[Codo]

cherdano, on May 29 2006, 08:53 PM, said:

Codo, on May 24 2006, 11:00 AM, said:

It works much better for me the other way round: The Ace ask for count, the King for attitude.

These are the upsites:

1.  No need to change something when leading from KQxxx

2. The most frequent situations for needing count are:
    a. You have a suit which is running, if pd has enough cards
    b. You have to take the right number of tricks in a suit before declarer can ruff
    c. You want pd to ruff.

In nearly all this cases, you have at least AK(x), so you are able to take the King or the ace for count asking.

The downside is: You cannot ask for count with KQJ(xx). I think this is the lesser evil compared with the problems you get when you use the King for Count.

Isn't the biggest downside that when the K lead can show AK.. or KQ..., partner does not know what to signal with the J?

Arend

Not really.

To loose a trick, you need some quite specific holdings.
If Pd has just Jxx and declarer QTx, declarer will always succeed, no matter what you signal or lead at your first trick, even if you lead another suit.
If pd has JT9x, he may drop the jack, so everything is fine again.
If declarer has Qxx opps. Txx the suit is frozen anyway and you cannot get more then two tricks if you have to play the suit by yourself.

So, you only have the problem when pd has JTx and declarer Qxx.

This is a problem, but I don´t see this often at the table.

At least it seems to be a much less frequent then the problem while getting count signals leading from KQTx....

[FrancesHinden]

This discussion is interesting, because I am coming to understand that the debate has come down to what signal should you give on a king lead. 'Ace for attitude king for count' evolved from the idea that you are most likely to want count on a king lead. All the objections I've seen in this thread revolve around cases when you'd prefer to have attitude (exactly one case, though it's not uncommon).

Now, if you think you'd like to get (in principle) an attitude signal on every honour lead, then you should stick to standard leads because - as many people have pointed out - partner then knows what you have and can signal accordingly. Same applies if you always want count (though that seems to be extremely rare among top partnerships).

If you sometimes like attitude and sometimes count then either you need some rules based on dummy's holding, or some rules based on the lead (possibly with additional rule(s) based on level or type of contract e.g. count at 5-level+, count against pre-empts).

I think always giving attitude is also flawed, although it does have the advantage that you can decide in the context of your hand what your attitude is rather than just looking at the suit led.

A complicated set of rules based on dummy may be better, if you don't mind the complication. And even then there will be times when it's flawed.

The simplest example is with xxx in dummy. If you've led from KQJ(x)(x) you want count. From AKQ(x)(x) you want count. From KQ(x)(x) you want attitude (and ideally you want to know if it's the ace or the jack). From AKx(x) you want attitude (encourage with either a doubleton or the queen). From AKJx you want attitude on the queen only, particularly if you might want to underlead or partner would be ruffing with a trump trick. From AKxxx you ideally want to distinguish between Qx, xx and any 3-card holding. From QJxx you want attitude. From QJ10x you probably want count or unblock. From a speculative ace-from-length lead (AQxxxx) you want attitude on the King, not the queen. I could continue, but you get the idea.

Of course, any method that isn't "tell me what I want to know" will be flawed in some circumstances. And "tell me what I want to know" is flawed due to lack of telepathy.

I had a quick look at some of the CCs from the last Bermuda Bowl, and all I can say is that they aren't very well filled in! Apart from the English pairs who all indeed play K from either AK or KQ for count, the majority say they give attitude as primary signal, count as secondary signal on an honour lead, but the majority do not define when, if ever, they give count. The only one I saw that does is Fantoni/Nunes who I'm pleased to say give attitude except on a king lead when they give count, but I'm sure other pairs have other agreements.

[Flame]

I never liked A attitude K clunt although its very common here.
How do you protect yourself from declarer ducking with AJX ?
I would consider playing it if we playing Q from KQ J from QJ.

[han]

With Arend I play ace-for-attitude and king-for-count in combination with Rusinow. We lead the king only from very strong holdings where we want partner to give count (or unblock). From AKx we lead the ace, but from AKJ10x we lead the king. From KQx we lead the queen, but from KQJ10x we lead the king.

