[lamford]

---

If you are aware of this hand, it may be difficult for you to answer objectively, but have a go anyway. The auction was short and not so sweet. You ask before you lead what 4♥ meant and you were told by West "one ace". East volunteers a correction that he does not think his side has discussed 1NT-4C and the correct answer was "no agreement". Your lead.

[billw55]

Well, either they are off an ace or they aren't.

It sounds like dummy has a running club suit. In which case, they have enough tricks, and I will need to hit partner's hoped-for ace on my opening lead.

There isn't much to go on toward that end. I might try a diamond on the grounds that this sets them two if it works. This might be a bit more tempting at MP or BAM than IMP, although 7NT off an ace is unlikely to be replicated in any case.

Or perhaps I should play safe in a major, which could work if west is gambling and they don't actually have 13 cashers. (edited previous version of this paragraph which made no sense)

Still not sure what I would actually do.

[Zelandakh]

I will post the same logic as before. Partner could have doubled 4♣ for a club lead or 7NT for a spade lead so there is a mild inference suggesting a red suit. Of those, hearts seems to be the safer choice.

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-30, 09:34, said:

I will post the same logic as before. Partner could have doubled 4♣ for a club lead or 7NT for a spade lead so there is a mild inference suggesting a red suit. Of those, hearts seems to be the safer choice.

Hm yes, I didn't think about the possible double for a spade lead. As for clubs, that seems to be dummy's suit anyway so the absent double doesn't really add anything.

[Zelandakh]

billw55, on 2016-March-30, 09:47, said:

As for clubs, that seems to be dummy's suit anyway so the absent double doesn't really add anything.

West described the 4♥ call as "one ace" so clearly meant their 4♣ as Gerber. Given that they might just have 21hcp and were checking the outstanding 4hcp were not in the form of an ace, in which case our only chance of a trick comes from ♦K. Of course if the standard of the opps is such that 4♣ shows an unbalanced hand then that hand would not be possible.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-30, 09:56, said:

West described the 4♥ call as "one ace" so clearly meant their 4♣ as Gerber. Given that they might just have 21hcp and were checking the outstanding 4hcp were not in the form of an ace, in which case our only chance of a trick comes from ♦K. Of course if the standard of the opps is such that 4♣ shows an unbalanced hand then that hand would not be possible.

Let us say that you could glean from the tone of East's correction that he did not have the promised ace, then they do not have 36 HCPs any more ...

[billw55]

Zelandakh, on 2016-March-30, 09:56, said:

West described the 4♥ call as "one ace" so clearly meant their 4♣ as Gerber. Given that they might just have 21hcp and were checking the outstanding 4hcp were not in the form of an ace, in which case our only chance of a trick comes from ♦K. Of course if the standard of the opps is such that 4♣ shows an unbalanced hand then that hand would not be possible.

I realize that 4♣ was intended as Gerber. It's just that to me, Gerber followed by bidding slam directly usually means a running minor. (Indeed, some would argue it is the only worthwhile use of the convention). Yes, your inference is more useful if the ops are "4♣ always Gerber" types.

[gszes]

This type of bidding usually means a long running suit and it can be any of the suits except diamonds. It seems wildly unlikely leading a dia would give them the grand and leading the only suit we KNOW is not the opps long suit seems logical. Yes it would be cool to set 7n TWO tricks (or more) as we can easily imagine lho with a singleton/void in diamonds for this bidding. A AKxxxxxxxx x A or something like that maybe?

[rmnka447]

I'm going as passive as possible. Since dummy looks likely to have a long runnable suit, it would seem to be ♣.

My worry is that any other lead may help declarer.

♣ 10.

[jorne]

I mean that now west has 3 aces. That means he is most likely to have the A♦. I will force him to choose wether he shall finesse the ♦at once, before he has tried other posibillities. I will lead a ♦

[nekthen]

As a side note. I think this shows why you should first ask East the meaning of 4♣!

I agree partner should double for a spade lead. Originally I thought a ♦ was mad, but it may garner an extra trick and is less likely to cost a trick

[GrahamJson]

Leading a diamond and putting declarer to an early guess sounds a good idea, however if you look further it is unlikely to work. The only additional source of tricks, assuming a running club suit, would be a fourth spade; e.g xxx opposite declarer's AKQx. Holding 10xxx you control the suit. However if dummy now holds DQ then you will be squeezed, so the early play of the DA will not stop the contract making. On the other hand if declarer holds the DA then clearly leading the suit risks giving away the 13th trick.

Obviously, given the confused auction anything could be right here, but my guess is that a passive lead is best.

[kenberg]

So, I don't know.
But it seems t me that declarer not only has one ace, he has the ace of hearts. Clearly responder has three aces since he intended 4C as Gerber and then bid 7N. So opener has one ace or no aces. He has opened 1NT and his partner jumped to 4C. I have trouble thinking why someone with no aces would now bid 4H. Maybe 4NT. Maybe 5C. But why 4H? So whatever he thought 4C was, I think he just bid his ace.
Now this runs into a little trouble. Here he is with one ace and partner has just explained that 4H showed one ace. But he did not intend 4H to sho one ace, he intended it to show specifically the hear ace, presumably deny the diamond ace, and say nothing about the other two aces. So I think he would be right in explaining that he and partner had different views about 4C because they did, and even though he has one ace just as his partner said, he should still explain.

So I think they have all the aces and that the ace of hearts is on my right, the others on my left. I voted for a heart lead before I thought about all of the above. So maybe I take the heart lead back. Ok, I have now changed my vote. A diamond.

[Zelandakh]

kenberg, on 2016-April-03, 08:08, said:

But why 4H? So whatever he thought 4C was, I think he just bid his ace.

A popular usage of this 4♣ in the UK is both majors. So 4♥ might be consistent with having hearts not shorter than spades.

[kenberg]

Zelandakh, on 2016-April-03, 08:49, said:

A popular usage of this 4♣ in the UK is both majors. So 4♥ might be consistent with having hearts not shorter than spades.

OK, thanks. I am then back to lacking any clear idea!

[GrahamJson]

Another use of 4C is South African Texas, in which it shows a heart suit. If opener took it as that it would explain his 4H bid (in this treatment 4D would have shown an interest in slam).

I wouldn't get too concerned about this hand. I think that I would have led a heart on the basis that dummy is likely to hold clubs, a diamond could give away a trick and partner might have doubled if he wanted a spade lead, although this last point is rather tenuous. At the end of the day, when playing against oppo who have got their wires crossed almost anything could be right.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

I try to go passive, you can sell me any suit besides diamonds, I go with a spade,
but hearts is equally fine.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Winstonm]

If the opponents have had a bidding error, I think maybe I have to defend as if the contract were a small slam. I lead a low diamond.