Lead from AKxx against notrumps

[helene_t]

Yesterday I had (matchpoints, w/r)

 

AKxx

JTx

xx

Qxxx

 

Partner deals and passes, RHO opens 1NT (12-14, classic shape), a.p.

 

I lead a small spade. This was not a success as partner had AKxxx of clubs and the club switch would have been obvious looking at the dummy. As it was, declarer quickly grabbed his ♠Q and nine red suit winners.

 

Partner (who is a bit of a result merchant, but this time she might have a point?) said I should have lead the ace.

 

This made me wonder: DD I believe leading an honour is best. Sometimes a switch is needed (as here), maybe more often declarer or dummy has Qx while partner has Jxxx. The small lead may be necessary when p has Q, Qx, QJ or QJx but that seems less frequent, and even then it doesn't always make wonders.

 

But what is right SD? Sometimes it is not easy to read partner's card and even if it is clear to switch it may not be clear what to switch to. And if dummy has QTx or Qxx (partner having Jx(x(x)) ) the honour lead makes it easier for declarer. If partner has Qx she might not know whether to unblock or not on an honour lead (I would generally unblock, assuming the lead being from AKJx(x) ).

 

What do you think?

[wanoff]

Yesterday I had (matchpoints, w/r)

 

AKxx

JTx

xx

Qxxx

 

Partner deals and passes, RHO opens 1NT (12-14, classic shape), a.p.

 

I lead a small spade. This was not a success as partner had AKxxx of clubs and the club switch would have been obvious looking at the dummy. As it was, declarer quickly grabbed his ♠Q and nine red suit winners.

 

Partner (who is a bit of a result merchant, but this time she might have a point?) said I should have lead the ace.

 

This made me wonder: DD I believe leading an honour is best. Sometimes a switch is needed (as here), maybe more often declarer or dummy has Qx while partner has Jxxx. The small lead may be necessary when p has Q, Qx, QJ or QJx but that seems less frequent, and even then it doesn't always make wonders.

 

But what is right SD? Sometimes it is not easy to read partner's card and even if it is clear to switch it may not be clear what to switch to. And if dummy has QTx or Qxx (partner having Jx(x(x)) ) the honour lead makes it easier for declarer. If partner has Qx she might not know whether to unblock or not on an honour lead (I would generally unblock, assuming the lead being from AKJx(x) ).

 

What do you think?

Don't like losing a cheap trick to ♠Q so would always lead Ace. Blockage is less of a problem when partner is marked with points (here 6-14) and we may have a side entry.

AKxxx may be different, it depends on intermediates and possible side entries.

Edited December 4, 2013 by barmar
pulled reply out of quote block

[manudude03]

I might be weird, but when I have AKxx against NT, I prefer to just not lead it at all and figure out what to lead later.

[Cascade]

Leading the ace is a single dummy play not a double dummy play. Double dummy, on this hand, you can lead a top spade or a club immediately. The advantage of the ace first, single dummy, is that you get a whole lot more information before you have to play to trick two - from the dummy and from partner's signal. It seems to me, very likely that in the long run this information will be to your benefit. It would be much more difficult to analyse if you had no ♠K then you still get the additional information after the ♠A lead but it is much more likely to be give up a fateful tempo.

[Zelandakh]

The traditional lead is small from AKxx but leading an honour is often better, especially when you have a second suit as a good option. Whether Qxxx and JTx count as such suits in the general case is anyone's guess.

[PhilKing]

I would definitely lead the ace. Since the ace is often a "fishing" lead, partner will not start unblocking.

 

Low will sometimes be better, but the combined chances of dropping Qx in either hand or pinning Tx on table or leading through declarer's Qxx or finding a switch add up to much more than partner having Jxx and declarer misguessing.

[blackshoe]

I would definitely lead the ace. Since the ace is often a "fishing" lead, partner will not start unblocking.

Presumably you do not subscribe to the traditional meaning of the ace lead against NT — that it specifically asks for an unblock, or count. :D

[ggwhiz]

I should have lead the ace.

 

I must be getting old. I thought the default agreement is that the Ace demands an unblock or count.

 

So assuming it went 1nt - 3nt a major is called for. I would lead the spade King (getting count) expecting that if a switch is called for it would be to the heart Jack but nit looks like the dummy would point to the club switch.

 

Since the heart Jack is an attractive 2nd choice at mp's I'm hoping that if a spade continuation isn't indicated the heart switch is in time with spades controlled. Surprise! I'll back door the club switch when I see the dummy.

 

Right result for the wrong reasons.

[Zelandakh]

I must be getting old. I thought the default agreement is that the Ace demands an unblock or count.

 

So assuming it went 1nt - 3nt a major is called for. I would lead the spade King (getting count)

If you use the ace as your strong lead for unblock/count then it is normal for the king to ask for attitude. But an increasingly popular method is for the king to be the strong lead allowing a more flexible usage of ace leads. And many club players, for simplicity or ignorance, just use ace = attitude; king = count against both suits and NTs without having a strong unblock lead at all.

[PhilKing]

Presumably you do not subscribe to the traditional meaning of the ace lead against NT — that it specifically asks for an unblock, or count. :D

 

King for unblock is pretty standard expert treatment in the UK, though the ace is still the card at rubber bridge.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, we old school here still use Ace or Queen for the power leads and King for attitude. But, that doesn't seem to be important for the thread. It is strictly a question of whether to lead your high card of choice or to go for the suit with a baby.

 

I don't think it is resulting to agree with the high one to take a look with that holding.