The lead of the ace, queen or jack is never ambiguous. The lead of the king is ambiguous but it is only lead from a very strong holding so partner doesn't have a problem. I don't think that this has any of the drawbacks mentioned here.

[cherdano]

Codo, on May 29 2006, 02:56 PM, said:

cherdano, on May 29 2006, 08:53 PM, said:

Codo, on May 24 2006, 11:00 AM, said:

It works much better for me the other way round: The Ace ask for count, the King for attitude.

(...)

The downside is: You cannot ask for count with KQJ(xx). I think this is the lesser evil compared with the problems you get when you use the King for Count.

Isn't the biggest downside that when the K lead can show AK.. or KQ..., partner does not know what to signal with the J?

Arend

Not really.

To loose a trick, you need some quite specific holdings.
If Pd has just Jxx and declarer QTx, declarer will always succeed, no matter what you signal or lead at your first trick, even if you lead another suit.
If pd has JT9x, he may drop the jack, so everything is fine again.
If declarer has Qxx opps. Txx the suit is frozen anyway and you cannot get more then two tricks if you have to play the suit by yourself.

So, you only have the problem when pd has JTx and declarer Qxx.

This is a problem, but I don´t see this often at the table.

At least it seems to be a much less frequent then the problem while getting count signals leading from KQTx....

Well there are more problems. Either you encourage with a low doubleton on a king lead and risk the bath coup, or you don't and miss out on a ruff if partner has led from AK (hoping for the queen). Also, even if you don't lose a trick in the suit by continuing (in your Jxx vs QTx example), you are losing the lead which may cost you more than one trick.

For some reason the first leading style I learned was standard honor leads but K from AK (A shows unsupported ace). Of course it doesn't make sense, but I don't think the "was it KQ or AK"-problem was that infrequent.

[cherdano]

Btw, it seems to me the deals where I like to have the choice between count and attitude when leading from AK are very frequent.

[Codo]

cherdano, on May 29 2006, 10:24 PM, said:

Well there are more problems. Either you encourage with a low doubleton on a king lead and risk the bath coup, or you don't and miss out on a ruff if partner has led from AK (hoping for the queen). Also, even if you don't lose a trick in the suit by continuing (in your Jxx vs QTx example), you are losing the lead which may cost you more than one trick.

There are not too many hands, where pd hopes, that you have either Qxx and the suit is breaking or xx and you get a ruff, so the problem with the small doubleton is nothing I must worry about. If pd realisze the possibílity, that I may be short in the suit, he will ask for count- if he is able to do so.

Loosing the tempo is an issue for sure, but this problem can happen with any given method. If you play count signals, you may loose the lead if you have to figure out, whether pd has xxx or Qxx.
If you play att. you will loose the lead, if pd has Qxxx and not Qxx... (as example).


But anybody has his own experiences. There are always hands, where any given method pays and other, where you had prefered other stuff.

The famous poster RolandW had other experience, so he returned to the standard method. I always remeber the bad boards given std. signals, so I try to play it different.

[Walddk]

Codo, on May 29 2006, 02:41 PM, said:

The famous poster RolandW  had other experience, so he returned to the standard method. I always remeber the bad boards given std. signals, so I try to play it different.

Excuse me for correcting you, but I am not famous at all. All methods have its flaws, but my experience is that attitude on honour leads works best for me.

Incidentally, I play something completely different with one of my favourite partners: Peter Lund. Count always (when partner needs it obviously, not the opponents)! His philosophy is that the auction often has revealed much about declarer's point count and shape so that it's more important to get a count signal in order to get a complete picture of declarer's hand. This also applies when discarding.

One exception: in cash-out situations we use attitude (high is encouraging).

Our leads are also different from what is considered standard. From a sequence of 3 honours we lead highest, from only 2 touching honours we lead lowest.

KQJ(x), QJ10(x), J109(x), even 1098(x).
AKx, KQx, QJx, J10x, even 109x.

From AKQ we lead the queen.

So as an example the lead of a king is either from AKx or KQJ.

