[gwnn]

xxx
JTxxx
KQ9xx
void

Your lead against 1N-3N (matchpoints)

[Fluffy]

4 leads are possible all involving red cards. I'd go with low heart.

[hotShot]

♦K

[Free]

♦K and a ♠ are genius leads, I'd probably start with a small ♦.

[Rossoneri]

small ♦.

[cherdanno]

I like the ♦K lead, not sure why it's supposed to be a genius lead.

[655321]

Low diamond for me.

KQ9xx I never know whether to lead high or low. This time I will try low, with no entries at least we can run the diamonds when partner has Ax and opps have 3 each.

[cherdanno]

Generally speaking it seems like it's a very close decision between leading low and high from KQ9xx (in fact the 4th highest spot might well make a difference in the decision), but I guess all books teach to lead low.
Here, leading high would be embarrassing when partner has Ax and the suit splits 3-3, but it would work well when partner has Txx and one opponent Jx, or LHO Ax and RHO Jxx, and it would also work well when we can beat it by shifting to a major after setting up our diamond trick.

[P_Marlowe]

King of diamonds.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[nigel_k]

High diamond at matchpoints, low diamond at IMPS.

[JLOGIC]

Always a heart, I think any diamond deserves an lol tbh, It really matters a lot that LHO typically has no 4+ card major. They have way too many diamonds on average and we just blow a trick a ton. If patner happens to have the diamond ace, all hope is not lost since he probably has an entry and can shift. It's not like we're ever setting up our long one and then getting in.

Yes it's possible we lose a tempo by not leading a diamond, eg Jxx with partner and Ax on our right, but that risk is much better than the insanely high risk we have of just blowing a trick with a diamond lead.

I would feel really confident that a double dummy simulation would find a diamond the worst suit to lead by a ton.

[JLOGIC]

As far as the 2 choices, spades vs hearts, I prefer hearts because that might be the suit we need to set up, and a spade will often give away the suit. I would predict a spade being better than a heart in a double dummy simulation because giving away the suit is not a factor then.

JTxxx is not as dangerous when dummy is not long in the suit, but obv we can still hit HH9x on right and Hx in dummy type situations. But I think a spade is way better than a diamond.

[Pict]

K♦

The diamond nine looks a card not to be ignored.

[pooltuna]

JLOGIC, on Jul 29 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

Always a heart, I think any diamond deserves an lol tbh, It really matters a lot that LHO typically has no 4+ card major. They have way too many diamonds on average and we just blow a trick a ton. If patner happens to have the diamond ace, all hope is not lost since he probably has an entry and can shift. It's not like we're ever setting up our long one and then getting in.

Yes it's possible we lose a tempo by not leading a diamond, eg Jxx with partner and Ax on our right, but that risk is much better than the insanely high risk we have of just blowing a trick with a diamond lead.

I would feel really confident that a double dummy simulation would find a diamond the worst suit to lead by a ton.

generally this auction is an auto "find the best" major lead but the combination of my ♣ void and ♦ length make me wonder if this is an exception

[jdonn]

I know I would lead a diamond, probably low. But jlall is certainly to be trusted on these matters more than I am so take it for what you will.

[Mr. Dodgy]

H4

[paulg]

I performed three simple 1,000 hand double dummy simulations.

The first included those hands where 3NT would be bid with any 4333 hand (so may have a 4-card major). The contract failed on 252 deals and the killing leads were:

♦K - 147 hands
♠x - 140
♥J - 129
♦x - 129
♥x - 123

On the second, the 3NT bidder did not have a 4-card major. The contract failed on 249 deals and the killing leads were:

♦K - 137 hands
♥x - 136
♥J - 134
♠x - 132
♦x - 129

On the third, North did not have a 4-card major nor precisely 3-1 in the majors (as many have a system bid for this). The contract failed on 250 deals and the killing leads were:

♦K - 162 hands
♦x - 140
♠x - 115
♥J - 103
♥x - 96

[Rossoneri]

The first two are pretty close to call, especially the second one. But the 3rd is interesting...

[Free]

cardsharp, on Jul 30 2010, 08:56 AM, said:

I performed three simple 1,000 hand double dummy simulations.

The first included those hands where 3NT would be bid with any 4333 hand (so may have a 4-card major). The contract failed on 252 deals and the killing leads were:

♦K - 147 hands
♠x - 140
♥J - 129
♦x - 129
♥x - 123

On the second, the 3NT bidder did not have a 4-card major. The contract failed on 249 deals and the killing leads were:

♦K - 137 hands
♥x - 136
♥J - 134
♠x - 132
♦x - 129

On the third, North did not have a 4-card major nor precisely 3-1 in the majors (as many have a system bid for this). The contract failed on 250 deals and the killing leads were:

♦K - 162 hands
♦x - 140
♠x - 115
♥J - 103
♥x - 96

That's all very nice (and interesting) for imps. However, this is matchpoints, so beating the contract is not our sole purpose.

[JLOGIC]

Obv a diamond is the best lead to beat it/at imps.