[akhare]

There's a lot of material on opening lead structures (Rusinow, Slawinski, Vinje, etc.), but nothing much pertaining to lead structure in the middle of the hand.

One common theme while defending NT contracts is the following. EDIT: The following is for illustration only and there are several such possible holdings. Give dummy an original X or XX if it helps and assume that declarer's ♥ holding (QX or Q9X or Q9XX) can't be inferred from the auction):

---

Say that partner leads 4th best ♥ against 3N and you win the K♥ (dummy on the right is void in hearts). The classic recommended return here is the original 4th best ♥, but in this case declarer can stymie the defence by inserting the 8. If you return J♥ and declarer covers with QH, pard may be reluctant to lead into declarer's presumed T8. If you return T♥ and declarer covers, pard can't tell it apart from an orginal holding of KTX.

What is the preferred solution to the above problem? My gut feeling is that leading the second best honour is better, but I don't have anything concrete to back it up.

Also, what would you lead in the middle of the hand from the following sequences against suit contracts and no trump (assume dummy doesn't contain the missing honour and that you aren't trying to deceive declarer).

AKX
AKQ
AKJ
KQJ(XX)
(A)(K)JT(xx)
KQTX
QT9X
JT9X

[bid_em_up]

akhare, on Sep 16 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

The classic recommended return here is the original 4th best ♥, but in this case declarer can stymie the defence by inserting the 8.

I'm pretty sure the classic recommended return from this holding is the Jack. Its the only way to pick up 5 tricks in the heart suit.

Edit: I was going to add that returning the J promises the 10 (just as if you were the opening leader at this point), but csgibson beat me to it below.

If the original heart holding was AJxx, then small is the recommended lead.

If the orginal holding was AJx, the J is the recommended return. However, here this holding is not possible (assuming it is known that declarer cannot have six hearts).

So the only reason to return the J at this point is when you also have the ten as well.

From all of the examples given, why would you do anything other than making your normal lead (as you would on opening lead)?

[CSGibson]

Unless declarer could have either 4 or 6 hearts on the auction (very rare), the jack should guarentee the ten. Many of those situations can be thought through using the information in the auction; I don't feel that there is a need for convoluted carding systems to sort them out when you can do much better by applying common sense and logic.

[akhare]

CSGibson, on Sep 16 2010, 02:45 PM, said:

Unless declarer could have either 4 or 6 hearts on the auction (very rare), the jack should guarentee the ten. Many of those situations can be thought through using the information in the auction; I don't feel that there is a need for convoluted carding systems to sort them out when you can do much better by applying common sense and logic.

Isn't J guarantees the T too strong?

Say you lead from A9XX, dummy has XX in the suit. Pard wins K♥ and returns J♥ and declarer covers with Q♥.

If the auction hasn't been informative regarding declarer's ♥ length, I don't think you can tell whether:

1) Pard has KJX only
2) Pard has KJTX(X)

[Fluffy]

you can switch ♥10 and ♥9 and the best follow up is the 9 now. It is not so easy, leading second highest when dummy is left with void or small spot works on some situations.

[bucky]

akhare, on Sep 16 2010, 03:02 PM, said:

Isn't J guarantees the T too strong?

Say you lead from A9XX, dummy has XX in the suit. Pard wins K♥ and returns J♥ and declarer covers with Q♥.

If the auction hasn't been informative regarding declarer's ♥ length, I don't think you can tell whether:

1) Pard has KJX only
2) Pard has KJTX(X)

I guess we should say that, when partner is known to have length, J often guarantees T. When dummy has XX, J is indeed ambiguous if partner can have either 3 or 4 cards. When dummy is void, and you judge from bidding that declarer cannot have QTxxxx in the suit, then partner won't have KJx only, so partner probably has KJT(xx).