Hi Mr. Wolff,

A very neat play which remembers that in 6C you can afford to lose a trick so bashing out three top hearts is greedy, at least at IMPs. It does also indicate that West was quite right not to lead his DA as it makes life very easy for declarer. Given that West has a surprisingly large number of high cards, he can work out that the DA lead is most likely to help declarer as partner has nothing.

I quite often veer towards attacking leads against strongly bid slams (the S6 might be tempting here), but this hand is a case for caution. Can you give any sensible guidelines here?

Regards,

Iain Climie

Hi Iain,

Your question and particularly your included positive attitude, always will (should) bring out the most honest and least political (hedging) answer, even if there is some (usual case) educated guessing involved.

Declarer, because of his 6 club bid is morally certain to have, at the least, 2nd round diamond control, so with a good chance that includes the king, a diamond lead should immediately be ruled out.*

While, because of what you have said is on target, our overall values makes it unlikely partner may have been dealt either the Qxx or J10xx of clubs, a club lead appears relatively safe, but still….my choice would narrow down to an aggressive spade lead (mentioned by you), but would probably settle for the 10 of hearts, which could be somewhat deceptive, both from the suit chosen and from the specific card.

When good players play against their peers, it is as standard as the night following day, for the declarer not to expect
conventional leads from tough minded adversaries, but still sometimes, nothing but mama papa, may remain in the offing.

Trying to analyze further, it is usually likely that if declarer had the AQ of spades he would have just bid 6 clubs the round before, instead of announcing to the opening leader that he was prepared for a spade lead. However that would not preclude the dummy from showing up with that dangerous card (in some cases, but not this one, to the defense).

You might be interested to know, that perhaps almost 60 years ago one of my early great partners, Oswald Jacoby (nothing short of a true mathematical genius) and at one time, supposedly the youngest licensed actuary ever in the USA, confided in me: “If I could find the time, I would love to do complete books on two subjects, opening leads against slams, and the order of defensive discards when defending with a Yarborough (terrible hand with no high cards) against top players”.

*except, of course in matchpoints wherein an opening leader has always to be concerned, especially in an above average field, the possibility of more matchpoints for holding them to only 12 tricks instead of 13, a thought to me of total repugnance, since, while indigenous to matchpoints, totally contradicts IMO what our great game stands for and what should naturally be about.

Quote the baby bird of the Raven, “Nothing more”!

Mr. Wolf,
With reference to the BWTA item, could you comment on the three-trump holdings required to justify putting a hand into the “limit raise” range?
Here you show Kxx…how about Jxx?
Intermediates? e.g. 10 9 8, 10 8 x, 98x
Would the three-trump holdings for a single raise be the same?
Thanks

Hi Clarksburg,

Limit raises with only three card raises is against my tradition (being brought up on four card majors and still thinking that four card majors together with a forcing club is still a very difficult system to play against and, at least to me, the most effective, especially at the highest level).

However, sometimes a limit raise or, of course, a more common single raise, needs to be often chosen as the lesser of evils choice. The major disadvantage, even opposite a certain five card major, is that the “Law of Total Tricks” suffers valuation problems (both for offensive potential or lesser known, increases your defensive trick taking chances) when declarer, opposite a limit raise, expects at least a nine card fit instead of eight which evaluates at a much lower expectancy of gathering tricks during the play and when the opponents enter the bidding creates a red herring as competitive bidding gets to higher levels.

I guess “one has to give to get” but anyone who denies that to limit raise with only three instead of a preferred four, is not a distortion, at least to me, lives in a dream world.

However, single raises are quite different, and three trumps are very common and more easily handled since the level is lower.

And to answer your specific question, any three opposite a 5 card suit is thought to be doable, but to quote something which should have been on all packs of cigarettes almost 100 years ago. “Smoke these only at your own risk and take out as much health and life insurance as you can afford”!

Good luck

Mr. Wolff,
The subtle (for me) point about how holding / lacking the ninth trump tips the balance between offence / defense declare / defend choice, at the margin via LOTT , was most helpfu indeedl. Most intermediate-level club players, like me, know the LOTT guides us on how high to compete, but probably don’t know / grasp, as you put it “….. or lesser known, increases your defensive trick taking chances….”
Thanks

Bobby,

You are right that limit raises of 5 card majors cna have 3 cards rather than 4 cards. Alot of the 4 card group also play Puppet Stayman showing, ofgten, 3 card support. Seems silly to me to not be consistent.

For me, singletons and voids often make me decide to make the limit raise. Shortness in a side suit allows ruffing by the hand with short trumps or adding 1-2 tricks to the hand.

I do not go through 1NT forcing to show 3 card support to avoid giving information to the opponents. If I play against you, i would certainly not give you a count on the trump suit if it is avoidable. Sometimes this overload of the expert player helps us.

My late partner of almost 30 years, Mr Lynn Rising, confirmed this habit. He made the major suit game at least 95% of the time.

I think Al Roth invented 5 card majors to help partner bid by having a much easier time supporting his opening bids.