[Fluffy]

♠K1076xx
♥A10x
♦x
♣7xx

2♦-(ps)-2♠-(ps)
ps-(X )-ps-3NT
ps-(ps)-ps

2♦= weak 2 in a major

your lead.

[655321]

Heart.

I would like to lead the ten from this holding (HTx), but to avoid confusion (partner getting in and switching to his singleton spade) I will lead the Ace instead.

[whereagles]

I'll go with the systemic spade.

[mich-b]

655321, on 2011-January-11, 17:17, said:

Heart.

I would like to lead the ten from this holding (HTx), but to avoid confusion (partner getting in and switching to his singleton spade) I will lead the Ace instead.

Agree with that. The ♥10 is surely the best technically.
Pd and myself have the understanding , that a responder to Multi, should try to avoid responding 2♠ if he would prefer me to lead a ♠ in a situation like this.

[Fluffy]

I led a heart, it stroke gold, partner had ♠Ax♥K97xx♦QJ9x♣xx, declarer had stiff ♥Q

Was wondering if the bidding makes heart any more attractive than a minor if I had equal strenght in them.

[cherdano]

Fluffy, on 2011-January-13, 07:40, said:

I led a heart, it stroke gold, partner had ♠Ax♥K97xx♦QJ9x♣xx, declarer had stiff ♥Q

Was wondering if the bidding makes heart any more attractive than a minor if I had equal strenght in them.

Of course - dummy has at most 4 hearts (no 2♥ overcall) and RHO has at most 3 hearts (no Lebensohl choice-of-game sequence). Partner also promised 3+ hearts.

[JLOGIC]

I think it's not very close at all that the ten is better than the ace.

Obviously if RHO has a stiff honor, the ace is good (but the ten might not necessarily be fatal anyways). Also, if we need to switch to something the ace is good. But how often will we have a winning switch after the ace fails? It's unlikely partner has like, strong/long clubs, and heart length, and they don't have 9 tricks.

When dummy has holdings like Q9xx and partner has KJ8xx the ten is obviously good. There are a lot of holdings like this. An interesting possible scenario: we lead the ace and dummy has QJ8x and partner K9xxx. We can now return a low one (if we play the ten partner will be frozen. Q K, and one back to our ten which they duck. This might be fatal to us if partner has a minor suit entry that they must knock out and we only get 3 hearts + that trick.

When dummy has something like KJ8x and partner Q9xx, the ten is good.

We might still survive the ace though, we have the SK presumably behind the ace, and they might not have 9 rippers. They probably rate to though, and partner also will often have a stiff spade which makes our "entry" not good enough. Though if partner's minor suit trick is like an ace he could just drive out hearts and wait to get in, but that's not all that likely.

Another possible but unlikely layout where we need to lead the ten: when we need to preserve our HA as an entry for the SK when the SK is our 5th trick. The problem with this is it will often involve our hearts being 3-3, and us having to underlead the heart at trick 2 for a spade through, and that's not something we'll find.

What layouts are people worried about that partner will get confused when we lead the ten? We are basically putting all our eggs in that basket. Presumably partner knows we can lead the T from QTx/KTx/ATx routinely, and that we are likely to lead a heart. Presumably we know how to signal later. It's hard to imagine partner messing up too badly at trick 1 when we have the ace though it's possible. He also knows that we have to play for a layout where we can beat it, these things are harder at MP.

This used to be the argument against passive leads "partner won't know what to do." I think we are giving up way too much not leading the ten and worrying about that.

[655321]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-13, 16:41, said:

What layouts are people worried about that partner will get confused when we lead the ten? We are basically putting all our eggs in that basket. Presumably partner knows we can lead the T from QTx/KTx/ATx routinely, and that we are likely to lead a heart. Presumably we know how to signal later.

Playing Smith we can show that we like hearts and there will be no misunderstandings caused by leading the ten. I hardly ever play Smith (maybe I should?) so if declarer wins trick 1 and knocks out partner's Ace I won't always be able to signal. Perhaps, as you say, partner should have a good chance of working out what the ten lead is from anyway.

[JLOGIC]

I don't play smith either. I expect if declarer plays clubs I will give suit preference for not spades, and if declarer plays diamonds I will pitch a discouraging spade. Some risk partner will pop ace thinking declarer might have 9 tricks and we might be able to run spades, depending on what the dummy is, I guess. Even then if it's clubs I can play low which should obviously mean I cannot run spades.

Anyways, go pard!

[JLOGIC]

I have often said that one of the biggest advantages regular partners have (and one of the toughest areas of "full disclosure") is that they know lead styles extremely well. Like, some people will never underlead an ace, even if the auction is a "norrmal" one for it like 1C p 1S p 2S p p p. Some will. My partner's probably know that I am less likely than almost anyone to underlead a king into a strong hand on some auctions vs a suit contract. Will a generic opp after 1N p p p lead from KJxx of clubs, or 3 small spades? Will I? Well my partners will always know I would have led a spade, so they can make some sure inferences, while as declarer we have to guess. This is hard to sort out.

Likewise, maybe I have had good luck with leading the ten playing with a good partner because they know that this is something I can and will do, and can adjust accordingly. It is all kind of circular, ie partner is more likely to misdefend if you never lead the ten in these spots, and then choose to. Partner is less likely to misdefend if he has played 20,000 hands with you, and this is something you do in this spot. Etc Etc.

However I do think this is a common enough "bridge" spot where if I was playing with someone like 655321 or fred for the first time, and I did it, I would think they would account for it.