[dorisga44]

Hi all,

Whats the best lead vs NT for these suit combinations? and what do you recommend p to do (i.e. attitude/count/unblock)

AQJ10x (+)

AJ10x (+)

AKJx

AKJxx

AK10xx

KQ109x (+)

Much appreciated anybody's input

[mikeh]

The answers will not be quite as straightforward as you were hoping. Btw, I'd suggest posting this in the Intermediate/Advanced forum since most (I'd venture 'all') experts have agreements within their regular partnerships (for example, if leading AKx against notrump, hoping to hit partner's length, with some partners I lead the A and with others the K). Don't take offence at that comment. I see that this is only your second post, and I'd hate for you to feel that I'm criticizing you, such that you stop posting!

AQJ10x(x) normally one leads the Q. If playing Journalist or Rusinow, one leads the J. If one has a fast entry, one might well choose the A (sometimes you pick off a stiff K, and with the fast entry there is no downside).

AJ10x: if there is a real possibility that an opp has a 4 card holding, one might lead low. The 'book lead, if one were to lead this suit against notrump, would probably be the J, but see the comment above about Journalist/Rusinow.

AKJx(x). You had these separate but generally the same considerations apply. If you know that no opp rates to hold 4 cards in the suit, then there's little reason to distinguish them. All good partnerships have an agreement as to which of the A/K ask for attitude and which asks for unblock or count. See my comment above about the fact that I play K for attitude with some partners and A with others. Whichever one you use for attitude, the other asks for the unblock of an honour or, with no honour, count. A for attitude, K for Kount is easier to remember than the other way around, and while there may be theoretical reasons for preferring one over the over, my experience suggests that the edge is minute in practice.

AK10xx. Generally low. However the auction and my other holdings may persuade me to lead high once in a while.

KQ109x(x) the book lead is the Q. Conventionally, leading the Q asks for the unblock of the J or count (the purpose of the count card is that if declarer wins the A on the first round and opening leader gets back on lead, the count may help leader drop the J from declarer's original doubleton J, or by not cashing the K avoid giving declarer a trick with the J were it originally tripleton.

[Zelandakh]

I am guessing you did not play Journalist Leads for a while Mike. The lead of the jack against NT shows the ten but no higher honour. So with AQJTx(x) you either lead the ace (asking for unblock/count) or the queen. Similarly AJTx(x) is a ten lead in Journalist (showing the jack or nine and a higher non-touching honour). Similarly, from KQT9x(x), the Journalist Lead is the queen, which has the convention attached to it that you mentioned - partner should unblock the jack if they have it and if not give attitude.

Here's a summary of 3 common styles (S)tandard; ®usinow; (J)ournalist (NB: I do not play Rusinow so some of those might be off):-

AQJTx(x): S: A (unb/ct) or Q (shJ); R: A or J (shQ); J: A (unb/ct) or Q (unbJ/att)
AJTx(x): S: J (shT); R; T (shJ); J: T (shJ or 9)
AKJx(x): S: K (shA or Q); R: A; J: K (shA or Q)
AKTxx: S: 4th highest (K also possible); R; std spot (A also possible); J: lowest (attitude lead) (K also possible)
KQT9x(x): S: K (shQ); R: Q (shK); J: Q (unbJ/att)

As for what is best, that is difficult to say. Various variants of Rusinow are most popular right now so it would be difficult to argue that it is weaker than the alternatives. At intermediate level I still think Journalist Leads are good, since the primary disadvantages are lessened here and it makes it easier for partner to know what to do. The difference is probably quite small at the end of the day, providing you and partner are on the same wavelength.

[mikeh]

Zelandakh, on 2013-June-26, 08:29, said:

I am guessing you did not play Journalist Leads for a while Mike.

You're right!

It clicked with me yesterday that journalist was J denies, 10 = zero or two higher', but the thread seemed dead so I didn't bother.

I played journalist briefly. I think it was in At The Table, Hamman's book (written with Manley, I think) in which Hamman described this as one of the worst gadgets he'd seen: when LHO leads the J, it places the K so you are never tempted to play the Q from dummy, with Qx(x) in dummy and the A in your hand.

I hadn't played it much before then, but I stopped immediately

[Zelandakh]

Still wrong! The ten shows the jack or the nine and a higher non-touching honour Interior sequence). That could be AJT (2 higher) or AT9 (1 higher) but never T9 (0 higher). The lead from a suit headed by T9 is the nine and from JT the jack.