This method was developed by John Trelde of Denmark ages ago. He was also the man behind Danish Asking Bids (Trelde-spørgemeldinger) and the Copenhagen Convention (2-suited jump overcalls).

I am not claiming that this method is best. How do you and your partner like it is what matters. I think it's important to be flexible, and if your partner has strong preferences it's nice if you are able to adapt although you may think that another approach is better.

So in the unlikely event that Frances asks me for a game and that she prefers to let ace ask for attitude and king ask for count, I will be happy to comply. As long as she doesn't insist on playing F and G, all is fine

Roland

[1eyedjack]

Vinje had an interesting solution to some of the problems mentioned here. Presumably it creates other problems, or more people would be playing it:

(V suit contracts only)
Lead Q from KQ, J from QJ etc (all with attitude signal as general priority)
From AK, choice of A or K shows leader's count in the suit (even v odd), based on which his partner echos (or not) to advise of the number of cashing tricks (even v odd). Dummy's potential to ruff is ignored for this purpose, but if there are Qxx(x..) in dummy revert to count signal.

One obvious flaw is that leading an unsupported Ace may be interpreted as being from AK and the signal given will therefore be rather meaningless. However situations that call for a lead of unsupported Ace may be rare and also recognisable, so perhaps scope for varying the signal there.

One of the irritating features of Vinje's book is that it "sells" his method without even recognising that there may be bad hands for the method (which there invariably are) so the reader is left having to work them out for himself (perhaps no bad thing, I guess, as it strengthens understanding that way).

[mike777]

I see no facts or claims here where the A for Att. and K for count is superior frequently enough over "OS" to change to it.

[Walddk]

There is one more aspect to consider. Hvad if dummy has a singleton? Most pairs play suit preference signals indiscriminately. Basically, I still think you should play attitude. Below you will find one way to play it (assuming upside down attitude):

Low card = Encouraging. Please continue the suit. I can't stand a switch.
High even = Discouraging. Switch to the lower remaining side suit (trumps always excluded).
High odd = Discouraging. Switch to the higher remaining side suit.

This is not the only way of course, but it's playable although you don't always have the right cards (small card, or high even-odd). But that applies to all methods; nothing is perfect.

Roland

[mikeh]

Walddk, on May 29 2006, 12:39 PM, said:

There is one more aspect to consider. Hvad if dummy has a singleton? Most pairs play suit preference signals indiscriminately. Basically, I still think you should play attitude. Below you will find one way to play it (assuming upside down attitude):

Low card = Encouraging. Please continue the suit. I can't stand a switch.
High even = Discouraging. Switch to the lower remaining side suit (trumps always excluded).
High odd = Discouraging. Switch to the higher remaining side suit.

This is not the only way of course, but it's playable although you don't always have the right cards (small card, or high even-odd). But that applies to all methods; nothing is perfect.

Roland

I am sorry to have to disagree, but I really dislike this method. I think that the ethical problems are far too serious for most players...please note that I have the highest regard for Roland's approach to the game.. he is not 'most players'.

With the best will in the world, a typical partner holding the inappropriate spot cards (which will happen frequently) is going to break tempo on occasion: he has to decide between asking for a continuation which he cannot stand or a switch that he cannot stand... and that will often take time. It is the same problem that bedevils roman discards, but made more powerful by the fact that it happens at trick one.

Now, admittedly, we should all be pausing at trick one, but in the real world, declarer, with a stiff in dummy, may and often will call for it quickly and we are going to find ourselves in a pickle.

If you do indeed ALWAYS pause for, say, 10 seonds, and if you can always solve the tough signal dilemma in that time, then Roland's method won't cause you any ethical problems. In my experience, few players, beyond the topmost echelons, are that consistent.

BTW, I prefer the simpler method: low card wants switch to lower side suit, high to higher side suit and middle card encourages continuation. While, as with any method, this is vulnerable to falsecarding by declarer and/or ambiguity when the available cards are limited, it is rarely as challenging as Roland's method.

[kfgauss]

Additionally, Roland's method isn't allowed in the ACBL (at any level) as dual-message signals are only allowed on the first discard.

