[straube]

Partner leads to my KQJ and the ace is behind me. I've always played the J so as not to deny this holding but I see a lot of good players play the Q. I assume it's so that the J denies the K but not the Q whereas the Q give partner hope that I might have the K. Is it then standard to play the Q? Does this apply for both suit and notrump contracts?

[MrAce]

Either those players aren't as good as you think or there is more to the position and overall hand. Could be deceptive play.

Matter of the fact is when play Q they simply deny the J and pd will continue defending thinking that declarer has it. Which is pretty good way of screwing pd unless one believes pd's actions do not matter anymore and trying to decept declarer.

[straube]

Thanks. But the question really is whether (especially for suit play) this would be a better agreement than standard. If I get off to a lead and partner plays the jack and then I get on lead a second time, I would know whether to look elsewhere for strength because declarer would be marked with the king as well. OTOH, if partner played the Q initially, I could still hold out hope that he had the king and if I played that suit again, partner could then win with the Jack revealing KQJ initial holding. I just think that when partner plays the jack initially and declarer wins the ace that the odds often favor partner having either just the J or the QJ as opposed to KQJ.

The players I've seen do this are good, but as you say, they might just have been trying to deceive declarerl.

[1eyedjack]

I don't know of any who play Q from KQJ, except where perhaps they judge that confusing declarer is, on the particular hand, likely to be more profitable than giving honest information to partner.

What some DO play, is the King from this holding (and in general the top of three touching cards, bottom from 2). The theory being that much of the time partner can work out your honour holding, from the context. Or if he cannot be certain, he can make some necessary assumptions which if not accurate may not be costly.

In other words, if you always play J from QJ and also from KQJ, the distinction between those two holdings is sufficiently slight that partner may not be able reliably to deduce the location of the King when declarer wins the Ace. However, if you play the King then partner knows that either you do not have the Q or that you have both the QJ, and partner has a (slightly) better chance of working out which.

[inquiry]

When partner leads the suit, I play J from KQJ almost exclusively. There are times when I play the King. That is when I want partner to switch when he gets in or as a desperate hope it conveys some other message (which usually it doesn't) or to give declarer a false read on my hand.

However, if declarer leads a suit and I am second to play, I play J from QJ if I am playing high and I play K from KQJ for the reasons 1eye stated about on plays by partner. I do, however, more often hide the Ten from QJT or KQJT. Don't remember why I started doing that, but have done it for random reasons for years.

[rogerclee]

I would say I usually play the jack in this spot and it's been awhile since I've had a good reason to play the Q, but it's come up before for sure.

[PhilKing]

inquiry, on 2014-May-25, 13:11, said:

I do, however, more often hide the Ten from QJT or KQJT. Don't remember why I started doing that ...

Say it's 3NT and dummy has two. The reason for playing the jack from QJT is to cater for partner holding A9xxx. Declarer wins the king and partner gets in without us being able to Smith. From partner's POV, continuing low can't cost, since declarer either has KQT or KTx. Had we played the ten, partner has the losing option of playing us for JTx and an entry.

[1eyedjack]

rogerclee, on 2014-May-25, 13:23, said:

I would say I usually play the jack in this spot and it's been awhile since I've had a good reason to play the Q, but it's come up before for sure.

Can you give us a for instance? I believe you, but it is of interest. The Q, I mean.