Help
I am looking for some words of wisdom to give my son on what to card lead against NT contract, AFTER the opening lead has already been made. As far as the opening lead goes, once the suit has been chosen, he knows which card choose from that suit. For example, he understands that the lead of a ten shows the 9 or J and one higher as per our agreement. But suppose after the opening lead has been made and he gets back in after a trick or two and decides to lead a new suit. Would the lead of a 10 have the same meaning? Maybe it should, unless there is an obvious reason ot shouldn't? As another example, we lead low on the opening lead to encourage an attack on the suit and high to discourage. Should the same hold true when a new suit is broken by either one of us? Lots of books on the opening lead, and I've really not given subsequent leads much thought until I began teaching him bridge 4-5 months ago. I am wondering if there's any generalizations that can be made on the subsequent lead in a new suit defending NT.
Page 1 of 1
another question on leads
#2
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 17,666
- Joined: 2006-April-17
- Gender:Male
- Location:Rochester, NY
Posted 2024-September-11, 09:14
About a third of Journalist Leads is about leads subsequent to the opening lead. However it's been a long time since I read it, and I don't remember what it said. 
You gain information from the cards played to whatever point where you're now leading. Did partner give a suit preference signal? If you won trick one, did he signal positive or negative attitude to the opening lead? What's in the dummy? What do you think declarer's hand looks like? Take your time, think about what you know and what you can infer (you should be doing this all along, even when it's not your turn to play). Then take your best shot. I don't think there are general rules about what you should lead -- it all depends on what you've learned about the hand.
You gain information from the cards played to whatever point where you're now leading. Did partner give a suit preference signal? If you won trick one, did he signal positive or negative attitude to the opening lead? What's in the dummy? What do you think declarer's hand looks like? Take your time, think about what you know and what you can infer (you should be doing this all along, even when it's not your turn to play). Then take your best shot. I don't think there are general rules about what you should lead -- it all depends on what you've learned about the hand.
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
#3
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 10,170
- Joined: 2005-March-18
- Gender:Male
Posted 2024-September-12, 02:34
We play 2/4 lead against NT, but switch to 3/5 after the opening lead, the lead system we employ against suits.
The adv. is, the leads conveys length information, and it is simple. We could also play 3/5 through out, I dont
think it matters a lot.
As always, it is important to know, what you are playing, and to be able to read.
The adv. is, the leads conveys length information, and it is simple. We could also play 3/5 through out, I dont
think it matters a lot.
As always, it is important to know, what you are playing, and to be able to read.
With kind regards
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#4
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 12,972
- Joined: 2005-June-15
- Gender:Male
- Location:Canada
- Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.
Posted 2024-September-12, 11:32
I think attitude spot card switches are normal and best. As for journalist leads (which I think are sub-optimal….the lead of the Jack denying any higher card is enough to prevent me from ever playing them…they do make some sense when you’re deciding upon an opening lead. When you’re leading any honour (or tye 9 from H109x(x), it’s usually because it’s your best suit and you’re hoping to take some length tricks there later. When you’re switching, either you’ve run your length tricks or, more commonly, you’ve given up on your initial suit, so now you’re either going passive or hoping to find partner at home.
Especially leading through declarer with weakness (in the chosen suit) in dummy, attitude can really help partner….often far more Ryan does a length signal. You need partner to know, if he wins your switch, whether he can safely return the suit…if you lead a low card, you promise an honour. If you lead a high spot, you’re suggesting that partner not continue the suit.
There are hands where one lies, the common lie being a high spot despite holding, say, the Ace. One needs to be careful when lying on defence and I only recommend it in two circumstances. One: partner is a very good player and can usually work out, from the bidding and play, that this is a ‘lying’ situation or two: you know that partner has nothing useful outside the switch suit…you’re hoping he scores an honour…and that you can control the defence even if he switches. So you should play an honest attitude signal most of the time.
Honour switches are more complex. For example, if dummy has Kxx and you Qxx, it may be right to lead the queen…if partner has the hoped-for AJx(x) or AJ10x etc declarer can duck n dummy and,unless you have another entry, you can’t run the suit. Similar considerations apply to other honour holdings….and it’s going to be rare that you have a nice honour sequence in a suit you rejected on opening lead. Now, if partner was on lead initially, it’s slightly more attractive to make your journalist leads, but my experience suggests that you’re putting yourself into too rigid a box. Remember, to the extent that journalist is a ok method, it’s in part because you’re lading without the benefit of seeing dummy, seeing partner’s carding and seeing how declarer plays the hand. Later plays occur in a far more information-rich environment and,imo, rules tyat work, more or less, on opening leads, should be ignored in favour of bridge logic.
