[enigmisto]

Currently, all my partners play upside-down attitude signals, standard count signals, based on the reasoning that upside-down attitude conveys a small statistical advantage, whereas upside-down count does not.

I like this scheme well enough, but I haven't found any books or practice resources for defense that use this particular combination, so there are some situations that I continue to wonder about.

My biggest problem is when my partner leads an Ace against a suit contract and I'm holding a doubleton, say Jx.
If partner is holding AKx, I want to encourage them to follow with their King and then play the x so I can ruff.
If partner is holding Ax and played the Ace with the hope that I had the King and we could score a couple quick tricks, I want to discourage them from leading that suit again.
So do I play low or high?

Compounding the confusion, if I'm holding Qxx, I would signal encouragement with my lowest card, but there are several scenarios where it would be better for them to lead low on the second trick, so it's unclear whether an encouraging signal means "keep playing from the top" or "lead low because I can take the next trick".

I would like to get everyone's thoughts about the best way to handle these sorts of situations.

[DavidKok]

In my experience most players have a favourite set of leads and signals, and the differences between the popular methods are really small.
In your example it matters what your lead is from ace-king. In general leading an unsupported ace is bad and you should play your partner for ace-king on this lead, unless you have agreements to the contrary.

[helene_t]

There is a Norwegian book by Helge Vinje, https://nbfoslo.no/v...ll_i_bridge.pdf which describes (among other things) this system which is standard in Norway. I don't know if that particular book is available in English but maybe other books by Vinje would be useful.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

playing an honor card is not a neg. signal, reagardless the fact, that you either play high or
low to encourage,i.e. if your p leads the Ace, and you have Jx,
playing the jack is not a neg. signal, it is either a single, or denies the Queen, and promises
the 10.

If partner plays the unsupported Ace, and you have Jx, he will have a clear understanding how the
suit is distributed due to the bidding, he wanted to have a look at dummy to decide further action,
assuming the Ace did hold, he got his peek, now seeing dummy, he should make his move.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mycroft]

I've played UD attitude, RU count in several partnerships over the years. This is the question I was asked more than once: "so when they lead the A/K and you have a doubleton, what do you play?" Because the correct attitude is different from the correct count. "I play Attitude, that's what partner asked for." I don't see why it matters that the signal I'm not giving doesn't match the card I've played. I'm sure there is a reason, and it's probably a good reason. But it didn't matter for my partnerships, because we didn't read it as a dual signal.

As I frequently say, "an inferior system both players understand and play is better than a superior system someone forgets or doesn't completely understand".

As for "what if partner played the A from A-empty (Ax or "see the board" or...)?" Either it happens often enough that partner plays for it (as many do at the 5-level and above, hence "A=Attitude, K=Kount"), or the person who chose to step out knows that partner's signal will be assuming they have the King as well and read it that way. Oddly enough, signalling isn't an exact science, and defence is hard.

And yes, "Jx" I'm playing the x almost always. I would expect partner to read the J either as "I have J or JT(x+)" or "alarm clock - do something I *can't* signal" (depending on one's agreements), not as "high=discouraging".

[TMorris]

Playing this style I would play the J from Jx to show a doubleton so I find it interesting that others play the opposite. J10x is the dire combination playing this style. with Qx I play low to encourage assuming partner has AK for her lead in both cases.

[johnu]

enigmisto, on 2023-July-25, 03:52, said:

My biggest problem is when my partner leads an Ace against a suit contract and I'm holding a doubleton, say Jx.
If partner is holding AKx, I want to encourage them to follow with their King and then play the x so I can ruff.
If partner is holding Ax and played the Ace with the hope that I had the King and we could score a couple quick tricks, I want to discourage them from leading that suit again.
So do I play low or high?

I don't have any specific statistics, and it probably depends a lot on the bidding, but if play Ace from AK, the leads of the ace are much more like to be from AK.

One way around not knowing the ace lead is to play Rusinow/Journalist leads where you lead the lower of touching honors, so lead king from AK, and then ace leads are always from unsupported aces, with the exception of AK doubleton.

enigmisto, on 2023-July-25, 03:52, said:

Compounding the confusion, if I'm holding Qxx, I would signal encouragement with my lowest card, but there are several scenarios where it would be better for them to lead low on the second trick, so it's unclear whether an encouraging signal means "keep playing from the top" or "lead low because I can take the next trick".

Another situation where you probably want to discourage if partner is leading an unsupported ace, and encourage otherwise, obviously depending on bidding and dummy. Unless you have shown or implied length in the suit, leader will probably assume you are likely to have shortness, not the queen.

[steve2005]

If you lead K from AKx you can tell when partner has led an unsupported Ace. Or AK doubleton

[johnu]

steve2005, on 2023-July-25, 17:01, said:

If you lead K from AKx you can tell when partner has led an unsupported Ace. Or AK doubleton

If you don't play Rusinow then you also lead king from KQ. There are many situations where you want to encourage if the lead is AK, and discourage if the lead is KQ.

