| Lead from KJ10 against a trump contract? |
|
'The best questions of visitors from the Dutch sister site (Bridgevaria.nl)'. Thanks in advance, Reply Ed Hoogenkamp (South) Dear Guus, Without seeing the hand that has to find the opening lead, I find it hard to answer your question. Therefore: we ask all our visitors who submit a question to provide us with both the full layout and the auction. I can only give a reply along general lines, therefore. In principle, leading from KJ10 against a trump contract is hazardous. If partner lacks both the ace and the queen, such a lead will usually cost a trick. It is unlikely you will get compensation in any form for that lost trick (in notrump you might still develop the — long! — suit to defeat the contract, making the sacrifice of the trick worthwhile). Therefore, one should have a good reason for electing to lead such a suit. A good reason may be that it is the only unbid suit. Another good reason: the bidding has made it clear dummy possesses a good, long suit, meaning the defence is in a hurry to take its tricks. The choice of which card to lead from that suit (the jack or the ten), is a systemic matter. Those who have agreed upon 1st, 3rd, 5th best leads (Odd Leads), will start off with the ten. Those who play Journalist leads will do so too. But if a partnership plays 2nd-4th best, the jack is the card to lead. So if an opponent leads a jack or a ten: ask his partner about their agreements! Summing it up: leading from KJ10 against a trump contract is risky business. But sometimes you will have to do it. Select these opportunities with care. You might say: lead that suit if 'Barcelona' will do so, but avoid such a lead if it is Orkanger's choice... Saludos from Barcelona Antwoord Peter van der Linden (North) Dear Guus, I agree with Ed about the question being (too) difficult to answer without adequate information. After all, our choice of opening lead usually (but read on) depends on (a) our own hand and (b) the bidding. You supply neither the hand nor the bidding, so I cannot give a specific answer. Still, I will look a bit deeper in the case than Ed does. We base our choice of opening lead: - Sometimes on the bidding only. If so, we elect a suit. No matter what our holding in that suit is, we lead it. Which card to lead from that suit is, as Ed said, a systemic matter. - Sometimes on our hand only: if our holding in a suit is AKQ or KQJ10, we will very often lead that suit, whatever the bidding. - Often on both the bidding and our hand. If the bidding suggests either a spade or a diamond lead (for instance if both are unbid suits) we prefer a spade lead if we have ♠KQ43 ♦AJ87, but we go for a diamond lead if we have ♠AJ87 ♦KQ43. Against a trump contract leading from KJ10(x)(x) will cost a trick (if declarer has the queen) or at least a tempo (if dummy has the queen and declarer the ace; the chance to score a trick with the king later is not good). But if the auction 'demands' a lead in that suit, you will do it (as explained before). Suppose you have decided upon making that dangerous lead. Next you have to choose the card: - Classically you lead the jack: top of an 'internal sequence'. That card does not give partner any clue about whether you possess the king or not (of course the jack does deny possession of the queen — and the ace, by the way: we do not underlead an ace against a trump contract). - Ed has already explained that those who lead: - '1st, 3rd, 5th best' will lead the ten; this may or may not show the king, depending on further agreements (like: what to lead from 1098x? If the ten, then that card does neither deny nor show the king in our case). - '2nd, 4th best' will lead the jack, showing the king (do you see why?). - Ed also mentions Journalist, in which the lead of the jack denies a higher honour card, while the lead of the ten confirms possession of a top honour card (and possibly the jack). The Journalist-lead is the ten, therefore. (By the way: originally Journalist-leads were only used against notrump contracts, but many pairs nowadays use them against trump contracts as well). - I add the so-called zero leads, in which the lead of a ten or nine (!) shows zero or two higher cards; the lead of a jack denies a higher card. So the zero-lead is the ten as well. From say K109(x)(x) the zero-lead is the nine. To conclude: 1. If a player decides to lead from KJ10(x)(x) he will do so in view of the bidding, since the lead is hazardous. 2. Which card he leads from that suit is determined by partnership agreements on opening leads. My reaction to Ed's remark about 'Barcelona-leads' and 'Orkanger-leads': obviously our Spanish Dutchman has forgotten my torrent of killing leads against his contracts, long ago when we used to meet at our club. (To be perfectly honest: finding 'the' killing lead against Ed is not very difficult. The man's constant overbidding means that usually a lead in any of three suits turns out to be killing, while a lead in the fourth suit gives him a 50% chance...) Regards from Orkanger Postscripts: Barcelona (Ed): Can't remember any of those killing leads... Orkanger (Peter): I'm not surprised. You never seem to remember any unpleasantness. Like having to buy the next round ('Me, again??'), or filling up petrol ('Next petrol station is only four miles, dear. The jerrycan is in the back', your wife was heard saying more than once). |