opening leads vs suits

[straube]

Found this...http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.games.bridge/2008-03/msg01126.html

 

So I'm getting the impression from this and from Justin that 2/4th against suits are better. And from Q83 one leads the 8, right?

 

So Polish leads are basically attitude leads...which I like...and 3/5 are basically count leads.

 

Also liking Rusinow against NT. Would it make sense to lead top of sequence when you are leading partner's suit or trying to "hit" partner and lead Rusinow when you are trying to establish your own suit? Not sure which way to go holding QJx then.

 

Does Rusinow make sense against suit contracts as well? Why or why not?

 

Does 2/4th leads make sense against NT?

[MickyB]

Found this...http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.games.bridge/2008-03/msg01126.html

 

So I'm getting the impression from this and from Justin that 2/4th against suits are better. And from Q83 one leads the 8, right?

 

So Polish leads are basically attitude leads...which I like...and 3/5 are basically count leads.

 

Also liking Rusinow against NT. Would it make sense to lead top of sequence when you are leading partner's suit or trying to "hit" partner and lead Rusinow when you are trying to establish your own suit? Not sure which way to go holding QJx then.

 

Does Rusinow make sense against suit contracts as well? Why or why not?

 

Does 2/4th leads make sense against NT?

 

Yes 8 from Q83. "Low from two, middle from three, 2nd and 4th from length" was how I explained it when I played it.

 

Vs NT, Meckwell play Rusinow from 4+cards, standard from 2 or 3 cards. I've played this for a while in one partnership, I've no strong feelings on it.

 

I believe the Poles lead low from doubleton vs NT too, this seems pretty bad to me, as previously discussed you want the low card to be encouraging.

[awm]

For an example of the latter, we have AJTx and there is xxx on the dummy. We are unsure if partner has three or four cards, and we are unsure whether he has an honour or not. We wish to continue the suit if there is a trick there to set up.

 

If partner shows an honour, that doesn't help us. Declarer could have Kxx or Kx.

If partner shows an odd number, that doesn't help us. Declarer could have Kxx or KQx.

 

Playing Fantunes style, the lead is consistent with either KQx and Kx, or Kxx and KQ.

 

Sorry, I don't get this one. There are four possibilities:

 

1. Declarer KQx, partner xxx

2. Declarer Kx, partner Qxxx

3. Declarer KQ, partner xxxx

4. Declarer Kxx, partner Qxx

 

You want to continue the suit only in case four (where we can establish a trick). Playing Fantunes you distinguish 1/2 vs. 3/4, so half the time you know not to continue and the other half you're on a guess. Playing attitude-style leads, you distinguish 1/3 vs. 2/4, so half the time you know not to continue and the other half you're on a guess. Playing count-style leads, you distinguish 1/4 vs. 2/3, so half the time you know not to continue and the other half you are on a guess. In other words, all three styles seem to break even.

[MickyB]

Sorry, I don't get this one. There are four possibilities:

 

1. Declarer KQx, partner xxx

2. Declarer Kx, partner Qxxx

3. Declarer KQ, partner xxxx

4. Declarer Kxx, partner Qxx

 

You want to continue the suit only in case four (where we can establish a trick). Playing Fantunes you distinguish 1/2 vs. 3/4, so half the time you know not to continue and the other half you're on a guess. Playing attitude-style leads, you distinguish 1/3 vs. 2/4, so half the time you know not to continue and the other half you're on a guess. Playing count-style leads, you distinguish 1/4 vs. 2/3, so half the time you know not to continue and the other half you are on a guess. In other words, all three styles seem to break even.

 

If you know the layout is 1 or 2, you switch. If you know the layout is 3 or 4, you continue if declarer plays a small card, but switch if he plays an honour.

[broze]

Does Rusinow make sense against suit contracts as well? Why or why not?

 

More from JL and BBF on Rusinow here and here.

 

I play Rusinow against suits and imo the main advantages come from the signals you get on the lead of an Ace; room for p-ship agreement here too. Also as JL mentions in one of his post if your style is to bang down aces a fair amount then it complements that nicely.

[awm]

I guess what I said in my prior post doesn't make sense because declarer would have to play an honor from KQ tight.

 

Nonetheless, if you have one less card in the suit the same problem arises.. say partner leads the suit and you have ATx and dummy has Jxx. Suppose you know partner lead from three or four, the possibilities are:

 

1. Partner xxxx, declarer KQx

2. Partner xxx, declarer KQxx

3. Partner Qxxx, declarer Kxx

4. Partner Kxxx, declarer Qxx

 

You want to return the suit in case 3; in case 4 it probably doesn't matter; in case 1/2 you blow a tempo continuing. Note that attitude leads give you a 100% solution to this problem whereas Fantunes leads you cannot distinguish case 2 from 3/4 since partner would lead the same card.

