[mikl_plkcc]

Is leading an unsupported ace in partner's suit right when defending a game?

---

Spoiler

---

The hand can be defeated if and only if a heart is led. I lost lots of IMPs by making a wrong lead.
http://www.bridgebas...name=mikl_plkcc

[mgoetze]

It is very often a good idea to lead partner's suit, and having the ace should only encourage you further to do so.

I will, however, mention one exception: if declarer has promised a stopper in your partner's suit, it is quite likely to be Kx(x), with partner having QJ... - in this case the suit can be started more profitably from partner's side of the table. But I wouldn't consider this in a suit contract.

[Antrax]

I think some of the IMPs were lost due to the double.

[1eyedjack]

Antrax, on 2012-June-03, 07:58, said:

I think some of the IMPs were lost due to the double.

On this hand the act of doubling cost just under 3 IMPs, contrasted with the contract making undoubled. It stood to gain one IMP if the contract failed by one trick. These are pretty insignificant factors.

Where doubling really gains is

1) If it stops partner from bidding on as a sacrifice. This scenario does not lend itself to that.
2) If it is going two or more down, whatever declarer tries to do. Again this hand layout does not lend itself to that (as it happens)

Where doubling really costs is if it guides declarer in the line of play so that he makes more tricks than without the double. Critically, if it allows him to make where he would otherwise fail, but overtricks also get to be expensive (and may be redoubled). Again this hand layout makes this factor redundant.

I think that leading the Ace is indicated on this hand. There is a significant risk of declarer being able to pitch a Heart loser, even if he started with Kx.

Personally I think I probably would not have doubled. Even if partner has Heart King there is no particular reason to expect a 2-2 break. Despite the bidding there is a risk of the Spade Ace being on your left. I agree it is less than 50% but finite and positive nevertheless. And I am not expecting this to go more than one down, which is really the only scenario in which doubling significantly gains. That said, I am pretty sure that I don't double enough.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

#1 it is not the worst option.
It is usually a good idea, if you ar weak, p is strong,
it gives you the chance to switch.

#2 I am not sure, that leading the Ace given the specific seq.
is best, but t is certainl an option.

#3 The double is problematic, the question, what tricks do you want
to make - 2 trump tricks, the ce of heart makes 3, partners
heart values will be useless, someone will have a shortage,
at best you will beat the contract -1, and this will only happen,
if hearts are 2-2, and p is the one, who will have the king, so
the Ace is ok.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[kriegel]

Another factor is how much of a suit has been shown by partner. It is quite safe, as far as leading aces goes, to lead the ace from Axx when partner has opened a weak two, since he's showing a good 6-card suit. However, leading unsupported aces in partner's suit becomes much less appealing when he hasn't shown as good a suit. I try to avoid leading from Axx when partner has opened a minor, and even when partner has opened a major, I'm wary. If the strength is on my right (whether a stopper has been shown or not), I try very hard not to lead from Axx in partner's suit. Not only do we drop a trick when declarer has Kx(x), we also come up short when he has Qxx (the queen is now behind partner's king). I'm definitely in the "don't lead unsupported aces" camp, but I would have led the ace of hearts on your example hand.

[squealydan]

One of the reasons for making a weak-2 bid can be to suggest a suit for partner to lead.

If in a regular partnership you can decide with your partner just what quality you want for making a weak-2. If you're both keen to be as disruptive as possible, and want to open weak-twos on suits like JTxxxx then that's fine, you make the opposition's auction awkward as often as possible. The downsides are the occasional -1100 score and less guidance for partner on what to lead.

Alternatively you can agree that your pre-emptive bids will always show a decent suit with an ace or a king. Now partner should have less trouble finding a good lead (and also you might find some easy 3NT contracts based on a known 6-winners in the long suit). But of course you'll then be passing more hands which gives the opposition more free auctions.

So it's a trade-off, and up to a partnership to figure out. It certainly helps to be on the same page as your partner. Experienced players will vary their minimum requirements for a weak-2 opening based on the vulnerability and their seat position, and possibly the quality of their opposition.

If playing with pick-up partners I generally try to keep pre-empts fairly sound, showing a good suit, as partner will probably lead it more often than not, and I never know just how high partner might be willing to sacrifice.

[sfi]

One of the interesting things about bridge is that even recommended plays can easily fail - there is rarely a sure thing, especially on lead.

For example, swap the HK and HQ, and the DK and DQ. There is no reason to suspect that the bidding would be any different and the HA lead is the best way to make the contract make.

[mikestar13]

Many players who normally lead A from AK do not use this agreement in partner's bid suit--because an unsupported ace is more likely the correct lead than in an unbid suit. There are never guarantees but you get better odds for leading the ace in partner's suit.

[Quantumcat]

If you are weak, or at least weaker than partner is likely to be, given the auction, it is a GREAT idea. Partner should give you a clear signal. If playing encourage/discourage, then if he has a good suit worth attacking, he will discourage, and you can work out which one it is. If he has no suit worth attacking, he will encourage, and you can let declarer figure out the side-suits by himself.

Whereas if you lead another suit, it is a complete guess first of all whether partner would want you to attack any suit at all, and secondly you have to guess the right suit, even if he does. Better to let partner tell you than to take a 25% chance guess.

However, if you are strong, or at least stronger than partner given the auction, you have more information than your partner does. Pard is unlikely to be able to help you decide what to do when you lead the ace. If you have a good side-suit worth attacking, you may as well attack it. If you don;t, then perhaps leading any other suit would help declarer - lead ace another in the partnership suit. Of course, if pard DOES have a good suit worth attacking even though he is weaker than you, he can violently discourage your ace and you can figure out what suit it is he wants you to switch to.

So, most of the time it is right to lead the ace. It is only a bad idea if you have a good suit to attack, and pard might not know about it.

[Codo]

In this particular hand, where are your tricks coming from? You hope for 2 spades, one heart and? If partner has a minor suit trick in his preempt, it is quite unlikely to run away. But if you have two heart tricks, you may better get them now.
You have nine hearts, a 3-1 break is quite likely.If they break 2-2, you need Kx with east to make the ace a bad lead.But in this case, partner may hold an outside trick, so you will still set their game by one trick.
If you reagard passive leads: You have ZERO tricks in the minors, so that they may discard hearts on the minors before you get your tricks- as it had happened here.

So, the lead of the ace was surely and by far the best lead avaiable.

[billw55]

In this specific case, I agree with the ace of hearts, because (as Codo says) it loses only when declarer has exactly Kx, which is not very likely.

However this is true because you know your side has nine hearts. Be aware that in other cases where your side has fewer total cards in partner's bid suit, leading the unsupported ace may be more likely to be bad. Reluctance to lead the ace in such a situation is normal among good players; in the excellent and famous book "How to Read Your Opponents Cards" by Mike Lawrence, he discusses in some detail the situation where defenders have bid and raised a suit, but did not lead it. This usually means that opening leader has the ace but not the king.

Lastly, agree that the double was bad.

[Zelandakh]

The last 2 posters make the point that is worth giving more generally that you should look at each hand on its merits and judge the lead accordingly. Sometimes leading partner's suit from an unsuppoprted ace is obvious, sometimes it is good but unclear, sometimes it is the best of evils. On the other hand sometimes you will want to avoid it. It is probably best not to try and make too many hard and fast rules on opening lead - just picture how the other hands are likely to be laid out and it will soon become clear whether the lead is likely to be a good one or not.