, but I really think the pass/4♥ sequence rings a loud enough bell to lead the spade.

At some other table RHO only bid 3♥ which was raised to 4. Would that bidding make it different for you?

[Phil]

mfa1010, on 2011-June-14, 10:54, said:

At some other table RHO only bid 3♥ which was raised to 4. Would that bidding make it different for you?

Yes, I think so. As a matter of fact there is a lot of hands where I would bid 3♥ with the ♠K, but 4 if the K were better placed.

[whereagles]

Diamond. Ace of spades if I need to get "creative".

[JLOGIC]

bluecalm, on 2011-June-14, 10:25, said:

I have trouble believing you would prefer trump or low club as well as a diamond

A diamond is what I would lead. It is between that and the CA to me. I have AQ A and trumps aren't splitting for them, I don't see why we might not beat this just being passive. Of course it's easy to see how the club ace could win immediately. I am more of an ace banger than anyone but it doesn't seem like a desperate situation here, or one where I'm particularly likely to be able to give partner a ruff in any suit.

And I definitely prefer a low club to the SA.

[mfa1010]

---

Thanks for the answers.

This was the layout this particular Sunday, where I played 40 of my most lucky bridge boards for a long time.

I talked to a very strong player about this lead and he surprised me by having very strong feelings for a low club. He told me so before I told him about my actual lead, which had in fact been a low club. At the table I didn't feel strongly for it and the actual layout is really just an unusually lucky model perfecto layout for a ♣-lead. But still it's an interesting problem.

What made the difference to me was that I really hated my passive alternative. It is not like a diamond is safe. Going passive from ♦xx could pickle so many holdings with partner like ♦Qxxx, ♦Jxxx, ♦KTxx, etc.

[Phil]

Good thread, thanks Michael.