[gprentice]

On this hand I can't remember all the bidding but some fairly inexperienced players got to 3NT - they don't play reverses. I can't remember whether south bid hearts on his second bid or whether he rebid his spades, however, assuming that hearts hadn't been bid, is KH a reasonable lead against 3NT by north. I kind of have this rule in my head that to lead honors against NT you need three of the top six honors, two of them must be touching and you lead the top of the touching - however I guess when you're kind of forced to lead a particular suit, you have to break the rule and you might not even have a four card suit. Is that correct?

Then suppose that south did bid hearts on his second bid, is hearts still the best suit to lead - leading through dummy's second suit?

---

We play lead of AQ for reverse attitude and King for (natural) count. Does west have to give a count signal in this situation - play the six and then the five - or can the signaling be disregarded here.

[apollo1201]

K is usually a very strong suit as you mention (KQJxx, KQTxx, AKJxx, etc.) that requests an unblock or count.

So against a non-bid suit, I d lead HQ. Although I would expect a stronger 1345 or 1363 hand from declarer rather than what they have here.

If H were bid by S, it wouldn t be natural but a 4th suit denying both a 5th spade and a H stop. Fearing to blow a trick, I might also consider a low S through dummy towards partner s 4-cd suit and at the same time blowing declarer s potential communication between dummy and them.

But a competent pair would reach 3C by N, a contract that rates to make.

[johnu]

apollo1201, on 2024-March-29, 04:15, said:

So against a non-bid suit, I d lead HQ.

The standard meaning for a queen lead against NT is encouragement from a QJ lead, or unblock holding the jack assuming the lead is from KQ10. Since you don't hold the 10, partner unblocking the jack could be problematic, and partner may give the wrong spot signal

[Stephen Tu]

johnu, on 2024-March-29, 04:51, said:

The standard meaning for a queen lead against NT is encouragement from a QJ lead, or unblock holding the jack assuming the lead is from KQ10.

That was the old standard, but OP seems to be using the modern expert trend of using K for count/unblock, which then implies Q from KQ, NOT asking for unblock of the Jack. The new way is K from KQT9 or AKQT or the like which will get the J to unblock. From lesser holdings headed by K or lower, people either use Rusinow honor leads (sometimes with exceptions), or use an ambiguous Q (from KQ or QJ).

[johnu]

Stephen Tu, on 2024-March-29, 07:47, said:

That was the old standard, but OP seems to be using the modern expert trend of using K for count/unblock, which then implies Q from KQ, NOT asking for unblock of the Jack. The new way is K from KQT9 or AKQT or the like which will get the J to unblock. From lesser holdings headed by K or lower, people either use Rusinow honor leads (sometimes with exceptions), or use an ambiguous Q (from KQ or QJ).

May be a trend, but is it standard? I doubt that Rusinow leads are anything close to standard, and I am one who plays them against suit contracts and journalist style against NT.

[Stephen Tu]

johnu, on 2024-March-29, 08:02, said:

May be a trend, but is it standard? I doubt that Rusinow leads are anything close to standard, and I am one who plays them against suit contracts and journalist style against NT.

Well, all I know from playing NABCs recently is that I encounter a hell of a lot more "K = power lead", Q from KQ than the old way, when playing the NABC+ events. From reading on bridgewinners I think the uber-experts are mostly "Rusinow from 4+ cds" for the KQxx/QJ9x type holdings, but whether Rusinow or "std with ambiguous Q" is more popular among lesser players who play K=power I really have no clue.

Club level is a completely different story, in my current area maybe 85% have never heard of using either K or A for unblock/count, and Rusinow is close to non-existent in any context.

[johnu]

Stephen Tu, on 2024-March-29, 08:30, said:

Well, all I know from playing NABCs recently is that I encounter a hell of a lot more "K = power lead", Q from KQ than the old way, when playing the NABC+ events. From reading on bridgewinners I think the uber-experts are mostly "Rusinow from 4+ cds" for the KQxx/QJ9x type holdings, but whether Rusinow or "std with ambiguous Q" is more popular among lesser players who play K=power I really have no clue.

You either have a better memory, or are more observant than I am, and probably both, but I don't remember what my opponents were leading whenever I've played in an NABC. And I usually don't look at the opponent's card for leads but ask if I need to know. Frankly, those honor leads come up so relatively rarely that I would have to keep a written tally to see what is more commonly encountered, but that's me.

I will note the Bridge World 2017 just says,

Against notrump contracts:
(i) Honor leads: highest equal from sequences and interior sequences

They must have run out of steam when asking poll questions about leads.