Of course Hamman is right, the J/T/9 lead structure does give declarer a great deal of useful information. It is not as bad as coded though and there is a genuine benefit too - if partner leads the ten and you hold a high honour, you overtake and lead through declarer. If partner leads the jack you do not overtake. This is why the method is good for intermediates - experts will probably make the right play here anyway. And the big disadvantage that Hamman points to is also minimised at this level. In other words, it favours the pair who think a little more about the hand. Since I am playing the method at club level at the moment, I can promise you that up to now that has 100% been us!

[blackshoe]

I may have to reread the Journalist Leads book now. I remember it discussing perceived problems with the system, and rebutting them, but I don't remember any discussion of major problems with the JT9 leads, or any mention of Hamman (in fact I don't remember any mention of any expert by name, so that doesn't mean much). Also the book spans some two decades, iirc, between the original articles and the rebuttals, so the latter were written after some experience with the system by both proponents and nay-sayers. I also remember that it specifically deprecated Rusinow Leads vs NT and gave the reasoning behind it, though it seems some experts today do play that. Note: I'm not saying Journalist Leads are "all that and a bag of chips" as a friend of mine likes to express it, but only that the reasoning behind the system was explained, made sense to me when I read it, and the authors seemed to deal with the criticisms well. Also, I have to say I've never played Journalist — I'm still trying to understand the nuances of Standard leads!

[FM75]

David Bird and Taf Anthias recently wrote a book on opening leads against NT. Synopsis:

• The auction matters.
• The suit held matters.
• Form of scoring sometimes matters.
• Few of the sequences were considered in the book.
• A passive lead may often be correct (i.e. none of the cards).

I leave it to others to decide whether the authors are experts, but they took a "scientific approach" to arriving at their answers.

I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert, or even advanced.

[awm]

There are also situations where a length lead (i.e. 4th best) helps declarer figure out how many rounds to hold up, or where an attitude lead helps declarer play the suit lead. Yet I don't see anyone seriously recommending random spot card leads. Methods like journalist and coded 9/T are much the same -- there are layouts where the lead agreement helps declarer but also many layouts where it helps partner. To make a convincing case for/against the method it's not sufficient to give one example where it helped declarer more than partner.

[dake50]

Have a look at Marvin French's discussion, Marvin vs. Journalist.
alldefense.pdf has his scheme with pretty good why's/wherefor's.

[akhare]

dake50, on 2013-June-28, 00:03, said:

Have a look at Marvin French's discussion, Marvin vs. Journalist.
alldefense.pdf has his scheme with pretty good why's/wherefor's.

Link please (unless it's pay to use material).

Edit -- link below:

http://www.marvinfre.../alldefense.pdf

[jogs]

Are you American? Lead the one printed in BOLD print on your convention card.

[JLOGIC]

awm, on 2013-June-27, 15:37, said:

There are also situations where a length lead (i.e. 4th best) helps declarer figure out how many rounds to hold up, or where an attitude lead helps declarer play the suit lead. Yet I don't see anyone seriously recommending random spot card leads.

This is exactly why many people suggest attitude to 4th best though.

[dake50]

Link please (unless it's pay to use material).
Edit -- link below:
http://www.marvinfre.../alldefense.pdf

*** Yes of course, I have my own edited and annotted copy.
Did not think to post a link, I shall now on.

[Zelandakh]

dake50, on 2013-June-28, 00:03, said:

Have a look at Marvin French's discussion, Marvin vs. Journalist.

I took a look and could not see any connection with the current discussion. His argument only applies to Journalist Leads against suit contracts (Rusinow). In fact, his "mixed" suit leads have similar pros and cons to Journalist against NT. He does not seem to mention the major downside of the extra information that is often imparted to declarer.

[benlessard]

Agree with Marvin leads

Marvin leads is almost exactly what I play and I STRONGLY recommend it. Its fairly simple and straightforward.

A = Attitude from AKx,AKxx or Axx

K= Strong = ask for unblocK ou Kount

Q = Married, from KQx never strong you have to be careful if you unblock.

J= Bisexual from QJ or JT never strong

T= Strong from AT98, KJT9,Qt98, QJT8 (Strong holding where you cannot lead the K edited)

9= from T9 or HT9 not so strong

From AQJ9xx or AQJT9 you can also lead the Q and when the king appear partner will know its a great suit.