Monday, June 4, 2007

Going for the canapé lead?

At the Swedish GNT, on viewgraph, I had the following collection:


The auction was 1D by partner, 11-13 bal/5M332 or 11-15 unbal with 4-card M (any 4441 or m-canapé), X by RHO, I passed and LHO jumped to 3C. RHO concluded with 3NT and I had to find a lead.

Thinking about the canapé lead theory and feeling that the diamond suit was pretty anemic (partner hadn't promised any diamonds but was unlikely to hold a void on the auction), I led a spade. This seemed like the best chance to build tricks with known strength in partner's hand (he could also have 5-card spade suit in our system).

This really struck out and let the contract make on this layout.


This time we got no second chances to beat the contract. Tempo and a trick was lost. Was this unlucky or was justice made? I think it was unlucky but maybe I'm not totally objective. X implied shortness in diamonds so partner was very likely to hold at least three. 3NT was pretty aggressive and this time he was empty in H's.

This was sort of a reverse situation of the canapé lead theory in the way that the long suit would not give away a trick if partner was short. The 3C jump implied a source of tricks and that we needed to attack and it was the short suit lead that was the more attacking option. What about that.

I still like my lead. In theory anyway.

No comments: