<p>In NT, I will do it when I feel my partner does not have AKQ on that suit and I am holding Jx(x) (or even worst, in the case, you think there is a high chance of 3-3 break). The main theory on this is not to let the opponent gain anything from this suit given the high probability of betting a 3-3 break (in 5332/ 4333 distribution). Therefore, you may potentially gain 1 trick on another suit.</p>
<p>Another positive factor is that Suit is a major and is after a &quot;weak&quot; transfer and ends up getting an NT game. Therefore, you are betting the dummy is having A(Q)xxx, your partner has a K, and the declarer has (Q)Jx. But this is only worth it if you have another suit that needs to be established from your partner's lead.</p>
<p>If there is a trump suit, I will say I will only do it when I think there is a very high chance of ruff by my partner (e.g. I am holding xxxxxx on that suit, so the declarer should at least have a Q or J, hope that he/ she also has an x). The 3-3 break theory mentioned above for NT may sometimes work if you feel all players indeed have a balanced hand (from bidding etc.). However, my experience is it is usually better to find/ establish/ cash out your own suit first in this case.</p>
<p>In general, I think this works better in MP matches as +-1 trick is more influential. I personally seldom do fourth-best leads as I will always imagine (daydreaming) the best defense scenario (e.g. aim at cashing out my J in Jxxx).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-10T12:59:50.230Z
Not one of these arguments looks even remotely sound to me.
Forget I was ever here
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-08-10T07:51:54.600Z
2023-08-10T07:51:54.600Z
William Wong
<p>This usually happens when your partner, East, doubles (and the double has no other meaning). The double may indicate one of several things. 1) East has a good tenace (e.g. AQ) behind' the dummy's suit. 2) East has a desire to ruff. A possible side effect of such a lead is that it may attack dummy's scarce entries.</p>
<p>Have I overlooked other valid reasons for leading dummy's first bid suit? Are there ways to identify (from the bidding and your hand) a time to lead dummy's first bid suit if East does not double?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-23T00:12:03.053Z
Holding ***JD98x*** and side entries with a trump trick and length would be a good time. But if you're going to work on setting up Declarer's potential side suit tricks you'd better have a clear understanding from the bidding that this works for your side rather than Declarer's; and on just how you will be able to make this work.
Forget I was ever here
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-10-23T18:55:42.570Z
Especially at matchpoints, when it's the only lead that doesn't look likely to give away a trick.  Partner might not be able to double because the contract is still making - the lead will just hold down the overtrick.
Alexander Woo
<bridge><bidding>
When are good times to "lead dummy's first bid suit?"
Tom Au
# When are good times to "lead dummy's first bid suit?"

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-10-22)

This usually happens when your partner, East, doubles (and the double has no other meaning). The double may indicate one of several things. 1) East has a good tenace (e.g. AQ) behind' the dummy's suit. 2) East has a desire to ruff. A possible side effect of such a lead is that it may attack dummy's scarce entries.

Have I overlooked other valid reasons for leading dummy's first bid suit? Are there ways to identify (from the bidding and your hand) a time to lead dummy's first bid suit if East does not double?

**Tags:** bridge, bidding

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Holding ***JD98x*** and side entries with a trump trick and length would be a good time. But if you're going to work on setting up Declarer's potential side suit tricks you'd better have a clear understanding from the bidding that this works for your side rather than Declarer's; and on just how you will be able to make this work.  
> **username_2**: Especially at matchpoints, when it's the only lead that doesn't look likely to give away a trick.  Partner might not be able to double because the contract is still making - the lead will just hold down the overtrick.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2023-08-10. Score: -1

In NT, I will do it when I feel my partner does not have AKQ on that suit and I am holding Jx(x) (or even worst, in the case, you think there is a high chance of 3-3 break). The main theory on this is not to let the opponent gain anything from this suit given the high probability of betting a 3-3 break (in 5332/ 4333 distribution). Therefore, you may potentially gain 1 trick on another suit.

Another positive factor is that Suit is a major and is after a "weak" transfer and ends up getting an NT game. Therefore, you are betting the dummy is having A(Q)xxx, your partner has a K, and the declarer has (Q)Jx. But this is only worth it if you have another suit that needs to be established from your partner's lead.

If there is a trump suit, I will say I will only do it when I think there is a very high chance of ruff by my partner (e.g. I am holding xxxxxx on that suit, so the declarer should at least have a Q or J, hope that he/ she also has an x). The 3-3 break theory mentioned above for NT may sometimes work if you feel all players indeed have a balanced hand (from bidding etc.). However, my experience is it is usually better to find/ establish/ cash out your own suit first in this case.

In general, I think this works better in MP matches as +-1 trick is more influential. I personally seldom do fourth-best leads as I will always imagine (daydreaming) the best defense scenario (e.g. aim at cashing out my J in Jxxx).

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Not one of these arguments looks even remotely sound to me.  

---

