[Wackojack]

---

Local teams match. They vul we not.

Your lead? Please do a "Nige" and give marks out of 10. If you think this is a no brainer then 10 for your choice and anything else zero

[nige1]

Wackojack, on 2016-January-10, 09:07, said:

Local teams match. They vul we not.
Your lead? Please do a "Nige" and give marks out of 10. If you think this is a no brainer then 10 for your choice and anything else zero

---

Nowadays I prefer to rank options but here are marks as well.

• ♣ = 10 marks. Safe and they showed no interest in notrumps
• ♥ = 9 marks. To prevent ♦ ruffs in dummy.
• ♠ = 8 marks. Your hand is weak so partner should have entries to give you ruffs.
• ♦ = 4 marks. Contra-indicated but could work

The problem with marks is that you have to specify on what criteria you base them. My subjective criteria for marking an action:

• 10 = I'd choose it.
• 5-9 = I considered and rejected it but judge that it might well work
• 0-4 = I feel it could work but is unlikely to work, (often included because somebody else chose it).

Very occasionally, you might award 11 to an action that you judge worthy of a brilliancy-prize (again usually suggested by somebody else).

[eagles123]

queen of clubs no second choice

[gszes]

low heart = 9 no interest in ruffing with probable natural trump trick(s) do not want to see dia ruffs in dummy.
club q = 6 might get lucky and eliminate a club to dummy so no spade pitches.
spade = 3 seems like wasting time to me at best exchanging natural tricks for ruffs also risking setting up
spades in dummy for pitches.
dia = 1/0 someone needs a hearing aid.


declarer has pushed to game over a mere preference and after they made a non forcing 2d bid. The heart suit is
most likely not overly robust (no 3h bid) so we very well might have 1/2 natural heart tricks. Feel that best shot at setting is making sure no diamonds are ruffed away. Hoping for something like
KQJx(x)
K
5(4)
xxxxx(x)


A
A87532
AJ987
A

[Wackojack]

---

OK I led Q♣ which I probably would have led anyway. However, in the auction after 4♥ was passed round to partner, she thought for maybe 10 secs before passing. I knew she was thinking of doubling and would have led my singleton spade had she done so.

Actually my partner was not pleased with my lead to say the least as we lost 13 imps after my opps seat did lead the singleton. She didnt seem to understand that a spade lead after the hesitaion was a no no. We did win the match by 16 imps but it could have been by 31 had partner doubled.

Obviously she was wrong in thinking I should have led a spade. Now marks for a double please Nigel?

[daffydoc]

I do not particularly care for heart lead - where are your entries to lead them again? given your lack of HCP seems more likely pard has two entries which means 2 ruffs - singleton is pretty clear - See Garozzo for details - as he believes singletons are among the best leads. daffydoc

[mcphee]

I pop a S and hope it works. I am weak enough partner can have 2 entries. This try for the pump is over rated at times, this is one of those times.

[Jinksy]

T♠ = 10
Q♣ = 5
♥ = 2
♦ = 0

(had not looked at full hand when writing this)

I would certainly have lead the spade after the hesitation and defended (and appealed if the match result hinged on a ruling against us) the decision if the opps complained. Singletons stand out a mile after reading Bird & Anthias' books, and even beforehand, this is just the archetypal hand for them - very weak, enough trumps to potentially make life difficult for declarer/score several ruffs if P has quick entries, and nothing else that screams 'beating the contract'.

On N's hand, I would have bid 2♠ over 1♠.

[Caitlynne]

Leading the ♠10 is not insane, but it places all your eggs in the ruff basket. Partner will need the ♠A and another Ace to make it work.

Going for the forcing defense seems better. All this requires to have a good shot is a club card and some spade values from partner (and the spade values are very likely on this auction). This is much more likely than the spade Ace specifically and another Ace. The second Ace is very unlikely when declarer has announced a very strong hand.

♣Q = 100
♠10 = 40
Anything else = 0

[nige1]

Wackojack, on 2016-January-10, 15:51, said:

OK I led Q♣ which I probably would have led anyway. However, in the auction after 4♥ was passed round to partner, she thought for maybe 10 secs before passing. I knew she was thinking of doubling and would have led my singleton spade had she done so.
Actually my partner was not pleased with my lead to say the least as we lost 13 imps after my opps seat did lead the singleton. She didnt seem to understand that a spade lead after the hesitaion was a no no. We did win the match by 16 imps but it could have been by 31 had partner doubled.
Obviously she was wrong in thinking I should have led a spade.

Now marks for a double please Nigel?

