ArtK78 Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 I make unsupported Ace leads frequently, especially at matchpoints. Most of the thought process in making an opening lead is to determine which suit is the correct suit to lead. Then you determine which card is the right card to lead. If you have Axx(xx) in the suit and it is a suit contract, the choice is obvious (an underlead is possible in rare cases, but I am ignoring that possibility). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 I make unsupported Ace leads frequently, especially at matchpoints. Good luck with it. That has been shown by Emile Borel to blow a trick 5% of the time. (10% for an underlead, if you're interested.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 I make unsupported Ace leads frequently, especially at matchpoints. Good luck with it. That has been shown by Emile Borel to blow a trick 5% of the time. (10% for an underlead, if you're interested.) And they gain a trick how often? At matchpoints, frequency is all that matters. Assuming that the lead of an unsupported Ace gains more often than it loses, it is the right thing to do. This assumes, of course, that one has decided that leading the unsupported Ace is right on the hand to begin with. I don't just look around for an unsupported Ace and lead it. In any event, that is really not the issue. The issue is that when one is playing Rusinow leads the lead of an Ace denies the King (exception - AK tight) and the lead of the King promises the Ace (exception - K singleton or doubleton). So, assuming that one does lead an unsupported Ace on occasion, it is nice to know that partner will know that you do not have the King. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whereagles Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 Look, I'm not going to argue anymore. Rusinow/standard has been debated to death and I'm not going to spank the dead horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 I make unsupported Ace leads frequently, especially at matchpoints. Good luck with it. That has been shown by Emile Borel to blow a trick 5% of the time. (10% for an underlead, if you're interested.) Wow just 5%, that's a lot better than I'm doing now! Guess I should lead more aces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skjaeran Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 I make unsupported Ace leads frequently, especially at matchpoints. Good luck with it. That has been shown by Emile Borel to blow a trick 5% of the time. (10% for an underlead, if you're interested.) Wow just 5%, that's a lot better than I'm doing now! Guess I should lead more aces. ROFLMAO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted November 15, 2007 Report Share Posted November 15, 2007 Look, I'm not going to argue anymore. Rusinow/standard has been debated to death and I'm not going to spank the dead horse. And I thought that you brought up the subject! My mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foo Posted November 19, 2007 Report Share Posted November 19, 2007 As usual, Frances makes excellent sense. FWIW, my preferred leads are Rusinow leads vs suit contracts and 4th best with an attitude twist (2nd highest from xxx, Hxx, broken HHx, xxxx, or Txxx). There are leading and signaling systems that I consider theoretically superior to any of the more standard approaches, but they all have downsides in terms of ATT complexity or illegality or both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowerline Posted November 20, 2007 Report Share Posted November 20, 2007 In one partnership I play a slightly odd system of leads against NT that I think my partner got from Rubens book, I don't know - he called them 'modified blue club honour leads'. I like most of them: - Ace asks for attitude, often a punt from AKxx or AKx (may be AKxxx with an outside entry) - King asks for unblock or count - Queen asks for attitude and is usually a strong holding, inviting partner to unblock with the king, Jack or 10 (though not with the ace) - Jack is from J10(9/8) or from a weak QJ holding (e.g. QJx(x)), partner not invited to unblock. This allows you to lead an honour from QJxx(x) into a strong NT/2NT opening on your right without partner wasting honours - 10 is strong, from an interior sequence (AJ10, A109 etc). This is actually the bit I am most dubious about the merits of, but we continue playing that way. - 9 promises the 10 (or shortage) - lower cards attitude (as in Rubens' book). The case for attitude vs 4th (or some other count) leads is definitely unproven either way. I've had some gains from attitude leads, usually from declarer not knowing the count, and some losses from partner not knowing the count. As I play 4th highest in my other regular partnership I've had a lot of years of experience with both and I am marginally in favour of attitude leads but not so much I'm trying to persuade the other partner to chance. So the Q is lead from QJTx and KQTx? If declarer wins the trick with the A, you don't know who has the K. Isn't this a problem? Steven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.