Opening Leads Chapter 22

Following on from our deal from Wednesday 24/07/24 at X-Clubs
Board 3
Dealer South EW Vul

QJ93
54
863
KT75
AT2
Q92
J95
Q432
K7
AK873
AKQ
A98
8654
JT6
T742
J6

This produced some interesting results across X-Clubs. Also from my panel of club players. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that opening leads against slams are worse than opening leads against games and part scores. My guess is that this is because so many players are entrenched in their leading habits against lower level contracts, where the usual ‘fourth highest’ or ‘top of touching honours’ is the norm. But as I explained in Chapter 21, the approach has to be quite different against any slam. Let’s look at what could happen with the wrong lead against the two possible slams.

Opening Leads Chapter 21

Defending against slams should be much easier than against games, and, to go a step further, against part scores. That is because against a slam, you only need two tricks to defeat a small slam, and by the same token, you have to do your best to make it harder for declarer to make twelve tricks. How many inexperienced players give the slam away on the opening lead? And how many equally inexperienced players return the favour by equally poor declarer play? You’d be surprised. It is especially true in the case of slams that a poor opening lead will allow a slam to make but poor declarer play can allow a poor lead to succeed. Let’s take a look at a deal where two possible slams were bid, albeit not all that often.

Board 3 from Wednesday 24/07/24
Dealer South EW Vul

QJ93
54
863
KT75
AT2
Q92
J95
Q432
K7
AK873
AKQ
A98
8654
JT6
T742
J6

Your Call 05

Two very interesting boards, one after the other, on Tuesday at X-Clubs, but both were a bit of a flop in terms of variety and possibilities. I guess the theme could be “anticipation”.

Board 21 from Tuesday 16/07/24
Dlr North NS Vul

AT5
AQ84
AJT75
J
KJ632
K2
AK8532
9874
T9
8632
Q74
Q
J7653
KQ94
T96

Opening Leads Chapter 20

This one comes from Tuesday's X-Clubs set. The opening lead was obvious but the play did not go according to how it should have. When you are leading your partner’s suit and have three small cards, e.g. 753, which card do you lead? Do you have an agreement with partner? I think most of us would lead the top card, some may have a “MUD” ( middle-up-down) agreement and I do know that some experts lead the lowest card to ‘give partner a count’. You decide what’s best after reading this article.

Board 16 from Tuesday 16/07/24
Dealer West EW Vul

K
A7
J742
AQJT95
T75
J53
AK53
K73
AJ86432
K
T9
864
Q9
QT98642
Q86
2

Your Call 04

The Michaels Cue bid and Unusual No Trump can be useful weapons for competing. But only useful when opponents end up taking the wrong, instead of right, options. This bit of enterprise by a rather adventurous South could have turned to custard but...read on.

Board 26 form Tuesday 9/07/24
Dlr East All Vul

KJT74
83
JT7643
2
AJ9
QT943
AQ95
AQ863
742
A87
K8
95
KQT65
KJ652
2

Your Call 03

This X-Clubs deal, from last Tuesday presented East with a problem in the bidding and then North in the opening lead. North’s decision on the opening lead should have been easier than East’s decision to bid a heart slam. Let’s see what happened.

Board 7 from Tuesday 9//24
Dlr South All Vul

QJ983
9
952
JT32
5
KQT86
QJ
AK954
K7
AJ73
AK87
876
AT642
542
T643
Q

Your Call Chapter 2

This freak deal features a high level penalty double, or should it?
Board 25 from Tuesday 2/07/24
Dlr North EW Vul

KQJT8
Q
Q98
JT73
97432
J4
AKJ6
Q4
A9876532
T542
2
A65
KT
73
AK9865

Your Call: Chapter 1

Vil begins his new series with this interesting article - ed

One of the most underused, and misused, bids in bridge is DOUBLE. That is because often there is no clear understanding of when it is “Takeout” and when “Penalty”. Sometimes, admittedly, there can be some overlap, but any pair that can use the double properly will reap big benefits from their bidding. Let’s look at our first example, which comes from a session at X-Clubs, as will our second one in Chapter 2.

Board 11 from Tuesday 2/07/24
Dlr South Nil Vul

AK987
T97
9
AKJ9
J32
K3
AJ4
QT763
Q64
QJ64
KQ82
54
T5
A852
T7653
82

Opening Leads Chapter 19

The second deal from 21/06/24. Unfortunately, it seems that the Hutt club was the only one to play more than 26 boards, but Board 27 is still worth reviewing because of the lessons that can be learnt from it with respect to opening leads. Too few of us think of how an opening lead may be read by partner and any possible unintended consequences.

Board 27 from 21/06/24
Dealer South Nil Vul

JT
AQT82
T83
KQ6
K52
9
J65
AT9752
9763
J543
KQ
J83
AQ84
K76
A9742
4

Opening Leads Chapter 18

This ‘slam’ hand was played at X-Clubs on a recent Friday. I say ‘slam’ because I believe that in most first grade club sessions a slam should be bid at least half the time. Alas, not even close, and when it was bid, hardly ever made. 6S is the slam that I would be bidding but unfortunately, it does not make if the defence know how to defend, though there is a subtle way that 6S could be made if declarer can see all the cards, as can Deep Finesse. But DF can never get defenders to go wrong, and can only play assuming every player plays and defends perfectly. As the cards lie, perfect play means that 6NT can be made and 6S can not. But read on!

Board 18 from Friday 21/06/24
Dealer East NS Vul

JT5
QJT2
K42
T72
Q842
87
QJT93
Q9
6
96543
876
J863
AK973
AK
A5
AK54

Syndicate content