[mycroft]

The Granovetters in one of their books had the dictum: "come-on means cash". They even said there's no benefit one way or the other to the decision; it's just important to not have that ambiguity. Sure and it means that you don't have a signal to say "underlead your other honour"; but it does mean that when you do encourage, partner doesn't guess wrong.

I would stick with my original argument; absent things like Rusinow (which has its own ambiguities, albeit lower down in the order), if you lead A from AK, then that's what partner should assume you've done unless it's obvious. The situations where it's right to lead a bare ace are few and should be well known; the other 95% of A leads have the K.

[jdiana]

"The situations where it's right to lead a bare ace are few and should be well known."

While I think this is true for experienced players, my suggestion (if you're playing with regular partners) would be to specify the situations in which you might lead an unsupported ace and agree on what partner should do in those cases, rather than assuming you all will know them when you see them. The ones I know of are leads: (1) against a suit contract at the 5 level or higher, (2) when declarer is playing in a suit in which he preempted, and (3) in a suit partner has bid or shown. (For (2), I think some people would apply this to all preempts including a weak two bid, while others might say it applies only to 3-level preempts and higher.)

In each case, I think you would be asking for attitude specifically for the king. Leading the king in any of these situations asks for count.

In all other cases, leading an ace is assumed to be from AKx+.

[Stephen Tu]

I would add another case: from trick 2 onwards. I've run in to far too many players, who learned in the A from AKx on opening lead era, who think it's normal to also lead A from AKx in the middle of the hand.

[akwoo]

jdiana, on 2023-July-26, 10:17, said:

"The situations where it's right to lead a bare ace are few and should be well known."

While I think this is true for experienced players, my suggestion (if you're playing with regular partners) would be to specify the situations in which you might lead an unsupported ace and agree on what partner should do in those cases

No - if this is a concern, you should be agreeing to lead K from AK.

[jdiana]

akwoo, on 2023-July-26, 15:53, said:

No - if this is a concern, you should be agreeing to lead K from AK.

I don't really understand this argument. These are carding agreements that need to be disclosed on our convention cards, at least in ACBL games. https://web2.acbl.or...m/CW_Part14.pdf

[bluenikki]

enigmisto, on 2023-July-25, 03:52, said:

Currently, all my partners play upside-down attitude signals, standard count signals, based on the reasoning that upside-down attitude conveys a small statistical advantage, whereas upside-down count does not.

Upside-down count forces you to false-card too often. You hold K932 in a side suit, which partner leads. Dummy wins the ace. You encourage. Later, you have to follow in this suit; for example when partner wins the queen. You are supposed to give present count. But giving true upside-down count by playing the 9 may cost a trick.

(Of course, if you're playing standard count to partner's opening lead, you also have to false-card with Qx.)

[bluenikki]

mycroft, on 2023-July-26, 09:01, said:

The Granovetters in one of their books had the dictum: "come-on means cash". They even said there's no benefit one way or the other to the decision; it's just important to not have that ambiguity. Sure and it means that you don't have a signal to say "underlead your other honour"; but it does mean that when you do encourage, partner doesn't guess wrong.

Surely you have to make an exception when dummy has the well-guarded jack? Actually, that case badly needs upside-down attitude.

[mycroft]

It's not in the book I thought it was (quick look), so it's in their "Obvious Switch" book. Which I don't own. So I don't know. But I bet that in a 100 page book, there might be a couple of exceptions...

Having said that, again, it's better to have an agreement both pairs play and remember than a superior agreement one member of the pair might forget.

[bluenikki]

mycroft, on 2023-July-27, 09:17, said:

It's not in the book I thought it was (quick look), so it's in their "Obvious Switch" book. Which I don't own. So I don't know. But I bet that in a 100 page book, there might be a couple of exceptions...

Having said that, again, it's better to have an agreement both pairs play and remember than a superior agreement one member of the pair might forget.

Meta-agreement: never signal away the setting trick.

[mycroft]

Fun example, if people are interested in a "when an unsupported Ace might be expected" view, this from Nyström-Upmark 2015 CC (hmm, wonder why I went looking for that):

Quote

More about our leads
4.1 In Cash-Out situations we lead K from AK and KQ. They are the following:

• Against NT: 3NT gambling, 3X-3N and similar situations such as one have shown a long solid suit in the bidding.
  Here K asks for attitude for Q (we may have a problem if leading from KQ since we can’t signal positive for the J). A for attitude for the K.
  
• Against Suit:
  
  • 3X preemptor or higher
    
  • Declarer has shown 10+cards in 2 suits
    
  • Always on 5+level contracts.
  Here we give attitude for the K if we lead the A and count if we lead the K.

Looks like a decent "first cut" to steal start from.

[johnu]

bluenikki, on 2023-July-27, 10:18, said:

Meta-agreement: never signal away the setting trick.

AKA Throw losers, keep winners.