[han]

mikeh, on 2013-April-09, 09:51, said:

On reflection, I think the low heart from dummy at trick 1 was an error. Playing the Q would resolve the issue of the heart K. At worst, it would leave doubt as to the 10, but if it holds, you have the certainty of the K being on your left as it was (that's why I said the lead was an error...not that LHO had anything very attractive, but imo a spade seems better).

In my experience people don't often underlead kings against 6NT, especially when they have 2 that are likely both well placed. This auction seems especially dangerous for underleading the heart king. By playing low on the first trick you almost guaranteed the contract if the heart king was onside, while playing the queen would leave you in a much worse position if the king was onside.

Are you sure your knowledge of LHO's dubious lead isn't influencing your thoughts here?

By the way, interesting play problem.

[mikeh]

han, on 2013-April-10, 13:17, said:

In my experience people don't often underlead kings against 6NT, especially when they have 2 that are likely both well placed. This auction seems especially dangerous for underleading the heart king. By playing low on the first trick you almost guaranteed the contract if the heart king was onside, while playing the queen would leave you in a much worse position if the king was onside.

Are you sure your knowledge of LHO's dubious lead isn't influencing your thoughts here?

By the way, interesting play problem.

Quite possibly: I was declarer and played low at the table: it was only when reading those who were concerned about the location of the K that I suggested that we could force that disclosure by playing the Q.

As for the opening lead, it was an error, but in fairness to the leader (with whom I have a particularly significant relationship), she had a tough choice: K10xx in both reds, Jxxx in my 'known' suit, and stiff in a suit in which I had implied at least tolerance by allowing partner to bid 6♠ if he felt it right to do so. I would lead a spade, and she agreed with me after the hand. But then I'd have no story, since I would have gone down

I noted only when proofing this that kenberg already picked up on the diamond K inference.

Indeed, one advantage to playing the Q at trick 1 is that if it holds, one has a decent inference that the diamond K is offside for precisely the reason you give for suggesting that few would lead hearts on this auction against this contract. When one finds out that she has a stiff spade, it is fairly easy to tentatively place her with both kings and a problematic club holding. Playing low from dummy deprives you of this line of thinking, for whatever that may be worth.

[han]

I certainly agree that west had an unpleasant choice of opening leads.

[kenberg]

Iwas thinking about the W lead and the implications. As soon as W leads a small red card, there is reason to believe that she has the king of the other suit. If W holds no king or both kings it's a free choice, but if she holds one of the kings she is apt to choose the other suit. This is not an ironclad thing but probably enough so that after the heart lead, regardless of whether it goes small top the 9 or up with the Q holding, or on a different deal up with the Q covered, probably after the heart duck the evidence favors running the club diamond squeeze rather than running the diamond finesse.

The longer I think about this hand the more i like it.

[lrussell]

Playing the ♥Q from dummy at trick 1 would be a mistake when West has

♠x
♥10xxxxx
♦K109x
♣Jx

Good hand.