Leads and signals at trick one

[MickyB]

I have spent most of my bridge life playing the standard carding methods amongst young(ish) UK players - Ace for attitude, K for count [or unblock vs NT], and probably playing more count at T1 than the rest of the world is used to - and until now I have put little thought into the theory behind it [despite/because of the amount of time I've spent thinking about bidding theory!].

 

I am, initially, looking for a method that would suit an advanced/advancing pair, based primarily on standard honour leads. They are used to giving count quite a lot of the time, but it feels to me that giving attitude in most situations is superior.

 

It feels like K for unblock/count vs NT works well [as you get both attitude and count], and is probably worth the loss of the ambiguous queen [not being able to encourage holding the ten, and not being able to overtake and switch when it would otherwise be obvious to cash out]. As an aside, it seems right to lead Q from AKQx to get attitude for the jack, is this normal? Is there a case for leading J from QJ987 asking for unblock of the ten?

 

In contrast, K for count vs a suit contract seems wrong, as

• You really need attitude when leading from KQ to avoid Bath Coups
  
• Ambiguous queen isn't used vs suit contracts, as far as I am aware, and this seems to be with good reason
  
• Whether you want count or attitude when leading from AK is more dependent on dummy than your own 13 cards
  
• If you are going to allow the lead of either A or K from AK, it seems better to differentiate between AK and AKJ, or holding an even and odd number of cards, and then let partner give attitude
  

 

So, in short, A from AK, K from KQ seems the way to go vs a suit contract, and showing attitude in most situations.

 

A couple of obvious situations where I think count should be given instead -

 

Partner leads the A, the Q is in the dummy, and it is obvious not to try to give us a ruff/trump promo.

Partner leads the K and the J is in the dummy - or should we again be signalling for a ruff in some situations?

Both count and attitude seem useful when partner leads the K and the T is in the dummy, I guess most show attitude here?

Any obvious count situations that I've missed?

 

I know many switch to K from AK or KQ asking for count when at the five-level, any other situations where this switch should be made?

 

Anything else I've missed? Obviously I will need to encourage the pair in question to show residual count a lot more, hopefully that will get them over the loss of their initial count signals!

 

Thanks

[Lurpoa]

Books are written on the subject......:)

 

... and will be written.... :)

[dcrc2]

In contrast, K for count vs a suit contract seems wrong, as

• You really need attitude when leading from KQ to avoid Bath Coups
  
• Ambiguous queen isn't used vs suit contracts, as far as I am aware, and this seems to be with good reason
  

I guess you could get around these issues by leading the second card from honour sequences when not asking for count, ie.

 

A from AK

K from AK or KQ asks for count

Q from KQ

J from QJ

T from JT

 

No idea whether this is sensible, it just occurred to me before I fell asleep last night ...

[Free]

Did you have a look at combine leads (aka Slawinski leads)? There are some threads on the forum with a link to the entire book (except 1 page that is double and nobody seems to have it). The study claims that you'll know what to do on partner's lead a lot more often than any other method that exists. Perhaps this is something you're looking for. Note however that it changes your standard opening leads!

 

One of your examples is QJ987, you'd lead the J so partner knows his T may be useful. Slawinski actually lets you choose to lead the Q (to show QJ/KQT) or the J (to show QJ9/JT), depending on if you want to show the 9 or not.

[Zelandakh]

I have long argued that the standard UK version is completely wrong and that A for count and King for attitude is superior. The reasons are as you say, from AK you can always choose the signal you want to hear but with KQ you have to lead the K or mislead partner, and with KQ attitude is more useful than count. The same approach also works against NT too, for example Journalist leads. This approach is very old and not at all trendy (dating all the way back to Culbertson) but it is suited to players who do not like to lose their count option which sounds like you. Of course you should look at a whole range of options - I suspect you will find most concentrate alot on attitude initally and thus may not be precisely to your taste.

[JLOGIC]

Sounds like you are saying the UK version is not playable vs suits, since you don't know on the K lead if partner has AK and wants count, or has KQ and wants attitude. Seems reasonable.

 

If you want to keep the A/K thing, or even add some different meanings for them, just play rusinow. You will lead the Q from KQ, and know 100 % what the king is. Personally I have never understood the A/K thing (How do you know when you want count not attitude before seeing dummy?), and bang down aces more than most, so I just lead the K from AK and the A means an unsupported ace when I play rusinow (and actually, when I don't).

 

Rusinow is basically completely superior to standard honor leads unless you like to lead from random Hx's a lot and I don't see how it's not standard.

[1eyedjack]

Sounds like you are saying the UK version is not playable vs suits, since you don't know on the K lead if partner has AK and wants count, or has KQ and wants attitude. Seems reasonable.

If playing this method, both ace and queen leads ask for attitude, and king asks for count.

 

But I agree it sucks. How can you tell whether you want a count or attitude signal before you have seen dummy? If you only lead the cards from certain specific holdings why not disclose?

[Zelandakh]

I think the core of this method is that you ask for count with AKQ or with AK and a long suit, in other words when you are interested in whether the second or third trick cashes, and the ace otherwise. I agree with Justin that if you like to lead unsupported aces alot then Rusinow is superior.