Ok I'll bite and lead 2H

We need to set up a trick quickly otherwise any losers will be discarded on the diamonds

If partner doesn't have QH I sdon't think we will ever beat the contract.

Don't tell me declarer had a first-round spade loser and didn't ask for aces!

Nick

I'm with Nick and lead a Heart

Thank you both for your replies. Well done.

This brings up for me a number of ideas which I will itemise.

1. You are correct of course. A heart lead will beat this contract. Would it not be an excellent example to teach improvers, with the phrase perhaps of "look for small miracles rather that big ones?"

2. I got it wrong, although I did not have as much time to think about it as you did. But I made it a rule with all my partners after that, that we would lead agressively against small slams, and passively against grand slams.(Within reason, there are always exceptions).

3.There is a downside, of course. On another website I told the story about my late partner, Tony Taylor, one of the most ethical players I have known. I led against a small slam, and the declarer who was also missing an Ace, held Q 10 2 in dummy opposite his Ace in the suit I led. Declarer asked Tony if we had any agreement about leading against small slams, passive or active?  Tony immediately said active, declarer played the Queen, and made the slam. On the other website the majority agreed that it was a genuine question that was allowed to be asked, but like myself, had never encountered it before, (or since).

4. For more advanced players, I now offer a second question. Supposing you held the Queen of Hearts, not the King, Does the same reasoning apply? Last week partner had a similar decision to make holding the Queen, and failing to lead it, allowed the slam to make.

5. Finally we come to the NZ bridge magazine. Please note the lack of respondents to many quite controversial posts.

We were told about the decision to discontinue it. We, subscribers for countless years helping to support it, were not asked, although the people who made that decision were elected by us. We have been told that there are 2,000 people registered on this site, to allow the magazine to continue in digital form, through these forums. I ask those of you reading this, to either come out of the woodwork and let your thoughts be known, or by your silence, show that this particular digital revolution has failed. Surely it is far easier now to quickly post a comment, rather than write a letter to the editor? 

Hi Stan

I thought the problem was interesting, but I was more interested by the person that asked you the question.

I'd always taken the view that a weak player was unlikely to have led from the king, and a good player was more likely to have led from the king, so I just had a think about the quality of my LHO and made a choice... no questions asked as it were.

I'd never thought of asking that question, and I'm not sure I like it being asked.  While in your case is seemed a very appropriate question, it seem a little like playing poker to me.  As if I ask the question and then try to judge who has the king based on what they give off at the table.  It is hard though isn't it, I can see it both ways, but I don't think I'm going to start asking.  I might have to content myself with the question "what did you score last session?"

Regards

Scott