 

Another example, partner leads a suit and you have AKxxx and dummy has Jxx. If declarer has Qxx you want to cash two rounds and give partner a ruff. If declarer has xx you can cash two rounds if you want, but then you must switch to another suit. Playing 3/5 leads this will certainly be clear-cut. Playing Fantunes leads where you lead the same card with two small spots regardless of whether there's a higher honor, it won't be clear and it's not like partner can unblock the queen.

[JLOGIC]

You've ignored the disadvantages IMO.

 

First, leads from doubleton honours/9x are now more tricky - better that, when you lead the jack from Jx [or perhaps stiff jack?], partner think you have JT not QJ. I think this is generally considered to require rules for when you switch back to standard vs suit contracts.

 

 

Pretty sure I was only talking about NT leads in my post. I was directly replying to this quoted question:

 

Can you elaborate on why Rusinow leads are better at NT?

in fact.

 

So stiff J and Hx are not really a problem unless you fire those out a lot vs NT :P. And I suspect even if you do it is a desperation lead where if it works out your partner won't be wondering if it's rusinow or not lol.

 

Secondly, the nine is now reserved for showing T9, whereas before it was free for other purposes. Not a big loss, admittedly, unless you are a fan of leading 9 from H98. You can lead the 8 from that but then it conflicts with 98xx or similar.

 

Yes, you're right this is the disadvantage of rusinow vs NT. If you play it down to the 8, it conficts with your 8 lead as a 2nd from 98xx or maybe a top of 832. Personally I have never been an H98 guy so for me the disadvantage is when I have like 932 both the 9 and the 3 have risk of being misread whereas in standard I could have led the 9. This seems like a very minor issue compared to the gains lol.

 

Agreed that vs suits it is far less clear, that's why I only referred to NT in that post.

[JLOGIC]

More from JL and BBF on Rusinow here and here.

 

I play Rusinow against suits and imo the main advantages come from the signals you get on the lead of an Ace; room for p-ship agreement here too. Also as JL mentions in one of his post if your style is to bang down aces a fair amount then it complements that nicely.

 

lol at least I'm consistent. I have had more JTx and T9x scary moments since then vs suits but I still play it/like it vs suits myself, mainly because I just dislike ambiguous K and A from AK.

[broze]

lol at least I'm consistent. I have had more JTx and T9x scary moments since then vs suits but I still play it/like it vs suits myself, mainly because I just dislike ambiguous K and A from AK.

 

:D I think it just makes sense. When you in effect move your honour leads down a notch it follows that you will see gains at the top (AK) and losses at the bottom (JT9). AK leads are much much higher in frequency ergo this style of leads looks like a winner. Ok, that is oversimplifying it A LOT but still sound reasoning. Leading from Hx holdings is ambiguous but I've noticed that I very rarely do this anyway.

[MickyB]

I guess what I said in my prior post doesn't make sense because declarer would have to play an honor from KQ tight.

 

Nonetheless, if you have one less card in the suit the same problem arises.. say partner leads the suit and you have ATx and dummy has Jxx. Suppose you know partner lead from three or four, the possibilities are:

 

1. Partner xxxx, declarer KQx

2. Partner xxx, declarer KQxx

3. Partner Qxxx, declarer Kxx

4. Partner Kxxx, declarer Qxx

 

You want to return the suit in case 3; in case 4 it probably doesn't matter; in case 1/2 you blow a tempo continuing. Note that attitude leads give you a 100% solution to this problem whereas Fantunes leads you cannot distinguish case 2 from 3/4 since partner would lead the same card.

 

Another example, partner leads a suit and you have AKxxx and dummy has Jxx. If declarer has Qxx you want to cash two rounds and give partner a ruff. If declarer has xx you can cash two rounds if you want, but then you must switch to another suit. Playing 3/5 leads this will certainly be clear-cut. Playing Fantunes leads where you lead the same card with two small spots regardless of whether there's a higher honor, it won't be clear and it's not like partner can unblock the queen.

 

Sure, I was just giving an example where mixed leads work best based on the cards played to trick 1. Slawinski's work concludes that mixed leads are superior to count leads, and the flaws in his methodology that I have noticed are no more biased towards one method than the other. Of course, the question of which method is more helpful to declarer is not dealt with, but I would expect this to go in favour of mixed leads as well.

 

My experience of playing both methods is that count leads are good, but mixed leads are probably better.