[pclayton]

A few interesting decisions from last night.

1. You need 4 tricks from this combination to make your slam: J87 opposite AQ532. Entries are not an issue. How do you play?


2. ♠8xx ♥xx ♦AJTxx ♣Qxx.

White / red, you open a featherweight 2♦. P-P-2N on right, 3N on left. Your lead?


3. ♠T9xxx ♥Qxx ♦xxxx ♣J

1♣ - 1♦ - 1♥ - 6♣. Your lead?

[FrancesHinden]

1. I look at the opponents' hands first.

2.
This is within style for one of my weak twos but I would lead diamonds for much the reason that Justin doesn't.

3. seems close between a heart and a spade. I think I would go with a heart but without confidence.

[Apollo81]

2. Would lead the ♦J at IMPs and a spade at matchpoints.
3. Spade

[skjaeran]

Jlall, on Mar 5 2008, 06:27 PM, said:

1. neat one, I havent seen this before but the jack is right (gains against T/9/6 singleton offside, loses to stiff king anywhere).

2. I would try a spade, partner didn't raise diamonds w/r so it seems unlikely he will have 3 that often (though maybe if this is my style of weak 2 bid he doesn't raise with 3?). Anyways, it would basically come down to how often I think partner could pass with 3. Of the non diamond suits it seems like a major is best, and I lead my longer one for obvious reasons.

3. I would lead a boring spade, they bid all the other suits! lol.

Agree

[keylime]

1. J♠. Caters to Justin's holdings.

2. I lead a spade here regardless of scoring.

3. I table a heart here. They have no spade issue by implication.

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Mar 5 2008, 12:27 PM, said:

1. neat one, I havent seen this before but the jack is right (gains against T/9/6 singleton offside, loses to stiff king anywhere).

2. I would try a spade, partner didn't raise diamonds w/r so it seems unlikely he will have 3 that often (though maybe if this is my style of weak 2 bid he doesn't raise with 3?). Anyways, it would basically come down to how often I think partner could pass with 3. Of the non diamond suits it seems like a major is best, and I lead my longer one for obvious reasons.

3. I would lead a boring spade, they bid all the other suits! lol.

Agreed.

Note that strengthening the AQxxx slam suit to AQ632 would make the A first then low to the Jack better, since it protects against the stiff K and also picks up stiff 9 or 10 on your right.

As for the lead from 8xx xx in the majors, Phil gave us the spade 8 for a reason, so I am sure that it is wrong to lead it on the problem as posted, but comfortable that it is the theoretically best lead...altho not by a wide margin. I would be interested in knowing whether a low diamond is statistically better than the 'normal' lead of the J (or the 10 playing Journalist leads), but it is too tough to simulate easily. I'd expect the J to be superior but by how much?

My dilemma over that issue is one reason for the spade lead: even if a diamond attack were better, the Jack loses when partner has Qx or 9xx and opener has a 4 card holding while the low is horrific on other holdings, so my guess may backfire anyway. I'd lead a diamond if I knew the holdings and a spade otherwise.

[pclayton]

1. Gnome played this combo. He tried low to the Ace dropping the stiff King offside. We all looked at Suitplay later and determined running the J is better.

2. My opponent held this and led a heart. This wasn't a success as his pard had Jxxx. A spade works well (your pard has AJxxxx and they are 2-2) or a LOW diamond. Declarer (me) had KQ tight opposite 8xxx.

3. I led the pedestrian low spade. $$$

[Echognome]

mikeh, on Mar 5 2008, 01:58 PM, said:

Note that strengthening the AQxxx slam suit to AQ632 would make the A first then low to the Jack better, since it protects against the stiff K and also picks up stiff 9 or 10 on your right.

Actually it's a tie with running the J which now picks up either low singleton.

Edit: While losing additionally to stiff K onside. (so gains against stiff 4 or 5 off, but loses to stiff K either side for a wash)