Andy

[Walddk]

kfgauss, on May 29 2006, 07:38 PM, said:

Additionally, Roland's method isn't allowed in the ACBL (at any level) as dual-message signals are only allowed on the first discard.

Andy

Why is it that I'm not surprised to hear that? As to Mike's comments I do not see at as a major problem, especially not at trick 1 when declarer is supposed to pause in order to give himself and the opponents an opportunity to plan the play/defence. That also applies when there is a singleton in dummy.

I know how in real life many declarers call for the singleton in a split second (if dummy hasn't reached out for it before), but that is no excuse. Every defender is entitled to take the time declarer did not take.

At the table I simply tell declarer: "Sorry, but I'm not quite ready yet". That goes for every situation, also when dummy has no singleton. If you make this a rule when defending, there is no ethical aspect to consider.

North Americans (read the ACBL) are overly sensitive in this area in my opinion. Restriction upon restriction is not the way forward as I see it. Will the next step be barbed wire under and across the table?

Roland

[FrancesHinden]

There's the same restriction in England.

[mike777]

Walddk, on May 29 2006, 12:39 PM, said:

There is one more aspect to consider. Hvad if dummy has a singleton? Most pairs play suit preference signals indiscriminately. Basically, I still think you should play attitude. Below you will find one way to play it (assuming upside down attitude):

Low card = Encouraging. Please continue the suit. I can't stand a switch.
High even = Discouraging. Switch to the lower remaining side suit (trumps always excluded).
High odd = Discouraging. Switch to the higher remaining side suit.

This is not the only way of course, but it's playable although you don't always have the right cards (small card, or high even-odd). But that applies to all methods; nothing is perfect.

Roland

edit

[Walddk]

"Bridge is cool". Isn't that the ACBL slogan in an attempt to attract youngsters to take up the game?

"Bridge is wonderful guys. Unfortunately you can't play this, that, this and that. We still hope that you will find our game fascinating".

Wrong signal to send (pun intended).

Roland

[paulg]

FrancesHinden, on May 29 2006, 08:25 PM, said:

There's the same restriction in England.

I believe there is a subtle difference.

In the ACBL the first discard can be dual message (say, odd=encouraging, even=suit preference) but subsequent discards cannot be dual message. In the UK subsequent discards can have any meaning.

Paul

[jdeegan]

FrancesHinden, on May 24 2006, 02:54 AM, said:

Leaving aside a few obscure exceptions (such as when you give a suit preference signal at trick one) there seem to be three traditional approaches:

i) Always gives count (or always gives attitude)
ii) Give count or attitude based on a set of rules (e.g. usually attitude but count if the Queen is in dummy)
iii) Tell partner what he wants to know

i) is too inflexible for me. iii) may be theoretically best, but I find that all too often I don't know what partner wants to know. Many people who start off playing iii turn it into a complicated form of ii.

The options are nicely put in the paragraph above. This is not a theoretical issue with me. My best partner at the moment wants to play A for count and K for attitude. After some thought and a little experience I have come down in favor of option three. I have found that the old fashioned way of leading K from AK and giving attitude works most of the time. The exceptions I can think of are when Qxx hits in dummy or xx hits and I have raised partner's suit (to avoid the ruff-sluff).

Can anyone think of some other comparable situations? It would be a service to us all to catalog as many of these situations as possible.

Notice that in the two cases above, the problem is unknown to the opening leader until the dummy hits.

[mike777]

"have found that the old fashioned way of leading K from AK and giving attitude works most of the time. The exceptions I can think of are when Qxx hits in dummy or xx hits and I have raised partner's suit (to avoid the ruff-sluff). "


Ok assuming we lead A from AK why is Qxx or xx in dummy a problem. Partner tells us:
1) continue
2) make the obvious shift
3) make the unusual shift
4) Pard tells us what to do that will hurt the least if nothing is good
5) we need to figure out to lead trumps on our own.
6) at slam level or sometimes at 5 level we can even add a count card at trick one.
7) We use our bridge knowledge and judgement to decide whether to follow pard's suggested defense or ignore it.
8) we make an error and go on to next hand....