[akwoo]

Form of scoring?

[gprentice]

At my club, 95% or more would have never heard of A/K for unblock or whatever. So assuming that you have an agreement that leading an honor shows three of the top six honors but you don't have any unblock request agreement, is KH an ok lead. On this hand, if my partner had lead low it would have given away a trick and hearts is the best lead. West should be able to figure out that declarer has at most two hearts from the bidding and early play.

Also, the opponents don't play fourth suit forcing so could well have bid 2 hearts naturally on south's second bid. If that is the case, is KH still a reasonable lead, promising the queen. Don't want to lead into declarers minors.

[bluenikki]

On the auction, partner will presume you do not hold long strong hearts. So asking for unblock is a silly interpretation, regardless of your agreement for 1NT - 3NT.

Also, partner knows you will be leading hearts unless you have a really good reason.

The real problem on the deal is whether partner should encourage. Normally, encouragement would promise the jack (or, in another universe, the ace). Here, with xxxx in dummy, the jack is not an issue.

[pescetom]

johnu, on 2024-March-29, 17:31, said:

I will note the Bridge World 2017 just says,

Against notrump contracts:
(i) Honor leads: highest equal from sequences and interior sequences

They must have run out of steam when asking poll questions about leads.

They tend not to ask questions when they might not like the answers. Such as whether 1H 2m 2S shows extras.

[pescetom]

Stephen Tu, on 2024-March-29, 07:47, said:

That was the old standard, but OP seems to be using the modern expert trend of using K for count/unblock, which then implies Q from KQ, NOT asking for unblock of the Jack. The new way is K from KQT9 or AKQT or the like which will get the J to unblock. From lesser holdings headed by K or lower, people either use Rusinow honor leads (sometimes with exceptions), or use an ambiguous Q (from KQ or QJ).

What are the implications of an Ace lead when following this modern trend?

[Stephen Tu]

pescetom, on 2024-April-07, 07:38, said:

What are the implications of an Ace lead when following this modern trend?

Ace lead is assumed from an AK holding, asking attitude about the Q. The old way, one might lead K from either AKT(x+) or KQTxx, making it a guess whether Jxx wants to encourage or not.

[johnu]

pescetom, on 2024-April-07, 07:11, said:

They tend not to ask questions when they might not like the answers. Such as whether 1H 2m 2S shows extras.

Actually there are countless numbers of bidding and lead/signaling options that are completely skipped. The Bridge World has no vested interest in any particular result. The main purpose is to provide a framework for Master Solvers club so that everybody is on the same page. Of course, some of the panel members can't be bothered to be up to date on the latest version of the system. A side effect is that 2 Bridge World readers who haven't played together could agree to play the system, which is much more defined than saying let's play 2/1. Another side effect is getting a pulse on what current expert practice is.

The way they have asked the poll questions also limits the number of questions, since they print all the questions in their magazine which takes up a lot of space, and then print out the results with percentages and commentary which also takes up a lot of space. If they did the polling online, they would not be limited in the number of their questions.

[johnu]

Stephen Tu, on 2024-April-07, 08:21, said:

Ace lead is assumed from an AK holding, asking attitude about the Q. The old way, one might lead K from either AKT(x+) or KQTxx, making it a guess whether Jxx wants to encourage or not.

The "old" way, one might lead Q from KQTxx and if partner had the jack they could play it.

[Stephen Tu]

johnu, on 2024-April-07, 17:22, said:

The "old" way, one might lead Q from KQTxx and if partner had the jack they could play it.

I thought most need KQT9 to ask for unblock of the jack. Or are you not unblocking J when dummy has say small stiff?
But in any case you still have the issue of the ambiguity of sometimes leading K from KQ9(x+) or KQx vs AKT(x+).

[johnu]

Stephen Tu, on 2024-April-07, 20:01, said:

I thought most need KQT9 to ask for unblock of the jack. Or are you not unblocking J when dummy has say small stiff?
But in any case you still have the issue of the ambiguity of sometimes leading K from KQ9(x+) or KQx vs AKT(x+).

You always have some ambiguity, even in your "modern" method.

Queen from KQ, or QJ, or AQJ

[Stephen Tu]

johnu, on 2024-April-08, 04:40, said:

You always have some ambiguity, even in your "modern" method.

Queen from KQ, or QJ, or AQJ

Well like I said some are doing Rusinow from length. Also, unlike the old way, the ambiguity is in situations where it's less likely to hurt you. 3rd hand can mostly just signal encouragement with an honor.