[inquiry]

This thread will show some avoidable trick one blunders.

Here partner lead the attitude (top of crap) diamond nine. There is no future in playing the ♦Q, and as you can see, this set up the entire diamonds suit (declarer only needed 4♦. Play low and the defense to set 7NT is all but automatic. You have to rely on partner not have led the ♦9 from ♦J98, BUT that isn't asking too much.

---

[inquiry]

HERE is a much harder trick one situation

You play 4th best from legnth with attitude implications. Ok, I've told you this was about trick one errors. So you are probably thinking about playing low on this heart. But seriously would you have played low on the heart opening lead? The heart lead was attitude, partner has underled something, not the Ace. It is difficult to imagine parner underled the ♥KQ, so he has ♥K or ♥Q -- and leading form either holding seem risky, but this was the led at the table.

Would anyone like to discuss the relative merits of playing high (the jack) or low on trick one single dummy?

---

[inquiry]

The double of 7♥ was a little greedy... if ew had an 11 card heart fit with Ax with west, you just told them how to play the suit. BUT the bad play was the novice (below beginner) error of covering the heart queen. This would be the same error if something else was played to trick one, dummy was entered and the heart queen was then played from dummy.

---

[Antrax]

A general question: shouldn't you tend to lead passively against 7NT?

[inquiry]

Antrax, on 2012-February-19, 02:48, said:

A general question: shouldn't you tend to lead passively against 7NT?

Well, as a general rule, yes. IF declarer has 13 tricks, it doesn't matter what you lead. You don;t want to give up a trick on the lead.

This brings us to the question of if you have KQ in a suit, do you make the "safe play" of the king to trick one? Some say yes, but many very good players say no (play some other suit). The reason being if you play the king, you are telling declarer you have the queen. That knowledge might be enough for him find a squeeze against you. IF you have no other potential winner then leading the king becomes a little more attractive, but sometimes quite small cards become potential winners.

but since leading away from, say a king, is frowned upon, a tricky led might talk declarer out of a winning line as he places the king in your parnter's hand (say a finesse of you in that suit). The hands I show are only rotated so south is declarer. The bidding and carding is as it was at the table. Maybe I should change some of the bidding to make it more realistic... but if there is a crazy lead, that is what happened at the table.

[Antrax]

Thanks.
About the second one, the 6, 9, Q, K and A are missing. Playing the J loses when declarer has exactly AKQx, as it promotes the T, or when partner went crazy and has a Q doubleton. Neither seems likely.
It's possible declarer has AQ and partner led away from his K, but in this case, one trick was blown regardless of what I play now.
So, what's the case for not playing the ♥J?

[Flameous]

It might subject your partner to a squeeze assuming that AQ or AK scenario.

[Statto]

But it might give declarer the 13th trick when partner has led from Qxx, which I think it's likely to be. If I was going to lead from a 4-card suit with an honour against 7NT, I'd choose something deceptive rather than the smallest...

(Read: I wouldn't normally lead from a 4-card suit with an honour against 7NT.)

[BunnyGo]

Count the hand out, partner has another honor, if not the !d queen the hand is over. So give it to partner, along with the !h Q (he can only have 4 high). Then declarer then has 4 red suit tricks, and 8 black suit tricks. But if you play the J!h, partner is inexorably squeezed in the red suits (all squeezes are inexorable, right?).