[lexlogan]

I started leading the King from AKxx (the Ace would ask for an unblock) last year. Too many 3NT's slipping through on Qx in declarer's hand, among other issues. Seems to make sense to get a look a dummy and partner's signal. I note that on the ACBL convention card, the King is marked as correct from AKJx. That does not seem consistent with using the King for unblock, so I take it that Ace or Queen for unblock is still standard in North America.

[Fluffy]

Presumably you do not subscribe to the traditional meaning of the ace lead against NT — that it specifically asks for an unblock, or count. :D

The traditional inferior meaning of ace unblock didn't cross the atlantic, we had a better method :)

[Vampyr]

I note that on the ACBL convention card, the King is marked as correct from AKJx.

 

The markings do not indicate what is "correct"; they are meant to reflect what is most common, presumably to save time for the people who use the most common meanings.

[awm]

So I was taught to lead high from AKxx but low from AKxxx. Which of the ace/king to lead when leading high depends on your agreements of course.

 

The reason for this rule is that you are generally hoping that your side has 7+ cards in the suit that you lead. If you have exactly seven cards in the suit, you need to lead low from five to maintain transportation but you don't need to lead low from four. Also, leading from four is more likely to be "wrong" so you want to preserve the ability to switch rather than giving declarer the lead right off.

 

Over the years I have found that there are exceptions to this rule, but it's a good general guideline when there isn't much else to go by.

[aguahombre]

The traditional inferior meaning of ace unblock didn't cross the atlantic, we had a better method :)

And now we cross over from historical to the judgmental.

[32519]

We lead Ace for Attitude and King for Count (misspelt Kount to aid memory), A for A and K for K. We also play UDCA. So here we would lead the Ace. Partner hates the suit and wants a switch. But switch to what suit? To assist with the switch, we also incorporate Odd/Even carding i.e. a high even card asks for a switch to the higher unplayed suit, a high odd card asks for a switch to the lower unplayed suit. But this is a NT contract and therefore there is a third unplayed suit. So how must partner know which suit to switch to? When it is partners turn to play, he/she places his/her card vertically on the table asking for the highest/lowest suit switch depending on the spot card played (odd or even), or places his/her card horizontally on the table asking for the middle suit switch.

[Mbodell]

I'm a little amazed there's discussion with good players not saying it is clear to lead high. AKxx should have a high honor (the K is standardish in the US) that doesn't ask for unblock, while with AKxxx a low one is lead. And a high one from AKx as well (my partner did that today in the blues and hit dummy with Qx and me with J9xxx and we ran 5 diamonds an outside A).

[Zelandakh]

The traditional inferior meaning of ace unblock didn't cross the atlantic, we had a better method :)

It did to my corner as it was part of Culbertson. It is also part of Journalist Leads.

[Vampyr]

But this is a NT contract and therefore there is a third unplayed suit. So how must partner know which suit to switch to? When it is partners turn to play, he/she places his/her card vertically on the table asking for the highest/lowest suit switch depending on the spot card played (odd or even), or places his/her card horizontally on the table asking for the middle suit switch.

 

Put a smiley so inexperienced players know you are joking!

[Vampyr]

The traditional inferior meaning of ace unblock didn't cross the atlantic, we had a better method :)

 

Is it better? It forces us to use the Queen for attitude, lending ambiguity to the lead of that card.

[Zelandakh]

Partner hates the suit and wants a switch. But switch to what suit? To assist with the switch,

There is a simpler way that works more generally. Play the card \ (diagionally left) to ask for the lowest ranking suit; | (vertically) to ask for the middle suit; and / (diagnonally right) for the highest suit. Playing it as - (horizontally) is encouraging for the suit led. The great part about this method is that it can be used in all situations and even on lead. You never have to worry about holding the wrong card or sending an ambiguous message. You could potentially combine it with a more traditional carding agreement to send more subtle shades of information, or to add a level of deception to declarer.

[32519]

Put a smiley so inexperienced players know you are joking!

What makes you think I am joking?

 

There is a simpler way that works more generally. Play the card \ (diagionally left) to ask for the lowest ranking suit; | (vertically) to ask for the middle suit; and / (diagnonally right) for the highest suit. Playing it as - (horizontally) is encouraging for the suit led. The great part about this method is that it can be used in all situations and even on lead. You never have to worry about holding the wrong card or sending an ambiguous message. You could potentially combine it with a more traditional carding agreement to send more subtle shades of information, or to add a level of deception to declarer.

Zel, we tried this but because the partners are sitting at opposite ends of the table, confusion arose as to which way the card was lying. Is \ (diagionally left) or / (diagnonally right) from the players point of view or from partners point of view. After too many mishaps we gave up on it and switched to my post higher up.

[Lorne50]

Here is s 1000 deal simulation for spade leads after pass 1N(12-14) all pass with 3rd hand fixed and 4th hand having 1-4 cards in each suit and 0-10 points:

 

ticks <=5 6 7 8 9 10+

Ace 53 142 328 296 161 20

small 26 102 266 335 240 31

 

Looks like ace is a winner but DD you find the right switch 100% of the time so may not be clearcut at the table.

[Finch]

Is it better? It forces us to use the Queen for attitude, lending ambiguity to the lead of that card.

 

If you are going to use one lead to ask for unblock/count, you will always have ambiguity with one of the other leads, the one you make when you hold your 'strong' card but can't afford to lead it. If the ace is your strong card, the king will be ambiguous.

The hand that started this thread is a typical example.

 

There are two reasons using the king as strong seems to me superior than the ace

 

There are holdings that need count or unblock from partner that don't include the ace - the default one is KQ109x

There are very few holdings that include the ace but not the king. In fact, I can't think of any that cannot survive by leading a lower honour, or leading the ace and getting attitude from partner.