Especially leading through declarer with weakness (in the chosen suit) in dummy, attitude can really help partner….often far more Ryan does a length signal. You need partner to know, if he wins your switch, whether he can safely return the suit…if you lead a low card, you promise an honour. If you lead a high spot, you’re suggesting that partner not continue the suit.
There are hands where one lies, the common lie being a high spot despite holding, say, the Ace. One needs to be careful when lying on defence and I only recommend it in two circumstances. One: partner is a very good player and can usually work out, from the bidding and play, that this is a ‘lying’ situation or two: you know that partner has nothing useful outside the switch suit…you’re hoping he scores an honour…and that you can control the defence even if he switches. So you should play an honest attitude signal most of the time.
Honour switches are more complex. For example, if dummy has Kxx and you Qxx, it may be right to lead the queen…if partner has the hoped-for AJx(x) or AJ10x etc declarer can duck n dummy and,unless you have another entry, you can’t run the suit. Similar considerations apply to other honour holdings….and it’s going to be rare that you have a nice honour sequence in a suit you rejected on opening lead. Now, if partner was on lead initially, it’s slightly more attractive to make your journalist leads, but my experience suggests that you’re putting yourself into too rigid a box. Remember, to the extent that journalist is a ok method, it’s in part because you’re lading without the benefit of seeing dummy, seeing partner’s carding and seeing how declarer plays the hand. Later plays occur in a far more information-rich environment and,imo, rules tyat work, more or less, on opening leads, should be ignored in favour of bridge logic.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
#5
- Group: Members
- Posts: 45
- Joined: 2024-May-21
Posted 2024-September-12, 13:33
mikeh, on 2024-September-12, 11:32, said:
I think attitude spot card switches are normal and best. As for journalist leads (which I think are sub-optimal….the lead of the Jack denying any higher card is enough to prevent me from ever playing them…they do make some sense when you’re deciding upon an opening lead. When you’re leading any honour (or tye 9 from H109x(x), it’s usually because it’s your best suit and you’re hoping to take some length tricks there later. When you’re switching, either you’ve run your length tricks or, more commonly, you’ve given up on your initial suit, so now you’re either going passive or hoping to find partner at home.
Especially leading through declarer with weakness (in the chosen suit) in dummy, attitude can really help partner….often far more Ryan does a length signal. You need partner to know, if he wins your switch, whether he can safely return the suit…if you lead a low card, you promise an honour. If you lead a high spot, you’re suggesting that partner not continue the suit.
There are hands where one lies, the common lie being a high spot despite holding, say, the Ace. One needs to be careful when lying on defence and I only recommend it in two circumstances. One: partner is a very good player and can usually work out, from the bidding and play, that this is a ‘lying’ situation or two: you know that partner has nothing useful outside the switch suit…you’re hoping he scores an honour…and that you can control the defence even if he switches. So you should play an honest attitude signal most of the time.
Honour switches are more complex. For example, if dummy has Kxx and you Qxx, it may be right to lead the queen…if partner has the hoped-for AJx(x) or AJ10x etc declarer can duck n dummy and,unless you have another entry, you can’t run the suit. Similar considerations apply to other honour holdings….and it’s going to be rare that you have a nice honour sequence in a suit you rejected on opening lead. Now, if partner was on lead initially, it’s slightly more attractive to make your journalist leads, but my experience suggests that you’re putting yourself into too rigid a box. Remember, to the extent that journalist is a ok method, it’s in part because you’re lading without the benefit of seeing dummy, seeing partner’s carding and seeing how declarer plays the hand. Later plays occur in a far more information-rich environment and,imo, rules tyat work, more or less, on opening leads, should be ignored in favour of bridge logic.
Especially leading through declarer with weakness (in the chosen suit) in dummy, attitude can really help partner….often far more Ryan does a length signal. You need partner to know, if he wins your switch, whether he can safely return the suit…if you lead a low card, you promise an honour. If you lead a high spot, you’re suggesting that partner not continue the suit.
There are hands where one lies, the common lie being a high spot despite holding, say, the Ace. One needs to be careful when lying on defence and I only recommend it in two circumstances. One: partner is a very good player and can usually work out, from the bidding and play, that this is a ‘lying’ situation or two: you know that partner has nothing useful outside the switch suit…you’re hoping he scores an honour…and that you can control the defence even if he switches. So you should play an honest attitude signal most of the time.
