[whereagles]

Rubens original argument for Rusinow leads (vs suit contracts) was that it's important to distinguish an unsupported ace lead (leads the A) from a AK holding (leads the K). But then people realized unsupported ace leads are so rare that the issue seldom arises, so the argument for Rusinow faded.

[FrancesHinden]

In one partnership I play a slightly odd system of leads against NT that I think my partner got from Rubens book, I don't know - he called them 'modified blue club honour leads'. I like most of them:

- Ace asks for attitude, often a punt from AKxx or AKx (may be AKxxx with an outside entry)

- King asks for unblock or count

- Queen asks for attitude and is usually a strong holding, inviting partner to unblock with the king, Jack or 10 (though not with the ace)

- Jack is from J10(9/8) or from a weak QJ holding (e.g. QJx(x)), partner not invited to unblock. This allows you to lead an honour from QJxx(x) into a strong NT/2NT opening on your right without partner wasting honours

- 10 is strong, from an interior sequence (AJ10, A109 etc). This is actually the bit I am most dubious about the merits of, but we continue playing that way.

- 9 promises the 10 (or shortage)

- lower cards attitude (as in Rubens' book).

The case for attitude vs 4th (or some other count) leads is definitely unproven either way. I've had some gains from attitude leads, usually from declarer not knowing the count, and some losses from partner not knowing the count. As I play 4th highest in my other regular partnership I've had a lot of years of experience with both and I am marginally in favour of attitude leads but not so much I'm trying to persuade the other partner to chance.

[jvage]

Here is a simple illustration of the point I made in the above post. Probably the simplest example is in a suit-contract where you need 2 tricks and no losers (or you may have an alternative source of tricks, but need to decide at trick one) from this unbid side-suit:
AQJx
x

If LHO leads the 2 everyone would play this correctly if the lead was attitude, while it may be a 50/50 choice if the lead is 3/5.

The "opposite" problem is less frequent, where partner leads the 2 (could be from both xx2 or QT2), Dummy holds a singleton and you have to decide wether to insert the K from Kxxxx. You will often have some hints from the bidding and Dummy, both to declarers holding, what holding partner is more likely to lead from and if the first (or the second or third) discard declarer will get from the suit will be critical.

John

[ArtK78]

whereagles, on Nov 14 2007, 10:45 AM, said:

Rubens original argument for Rusinow leads (vs suit contracts) was that it's important to distinguish an unsupported ace lead (leads the A) from a AK holding (leads the K). But then people realized unsupported ace leads are so rare that the issue seldom arises, so the argument for Rusinow faded.

I find this to be absurd on its face. Unsupported Ace leads are not that rare. And, even if they were, it still pays to be able to differentiate between an unsupported Ace lead and a lead from AK.

Rusinow leads allows you to do this at essentially no cost.

[whereagles]

ArtK78, on Nov 15 2007, 02:37 PM, said:

1. Unsupported Ace leads are not that rare. And, even if they were, it still pays to be able to differentiate between an unsupported Ace lead and a lead from AK.

2. Rusinow leads allows you to do this at essentially no cost.

1. When was the last time you made one? I can't remember.

2. There are costs to Rusinow. They're discussed in the book.

[ArtK78]

I make unsupported Ace leads frequently, especially at matchpoints.

Most of the thought process in making an opening lead is to determine which suit is the correct suit to lead. Then you determine which card is the right card to lead. If you have Axx(xx) in the suit and it is a suit contract, the choice is obvious (an underlead is possible in rare cases, but I am ignoring that possibility).

[whereagles]

ArtK78, on Nov 15 2007, 06:15 PM, said:

I make unsupported Ace leads frequently, especially at matchpoints.

Good luck with it. That has been shown by Emile Borel to blow a trick 5% of the time. (10% for an underlead, if you're interested.)

[ArtK78]

whereagles, on Nov 15 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 15 2007, 06:15 PM, said:

I make unsupported Ace leads frequently, especially at matchpoints.

Good luck with it. That has been shown by Emile Borel to blow a trick 5% of the time. (10% for an underlead, if you're interested.)

And they gain a trick how often?

At matchpoints, frequency is all that matters. Assuming that the lead of an unsupported Ace gains more often than it loses, it is the right thing to do.

This assumes, of course, that one has decided that leading the unsupported Ace is right on the hand to begin with. I don't just look around for an unsupported Ace and lead it.

In any event, that is really not the issue. The issue is that when one is playing Rusinow leads the lead of an Ace denies the King (exception - AK tight) and the lead of the King promises the Ace (exception - K singleton or doubleton). So, assuming that one does lead an unsupported Ace on occasion, it is nice to know that partner will know that you do not have the King.

[whereagles]

Look, I'm not going to argue anymore. Rusinow/standard has been debated to death and I'm not going to spank the dead horse.

[jdonn]

whereagles, on Nov 15 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 15 2007, 06:15 PM, said:

I make unsupported Ace leads frequently, especially at matchpoints.

Good luck with it. That has been shown by Emile Borel to blow a trick 5% of the time. (10% for an underlead, if you're interested.)

Wow just 5%, that's a lot better than I'm doing now! Guess I should lead more aces.

[skjaeran]

jdonn, on Nov 15 2007, 08:42 PM, said:

whereagles, on Nov 15 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Nov 15 2007, 06:15 PM, said:

I make unsupported Ace leads frequently, especially at matchpoints.

Good luck with it. That has been shown by Emile Borel to blow a trick 5% of the time. (10% for an underlead, if you're interested.)

Wow just 5%, that's a lot better than I'm doing now! Guess I should lead more aces.

ROFLMAO

[ArtK78]

whereagles, on Nov 15 2007, 02:24 PM, said:

Look, I'm not going to argue anymore. Rusinow/standard has been debated to death and I'm not going to spank the dead horse.

And I thought that you brought up the subject! My mistake.

[foo]

As usual, Frances makes excellent sense.

FWIW, my preferred leads are Rusinow leads vs suit contracts and 4th best with an attitude twist (2nd highest from xxx, Hxx, broken HHx, xxxx, or Txxx).

There are leading and signaling systems that I consider theoretically superior to any of the more standard approaches, but they all have downsides in terms of ATT complexity or illegality or both.

[lowerline]

FrancesHinden, on Nov 14 2007, 10:58 AM, said:

In one partnership I play a slightly odd system of leads against NT that I think my partner got from Rubens book, I don't know - he called them 'modified blue club honour leads'. I like most of them:

- Ace asks for attitude, often a punt from AKxx or AKx (may be AKxxx with an outside entry)

- King asks for unblock or count

- Queen asks for attitude and is usually a strong holding, inviting partner to unblock with the king, Jack or 10 (though not with the ace)

- Jack is from J10(9/8) or from a weak QJ holding (e.g. QJx(x)), partner not invited to unblock. This allows you to lead an honour from QJxx(x) into a strong NT/2NT opening on your right without partner wasting honours

- 10 is strong, from an interior sequence (AJ10, A109 etc). This is actually the bit I am most dubious about the merits of, but we continue playing that way.

- 9 promises the 10 (or shortage)

- lower cards attitude (as in Rubens' book).

The case for attitude vs 4th (or some other count) leads is definitely unproven either way. I've had some gains from attitude leads, usually from declarer not knowing the count, and some losses from partner not knowing the count. As I play 4th highest in my other regular partnership I've had a lot of years of experience with both and I am marginally in favour of attitude leads but not so much I'm trying to persuade the other partner to chance.

So the Q is lead from QJTx and KQTx? If declarer wins the trick with the A, you don't know who has the K. Isn't this a problem?

Steven