---

Jinksy, on 2016-January-11, 08:41, said:

I would certainly have lead the spade after the hesitation and defended (and appealed if the match result hinged on a ruling against us) the decision if the opps complained. Singletons stand out a mile after reading Bird & Anthias' books, and even beforehand, this is just the archetypal hand for them - very weak, enough trumps to potentially make life difficult for declarer/score several ruffs if P has quick entries, and nothing else that screams 'beating the contract'. On N's hand, I would have bid 2♠ over 1♠.

IMHO, for North, over 4♥, I rank

• Pass = 10. Prefer double with holdings like ♠KJT... or ♠AQ...where you can hope for more values in partner's hand.
• Double = 8. Reasonable and you can't argue with success.
• Hesititate and pass = 2. Likely to irritate partner, as here. if Jinksy led a ♠ in such circumstances and if the director considered BBO posters to be South's peers, I'm afraid the director would rule against Jinksy and the appeal committee would keep his deposit

[awm]

Red suit leads seem terrible to me. Club and spade are both reasonable; however declarer seems to have a shapely hand, and too many trumps for a forcing defense to be that likely. In these conditions its usually better to lead from shortage than length. I rate spade as 10, club as 8, others 0.

[Jinksy]

Caitlynne, on 2016-January-11, 09:55, said:

Leading the ♠10 is not insane, but it places all your eggs in the ruff basket. Partner will need the ♠A and another Ace to make it work.

No he won't. You don't have to get two ruffs to set a contract. Either major ace could be enough, or partner having the Kx of Hs and declarer not being able to afford to finesse, or partner having a spade holding that he wants led into before declarer gets a pitch, or thousands of other less obvious positions (such as this).

[zillahandp]

Heart low

[jodepp]

I'd have led the ♣Q and think everything else is a random stab in the dark, but wouldn't this hand have been easier to defend if North had just bid what was in front of his nose? So what if responder bid 1♠? Doesn't North have spades?

[Wackojack]

OK suppose I led the 10♠ being unethically swayed by the hesitation and then the director is called. Lets say the director rules against me and we lose 13 imps. Then I appeal and we use this sample of replies (plus the fact that my opposite number led a spade). 50% vote for spade lead. So 50% = push and 50% I lose 13. So by leading a spade (unethically?) we only lose 6.5 imps. Would it work like this?

[wank]

no, if it's decided that a pseudo-double indicated a spade lead over a club (a strong case imo), then you can't lead a spade at all in the weightings.

[bigbenvic]

I think I'm leading a spade but have sympathy for those leading the Queen of clubs

[bigbenvic]

wank, on 2016-January-13, 00:25, said:

no, if it's decided that a pseudo-double indicated a spade lead over a club (a strong case imo), then you can't lead a spade at all in the weightings.

Surely that could lead to players hesitating to STOP partner from leading a spade? So if I "know" a spade is wrong, hesitate and effectively bar a spade lead from pards, seems very flawed to me and I hope that's not how the law is looked at in practise.

If you take an action based on the hesitation that is unethical, try to do what you would do whether partner took 2 seconds to pass or 3 minutes. His actions other than the bids he makes should be irrelevant in the decision process.

[wank]

bigbenvic, on 2016-January-13, 18:49, said:

Surely that could lead to players hesitating to STOP partner from leading a spade? So if I "know" a spade is wrong, hesitate and effectively bar a spade lead from pards, seems very flawed to me and I hope that's not how the law is looked at in practise.

well yes but you coul always do that, e.g. hesitate with a yarborough to stop partner bidding. in reality people don't do that even if they're of a cheating mind, because they don't trust their partner to be ethical - most players would be more inclined to bid 'knowing' the hesitator had values..

[nige1]

bigbenvic, on 2016-January-13, 18:49, said:

Surely that could lead to players hesitating to STOP partner from leading a spade? So if I "know" a spade is wrong, hesitate and effectively bar a spade lead from pards, seems very flawed to me and I hope that's not how the law is looked at in practise.

wank, on 2016-January-13, 23:13, said:

well yes but you coul always do that, e.g. hesitate with a yarborough to stop partner bidding. in reality people don't do that even if they're of a cheating mind, because they don't trust their partner to be ethical - most players would be more inclined to bid 'knowing' the hesitator had values.

I think people often do something like that -- but not necessarily deliberately. For example, sometimes, in a competitive auction, you decide that bidding on would be a bad idea but, before you pass, you take a few moments to decide whether you should double to inhibit partner from bidding. You soon realize that opponents' contract is likely to make. Hence, finally, you pass. Without malice aforethought, your hesitation has inhibited your partner from bidding or doubling on a borderline hand. In such circumstances, no ethical partner would take such an action. Nor would an expert partner, who valued his reputation.