Discuss the merits of leading ♠6
Low from doubleton honour in pd's suit
#2
Posted 2015-April-22, 20:48
For instance, he doesn't like being used as a human shield when we're being shot at.
I happen to think it's a very noble way to meet one's maker, especially for a guy like him.
Bottom line is we never let that difference of opinion interfere with anything."
#3
Posted 2015-April-22, 21:35
#4
Posted 2015-April-22, 23:03
steve2005, on 2015-April-22, 21:35, said:
The idea is that partner is likely to have the entries to untangle all your spade tricks. There are at least 2 ways to gain:
1) Declarer may hook into your ♠ Q
(Give Partner ♠Axxxx and declarer ♠KJT say)
2) Partner may be able to attack spades from his side:
Dummy: ♠ATx
Partner: ♠J9xxx
Declarer: ♠Kxx
Or similar. Here ♠Q lead gives them 3 stoppers, while ♠6 allows partner to set them up for 3 rricks.
#5
Posted 2015-April-23, 03:52
steve2005, on 2015-April-22, 21:35, said:
Blocking the suit might not be bad at all, which -I admit- is unusual. Partner will probably have the entries to set up spades, anyway. But it could well be an advantage if, later in the play, we get to to lead through dummy's strength in one of the other suits.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#7
Posted 2015-April-23, 04:51
#8
Posted 2015-April-23, 07:55
1. You have a very weak hand so partner might still have enough entries to untangle the spades.
2. Favourable spade distributions such as [Txx - KJx] or [xx - Jxxx] or [A - JT9x] are consistent with the bidding.
3. On other layouts, the ♠Q might become an important entry later in the hand.
However it might easily go wrong.
1. Partner could easily misread the spade position and fail to capitalize on one of the favourable layouts.
2. We might not need to do anything fancy to beat 2NT. RHO was under pressure when they bid 1NT, so they could have a weak hand and a bad stopper. Unblocking the ♠Q and clarifying the position to partner could be all that is needed.
With a partner good enough to recognize the possibility, I think a low spade has plenty of merit.
#9
Posted 2015-April-23, 11:39
https://www.youtube....hungPlaysBridge
#10
Posted 2015-April-23, 16:23
I get that the ♠6 might work on some layouts. It also might block the suit on others. Rather than give partner and opponents more ammo for thinking I'd rather be sneaky than reliable, if I don't want to lead the ♠Q I'll just lead something else.
#11
Posted 2015-April-23, 17:23
#12
Posted 2015-April-23, 23:59
helene_t, on 2015-April-23, 04:51, said:
I assumed we were talking about an imaginative lead, consciously deviating from our lead convention, because we think that a low spade is technically better in this situation.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#13
Posted 2015-April-24, 01:10
- Partner is known to have all the strength
- Partner is known to have at least five cards in the suit
- RHO has shown a stopper
Leading low will be right much more often than wrong.
This isn't a matter of being deceptive, it's a matter of giving declarer a losing option when he has KJx, AJx, AK10 etc. As this requires partner to be aware of the possibility, the right approach is to have an agreement to do this. And, of course, one would disclose such an agreement. Declarer will usually still go wrong, because he'll play with the odds.
#14
Posted 2015-April-24, 03:38
For example partner has ♠KTxxx(x) and dummy ♠Jxx.
If you lead the ♠queen, declarer has two stoppers.
Since leading low blocks the suit partner will have to get in at least twice.
Rainer Herrmann
#15
Posted 2015-April-24, 08:58
Authored by Rixi Marcus, she writes: "This may well work better when the hand on your left is marked with strength in this suit, and especially when you have no re-entry to your hand."
I found it interesting.
#16
Posted 2015-April-24, 11:15
gnasher, on 2015-April-24, 01:10, said:
I agree with the principle, but I'm genuinely curious about how you would disclose this 'agreement' to the opponents in a way that doesn't mislead them.
#17
Posted 2015-April-24, 11:33
WesleyC, on 2015-April-24, 11:15, said:
It's not an agreement (yep, I know Gnasher said it is). I mean, it's not like any reasonable partnership would agree not to do it having weighed up the pros and cons - it's a known expert technique.
#18
Posted 2015-April-24, 17:53
#19
Posted 2015-April-25, 08:02
1♦ - 1♠ - 2♥ - pass
4♥ - all pass
The spades were
---------♠ Axxxx
♠ Jxx ----------------♠ Kxx
---------♠ Qx
It went low spade to the ace.
Low spade. Declarer played small and my queen won.
Club to pd's ace and spade which I ruffed.
We were the only pair to beat 4♥.
#20
Posted 2015-April-25, 18:02
WesleyC, on 2015-April-24, 11:15, said:
I'd say "Normally we lead top from two and low from three, but in this situation he might lead low from Qx or Jx. That doesn't seem very difficult.
PhilKing, on 2015-April-24, 11:33, said:
The rules don't deal only with "agreements": the key phrase is "partnership understanding". If your partner knows from shared experience that you might lead low from Qx, it's a partnership understanding and disclosable under the Laws. If he merely surmises it from general bridge knowledge, it's not. I realise that it's often not as clearcut as that - it can be a bit of both, or it may be unclear where his knowledge comes from, but you should still do your best to identify and disclose your implicit understandings.