All News

A Crucial Lead.

They all are, to an extent, though some are more costly than others. Today’s came from the recent Open Trial. See if you can sift through the evidence and even glance at your hand before deciding on your choice:

 

It all started with a pretty standard Weak 2 and take-out double. 3 was natural, but Lebensohl style, showing around 7-11 hcp. 3 too was natural but then matters became less clear, especially North’s 2 heart calls. South appeared to want to end matters in 5 but suddenly, North had converted to the other minor a level higher.

Somewhat confused by the auction is:

Bruce Anderson “K: I must admit I am struggling to understand this auction. North seems to have a 6/5 hand in clubs and hearts and South seems to have a strong hand with diamonds that was too good to overcall 3.

But what was 3 all about? At that point North may well have had a 5/4 hand with invitational values, so with strength in spades why didn’t South bid 3NT?

 

I am taking the view South does hold AK, regardless, and despite the bidding, our partner holds A, and declarer’s diamond loser will disappear if we don’t attack that suit immediately.

So, I am leading the K, which could be wrong; perhaps a trump is right, but what is going on!

 

I am not sure I would bid 3 if I held 5 hearts on the side. Indeed, one issue is whether 3 was natural or a cue-bid. It would seem to be a strange cue-bid without having agreed trumps.

Was South bidding 5 to play or was it a cue-bid? Without West’s double, we would have found out and maybe not have been on lead!

Stephen Blackstock “ 5: Many decades ago on being given a lead problem, I said "don't tell me the auction, just tell me the contract!" That was because at our level the auction is so often not the best and even actively misleading.

This is a classic example - what is West up to? Doubling a 5 cue (??) missing the ace and king is unusual, and what does double of 6 say? Does it withdraw the earlier suggestion to lead a diamond? I don't believe he wants a spade, as he had a chance to double 3 without the present ambiguity, but declined. On the surface our tricks are most likely to come from hearts or clubs, and in neither case will run away if not cashed now. I lead a trump in case North has lots of clubs and hearts and needs a ruff or two in dummy. I doubt if just one trump lead will hurt him, but you never know.

 

Actually, from my side I'm happy not to be defending a grand!”

 

A third choice of suit came from:

Nigel Kearney “9: I prefer a firm rule that a double of a slam always asks for an unusual lead. If partner wanted a diamond, all they had to do is pass 6 after doubling 5. Since 5 was a possible final contract, not a cue bid, I expect partner has hearts fairly well locked up, otherwise the double of 5 would be too risky. It's also possible partner has a spade void and I need to lead a spade to beat it, but the auction just doesn't sound like they can have enough spades for that to be the case.”

 

Wayne Burrows “9: Firstly, partner doubled 5 and so thinks that that contract is going down. I didn't promise any defensive cards and partner is on lead so there are no Lightner lead implications. Partner is unlikely to have three diamond tricks when I have K10 and South bid diamonds very strongly.

Therefore, partner has some tricks outside of diamonds and maybe a deep diamond trick. Given partner doubled 5, I do not think there are any lead implications with the double of 6. Partner just thinks that contract is going down. Given partner has some values and neither raised 2 nor made a lead directing double of 3, I think his tricks are in hearts or clubs. Club tricks will not vanish but heart tricks could. So, I lead a heart. I do not really know what is going on in spades as neither North nor South bid 3NT. I will trust partner, over the opponents, though not to have spade cards.”

Wayne was correct on two counts, that our partner should have tricks outside diamonds for the double of 5 and that despite the slightly unusual heart bids from North that West was indeed looking at heart tricks to beat 5. Time for a look:

 

How often do they run from their choice of game, when doubled, especially at the 5-level? West, Martin Reid, seemed to be looking at a trump trick and two top hearts, and maybe his partner, Peter Newell, could contribute something for his Weak 2. So, he doubled 5 but seconds later it was Peter who was on lead to 6.

Peter chose K which did not work out well for the defence. Declarer, Michael Cornell, ruffed in hand and played a club to the ace. A second diamond ruff was followed by lots of rounds of trumps and Michael soon had 6 trump tricks, 5 diamonds and AK. Would you have been recording +100? It seems Michael thought that his partner, Ashley Bach, was cue-bidding (3 ) in support of hearts....hence the 4 sign-off. 

At the other table, Brian Mace, South, bid an immediate 3NT over Michael Whibley’s 2 opener. Matt Brown, West, led a small heart won by Brian with Q who cashed both black aces (taking away West’s spade) before playing J. Matt had no desire to exit a minor suit or indeed a heart to dummy and thus ducked giving Brian his second heart trick.

Next came A and 3 to Michael Whibley’s king. Michael could exit Q to Brian’s king. Now, Q brought no joy for the declarer and he exited another diamond to Matt’s J. Matt had three winning hearts to cash and beat the contract. The key to a successful defence is for West to duck heart leads twice to South, thus denying declarer any entry to those clubs stranded in dummy.

A crucial lead to 6? Sure was!

More for our JIN Club readers tomorrow.

Richard Solomon

 

Go Back View All News Items