[OleBerg]

---

Lead: ♥5

Opponents are approx the middle of the Danish Premier League.

Plan the play.

[LBengtsson]

I will try to set up 2♣ tricks and hope ♠ suit is blocked, if west has ♠suit ♠AKJxxxx we are finished when east gets in with ♣A. precise sequence of tricks I do not know now but I will go with winning ♥ in dummy, ♣J, etc. if ♠ suit blocked then I hope to lose just 1♠1♦2♣ or 2♠2♣ if west is 7222 0r 7123 shape. some partial elimination will have to be made but I have flexible entries in ♥ suit so will probably win first trick in dummy with ♥Q throwing ♥J from hand, then lead ♣J and see what happens...

I might go down -4 but I also might make contract lol!

[nige1]

OleBerg 'Lead: ♥5. Opponents are approx the middle of the Danish Premier League. Plan the play'
++++++++++++++++++++
Agree with LBengtsson. Run ♣J. Hope ♠ are blocked .

---

[pilowsky]

Something like this?

Spoiler

---

Is 3NT the best stab in the dark? Or would 4♥ be worth a shot?

[gszes]

sigh I hate these type of hands. IF you want to go for it all then LBengsston is the way to go. When I look at this hand I feel doomed. I realize there is a chance we can make it BUT is it worthwhile? If 3n makes we get + 600 if it goes down its pretty much - 400. I think it looks like a bad bet. My choice would most likely taking my 7 tricks and accepting - 200. If this is wrong it is - 13 imps if 3n is doomed then it is + 5 assuming the other table tries to make it. Against a computer opp, which will see little difference btn AJTxxxx x xx Axx and the proposed hand, trying to make 3n is probably a good bet. Against us inferior humans (we hate going for large numbers especially with defense) the odds seem to tilt way in favor of lho holding !S AKJxxx and out. In the long run this decision has to be right 75% of the time to be a long term strategy winner but unless the opps need a swing going down 2 seems the way to go.

[smerriman]

gszes, on 2021-October-12, 17:17, said:

Against us inferior humans (we hate going for large numbers especially with defense) the odds seem to tilt way in favor of lho holding !S AKJxxx and out.

Wouldn't you lead a top spade from that holding? Avoiding a spade seems to be playing partner for exactly a singleton and two tricks (or one trick and declarer to have precisely Qxx).

[Winstonm]

I think the issue is the expected holding for the preempt. If he doesn’t hold AKJ the suit is blocked (provided 7 card suit is held). So how to play is based on what you expect from your opponent. If aggressive, it might be a 6-card suit. If quite conservative, AKJxxxx is much more likely.

[smerriman]

Winstonm, on 2021-October-12, 18:27, said:

I think the issue is the expected holding for the preempt. If he doesn’t hold AKJ the suit is blocked (provided 7 card suit is held). So how to play is based on what you expect from your opponent. If aggressive, it might be a 6-card suit. If quite conservative, AKJxxxx is much more likely.

But again, surely you also have to take into consideration the fact he didn't lead a spade. If I'm a conservative preempter holding AKJxxxx, I personally would definitely lead the king and look at what happens, rather than assume that partner can get in, lead his singleton spade, AND have declarer's queen drop in 3 (or get in a second time later).

While if partner has 0 or 2 spades, a spade lead seems needed, and gives you the chance to see dummy too.

Maybe others wouldn't for reasons I don't yet understand but it's still an important factor to consider.

[Winstonm]

smerriman, on 2021-October-12, 18:32, said:

But again, surely you also have to take into consideration the fact he didn't lead a spade. If I'm a conservative preempter holding AKJxxxx, I personally would definitely lead the king and look at what happens, rather than assume that partner can get in, lead his singleton spade, AND have declarer's queen drop in 3 (or get in a second time later).


While if partner has 0 or 2 spades, a spade lead seems needed, and gives you the chance to see dummy too.

Maybe others wouldn't for reasons I don't yet understand but it's still an important factor to consider.

If I hold AKJxxxx and have preempted and still RHO bids NT I expect at minimum Qxx if not Qxxx or even Qxxxx, so no. I would not lead a spade. I would hope partner held a spade (no guarantee) and an entry before the opps rattled off nine tricks.

The only holding where a spade lead might be expected is with AJ10xxxx.

[smerriman]

Winstonm, on 2021-October-12, 19:41, said:

I would hope partner held a spade (no guarantee) and an entry before the opps rattled off nine tricks.

My main point was that a spade and an entry still isn't going to be enough to set it, unless declarer has exactly Qxx (where partner is more likely to have 2 anyway).

[Winstonm]

smerriman, on 2021-October-12, 19:49, said:

My main point was that a spade and an entry still isn't going to be enough to set it, unless declarer has exactly Qxx (where partner is more likely to have 2 anyway).

Why would you kill that chance? There are only 3 missing spades so expectation is for 1 1/2.

You could be right, but I would not lead a spade and would not expect that lead from AKJ.

[smerriman]

Nevermind, I've just realised I'm making no sense at all Was thinking cashing the high club would let me see dummy to help pinpoint where partner's entry is in case the opps have 9 quick tricks. But if declarer has Qxxx then we can't cash out anyway. Ignore everything I wrote

[Winstonm]

smerriman, on 2021-October-12, 20:06, said:

Nevermind, I've just realised I'm making no sense at all Was thinking cashing the high club would let me see dummy to help pinpoint where partner's entry is in case the opps have 9 quick tricks. But if declarer has Qxxx then we can't cash out anyway. Ignore everything I wrote

No, you are still correct - as long as partner has 2 or even 3 spades. It just seems unlikely to me and no matter we still need to have a stopper before they catch 9 tricks.