MickyB Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 I see that Meckwell lead J from QJxx(x) but Q from QJ(x) vs NT, what is the logic behind this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 I see that Meckwell lead J from QJxx(x) but Q from QJ(x) vs NT, what is the logic behind this? Not to fire away in your 3-3 fit, and not to unblock Kxx facing QJx. I have been playing something similiar for appr. 8 years. Three times we have been able to diagnose partner had led from a short suit into a short suit. And all three times, we have not been able to afford a high discouraging card. Still hoping. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OleBerg Posted March 14, 2011 Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Just to be fair to the idée: There has probably been numerous occasions, where the certainty that partner held four in the suit, made the right defence easy to find. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted March 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2011 Great, thanks. Anyone else with experiences of this? Or anyone who can make a case for this being better or worse than other methods? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 I was just discussing this yesterday with my partner. He had led the J from J10 tight in the only unbid suit. We do not have the agreement to lead the highest from short suits, but apparently it was also natural to him. We do lead the highest in partner's suit, and this is not so different. Maarten Schollaardt and Meike Wortel also play this btw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted March 15, 2011 Report Share Posted March 15, 2011 The lead of queen versus Jack, forget length for a minute, is a trickle down effect from what your partnership uses for it's Power lead vs. Nt (Ace for some, King for some). Those who lead K from KQT9 (Meckwell) must then choose Q from KQXX. So, the J is lead from QJXX. If Partner sees the K, and leader has led the Queen, it would be a wake-up call that the opening leader is shorter than 4 in the suit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 We play the method which I think was originally suggested by Rubens.K is the power lead (unblock or count)A looks for attitude often from either very long or very short holdings10 is strong, showing an interior sequence (we're debating dropping this, but that's another discussion) Q is either from KQ9x (usually lead low from KQxx) or from a strong QJ holding ie. QJ10 or QJ9 to length. Jack is either from J10 without a higher honour, or from a weak QJ holding. This isn't quite the same as Q shows 4, J shows 3 but it's very similar. The idea is that partner knows whether to unblock or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted March 16, 2011 Report Share Posted March 16, 2011 Q is either from KQ9x (usually lead low from KQxx) or from a strong QJ holding ie. QJ10 or QJ9 to length. Jack is either from J10 without a higher honour, or from a weak QJ holding. This isn't quite the same as Q shows 4, J shows 3 but it's very similar. The idea is that partner knows whether to unblock or not.I think this agreement makes sense. We lead Rusinow normally (with the K as the power lead). The other day, pard (inadvertantly) lead the J from JT9 and holding AKXX, I was somewhat surprised when declarer won the Q. In retrospect, leading the J from a shorter holding (or weak QJ holding) makes sense because it helps clarify the stronger QJ holding as well... 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.