Honour switches are more complex. For example, if dummy has Kxx and you Qxx, it may be right to lead the queen…if partner has the hoped-for AJx(x) or AJ10x etc declarer can duck n dummy and,unless you have another entry, you can’t run the suit. Similar considerations apply to other honour holdings….and it’s going to be rare that you have a nice honour sequence in a suit you rejected on opening lead. Now, if partner was on lead initially, it’s slightly more attractive to make your journalist leads, but my experience suggests that you’re putting yourself into too rigid a box. Remember, to the extent that journalist is a ok method, it’s in part because you’re lading without the benefit of seeing dummy, seeing partner’s carding and seeing how declarer plays the hand. Later plays occur in a far more information-rich environment and,imo, rules tyat work, more or less, on opening leads, should be ignored in favour of bridge logic.
Thanks all...Pretty much agree with the observations. I've been thinking spot cards being led to break a new suit giving attitude, seem to make some sense but not much more than that can be used systematically.
I've have been breaking the defending lead problem into basically 5 distinct categories: a) Leading against NT contract when not leading partner's suit. b) Leading against suit contract when not leading partners suit. c) leading partners suit, which doesn't seem to matter whether defending against a NT contract or a suit contract d) leads after the opening lead which also are not a function of whether it's a suit or NT contract and finally e) leading trump - basically when to do it and when not to do it. I have different agreements for a)-d) and I appreciate people's patience and feedback to my questions
#6
- Group: Advanced Members
- Posts: 2,430
- Joined: 2020-March-30
- Gender:Male
- Location:Netherlands
Posted 2024-September-12, 13:44
Over here there is a pretty popular set among junior players:
Leads: 1st/3rd/5th against suit contracts, attitude (small promises an honour, high denies one) leads against NT.
Signals: UDCA, signal count first trick against NT by default and attitude against suit, unless the auction or the dummy indicates that suit preference is more important.
Breaking a new suit: attitude through declarer, 1st/3rd/5th through dummy.
Regular Smith/Oddball against NT (high card = encouraging).
Lavinthal in the trump suit.
First discard Lavinthal (though other styles are played here too, this rule sees some variation).
In a recent partnership I played a slightly more complicated version of this, where we'd play regular (instead of upside down) count and attitude on trick one only, combined the 'attitude shift of suit through declarer' with Rusinow, and had some changes of rules depending on which suits we had supported on the auction and the level of the bidding.
Personally I thought it didn't really gain, other than the 'standard trick 1, UDCA tricks 2-12' thing because that confused declarers. I did not like it at all, in no small part because the only meaningful gains I could identify were due to declarer not understanding our agreements due to their complexity. I have a just-so story for you for why each of these rules is better than the converse, but frankly I don't believe them at all. Currently Helene and I play something easier, and so far I have not run into costs from our signaling agreements.
Leads: 1st/3rd/5th against suit contracts, attitude (small promises an honour, high denies one) leads against NT.
Signals: UDCA, signal count first trick against NT by default and attitude against suit, unless the auction or the dummy indicates that suit preference is more important.
Breaking a new suit: attitude through declarer, 1st/3rd/5th through dummy.
Regular Smith/Oddball against NT (high card = encouraging).
Lavinthal in the trump suit.
First discard Lavinthal (though other styles are played here too, this rule sees some variation).
In a recent partnership I played a slightly more complicated version of this, where we'd play regular (instead of upside down) count and attitude on trick one only, combined the 'attitude shift of suit through declarer' with Rusinow, and had some changes of rules depending on which suits we had supported on the auction and the level of the bidding.
Personally I thought it didn't really gain, other than the 'standard trick 1, UDCA tricks 2-12' thing because that confused declarers. I did not like it at all, in no small part because the only meaningful gains I could identify were due to declarer not understanding our agreements due to their complexity. I have a just-so story for you for why each of these rules is better than the converse, but frankly I don't believe them at all. Currently Helene and I play something easier, and so far I have not run into costs from our signaling agreements.
#7
- Group: Full Members
- Posts: 599
- Joined: 2019-October-14
Posted 2024-September-12, 14:10
mikeh, on 2024-September-12, 11:32, said:
As for journalist leads (which I think are sub-optimal….the lead of the Jack denying any higher card is enough to prevent me from ever playing them…
Journalist wrote that, whatever your agreement about the card to lead from an interior sequence, you must frequently violate it.
Page 1 of 1