[ArtK78]

I have a very basic question which has recently become a topic for discussion, as two of my partners, both with significant experience, have come up with two different answers for a very simple question.

In second seat on defense, the declarer plays a card in which you have touching honors (say, for example, JT). Assuming that you are going to split the honors with the intention of trying to convey to your partner that you hold the other one, which do you play, the higher one or the lower one?

For example, in this layout with dummy on lead:

---

Again, there is no intent to deceive anyone. You want to make it as clear as possible to partner that you have the other touching honor.

Thanks.

[Trumpace]

I have heard experts around me say this:

Highest of touching in 2nd. Lowest of touching in 3rd.

[ralph23]

Bill Root taught that when doing this, split by playing the card you would lead, e.g. the highest one.

So in your example, he would play the Jack, if he decided to split honors.

You see this same philosophy in his often-partner's and one-time co-author's website (writer and teacher Richard Pavlicek):

http://www.rpbridge.net/4l00.htm

However, Root also noted that this procedure was not universal and that authorities differed on which was the "best" method, and recommended that this be an area of partnership agreement.

I found it confusing, frankly, to play in a way that I saw as "backwards" or "upside down" from the "usual" way i.e. to play differently than I would as third hand trying to take or establish a trick, when I would of course play the LOWER or LOWEST of equals.

But I'm sure Root had a reason for recommending the way that he did.... I don't know what it was but maybe someone does.

[skjaeran]

Standard is to put up your lowest when splitting honours, exactly the same as when you follow 3rd in hand to your partners lead - as opposed to leading and discarding, where you play your highest card from a sequence.

Obviously this isn't really good enough, since it's hard for partner to read on quite a few occasions (example: low from three small in dummy, you split honours by going in with the ten, declare plays the king and partner wins the ace - where's the queen? Did you play the ten from JT or QJT?).

With my former partner we sloved this just as Trumpace say; playing the highest from two touching cards, lowest from three. In my example I'd play the jack from JT and the ten from QJT, and my partner would know the layout.

[pclayton]

I usually split with the card I would have led, assuming standard honor leads. I've heard this from better players. I've also heard that you should split with 2nd highest.

An idea I've been toying with is to split the highest from even, and 2nd highest from odd. There may be some logic to this, but I haven't pursued it.

[han]

I split lowest from 2 and highest from 3.

[ArtK78]

Thank you all. I guess I got what I expected to get - a difference of opinion.

Until about a month ago, I would always have played the higher honor. That was until I played with an old partner of mine who now lives about 3 hours away. We play together about once every 6 or 7 years, like clockwork. He went out of his way to inform me that he prefers to play the lower (or 2nd highest) of touching honors when splitting in 2nd seat. I found this to be unusual, but if that is what he wanted, that is what he would get.

Just the other day, after I did exactly that with another partner, he told me that he thought that my honor play denied the higher touching honor.

So, I thought I would throw it open to the panel. I believe that the "standard" play is the higher of two touching honors (the J in my example), but it is clear that there is no unanimity.

[ralph23]

ArtK78, on Aug 13 2007, 07:48 PM, said:

Thank you all. I guess I got what I expected to get - a difference of opinion.

Until about a month ago, I would always have played the higher honor. That was until I played with an old partner of mine who now lives about 3 hours away. We play together about once every 6 or 7 years, like clockwork. He went out of his way to inform me that he prefers to play the lower (or 2nd highest) of touching honors when splitting in 2nd seat. I found this to be unusual, but if that is what he wanted, that is what he would get.

Just the other day, after I did exactly that with another partner, he told me that he thought that my honor play denied the higher touching honor.

So, I thought I would throw it open to the panel. I believe that the "standard" play is the higher of two touching honors (the J in my example), but it is clear that there is no unanimity.

Is anyone brave enough to explain why his/her way of doing it, is better than the other ways of doing it?

Or even to make a list of the various ways that people play it? I lost count but I think there are 5 or 6....

[goobers]

I believe Kantar also endorses splitting with highest. If my memory serves me correctly, his example was declarer leading through your QJT9, and stating that playing the 9 really doesn't tell partner too much.

I don't know if he had any 2 or 3 honor examples... I'll go flip through that book again.

[Cascade]

I have been experimenting with splitting with the highest when you have an even number of cards in the suit and the lowest with an odd number of cards. This has the affect of giving partner count.

One disadvantage is that declarer might get your count before partner.

[cnszsun]

goobers, on Aug 15 2007, 07:50 AM, said:

I believe Kantar also endorses splitting with highest.  If my memory serves me correctly, his example was declarer leading through your QJT9, and stating that playing the 9 really doesn't tell partner too much.

I don't know if he had any 2 or 3 honor examples... I'll go flip through that book again.

Yes, Kantar's book 'Morden Bridge Defence' has clear definition.
For example, dummy has no honour cards and lead a small one,
On 2nd seat, you will play
K from AK or KQ
Q from QJ10 or QJ
J from J... or KQJ(x)
10 from 10... or AJ10(x) or KJ10(x)
9 from A109(x) or K109(x) or Q109(x)

Play Jack from both J109 and KQJ because partner could tell it easily.