Help
3rd highest ♦, so hopefully partner can know I have ♦Q. Leading ♦Q is useless imo.
Opening Lead partner doubles keycard response
#21
- mmm Duvel
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,728
- Joined: 2003-July-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Belgium
- Interests:Duvel, Whisky
Posted 2005-June-09, 02:55
"It may be rude to leave to go to the bathroom, but it's downright stupid to sit there and piss yourself" - blackshoe
#22
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 8,356
- Joined: 2005-February-09
- Gender:Male
- Location:Zurich, Switzerland
Posted 2005-June-09, 14:59
I like the ♦Q lead. Reasoning as follows:
Partner probably doesn't have JUST the ace or king of diamonds. If partner has the ace and jack or king and jack, my lead of the queen will clarify the position. If partner has AKxxx or the like, it is more likely that I can read partner's count signal than that he can read my length from the low diamond lead. Also, if one opponent has singleton diamond and partner has the AK (as seems fairly likely), I am more likely to find the right play at trick two. Finally, if someone is going to get squeezed on this hand, it is probably ME (holding the obvious spade guard). I really don't want to see a position where dummy has ♦Jx, and declarer has AT, as partner's diamond king play at trick one sets me up to be squeezed in the pointed suits.
Leading a low diamond so as to "prevent partner from being squeezed" seems far-fetched, since I am guarding the spades and if partner guards diamonds AND another suit, the opponents have very little between them (and must find a way to run enough winners to squeeze partner without spade tricks).
Partner probably doesn't have JUST the ace or king of diamonds. If partner has the ace and jack or king and jack, my lead of the queen will clarify the position. If partner has AKxxx or the like, it is more likely that I can read partner's count signal than that he can read my length from the low diamond lead. Also, if one opponent has singleton diamond and partner has the AK (as seems fairly likely), I am more likely to find the right play at trick two. Finally, if someone is going to get squeezed on this hand, it is probably ME (holding the obvious spade guard). I really don't want to see a position where dummy has ♦Jx, and declarer has AT, as partner's diamond king play at trick one sets me up to be squeezed in the pointed suits.
Leading a low diamond so as to "prevent partner from being squeezed" seems far-fetched, since I am guarding the spades and if partner guards diamonds AND another suit, the opponents have very little between them (and must find a way to run enough winners to squeeze partner without spade tricks).
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#23
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,553
- Joined: 2005-April-25
Posted 2005-June-09, 20:18
arent all these reasonings great!
#24
- World International Master without a clue
-
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,404
- Joined: 2003-November-13
- Gender:Male
- Location:madrid
Posted 2005-June-10, 07:09
pigpenz, on Jun 10 2005, 02:18 AM, said:
arent all these reasonings great!
I dunno if they are great, ,but I would like to knw if they are right
