Re: Why lead K from AKx and KQx?
- From: Verne Smith <smitty123@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 12:44:05 -0400
On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:18:18 -0400, Stig Holmquist
<stigfjorden@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The other day my partner made an opening lead with K
in a suit he had bid at the 4 level. I was void and used a
trump to take the trick since I did not know if he also
had the A., which he did.
Why is this lead standard with ACBL. How does one
know the difference between AKX and KQx?
Stig Holmquist
It used to be standard to lead king from either KQ+ or AK+ against
a suit contract, in fact it was listed that way on an ACBL score
card I received yesterday! I think this is a serious flaw.
1) When you ruffed partner's King, from partners opening lead of
a King from AK+, you found one flaw.
2) If partner leads the king of clubs against 4 spades with
uninformative bidding, dummy has 3 low clubs, you have Jxx of
clubs and no strong desire for any shift, do you encourage partner
to continue clubs? If partner has KQxx of clubs and continues,
your jack is set up as a potential winner. However, he has AKxx
and continues, that sets up declarer's queen as a winner, probably
the only way he could win it.
3) Same bidding and lead, dummy has 3 small, you have a doubleton
and would like to ruff the third round if it partner has AKxx.
But if partner lead was from KQxx(+), declarer will duck the first
round holding AJx(+).
Many players have switched to Ace from AK+ which reduces the times
of leading unsupported ace, which frequently causes a bad result.
However, if you agree to Ace from AK+, do you always guarantee the
King even if the bidding suggests leading an unsupported ace --
At matchpoints, if the opponents bidding is:
1 C - 1 S -
3 S - 4 H -
4 S - P* -
* = hesitation
What was he thinking about? What he was going to have for dinner
or should he try for slam?
What is your lead from:
S x x
H x x x
D A x x x
C Q x x x
You have flat distribution, so declarer isn't going to run into
bad splits and his finesses are going to work. Partner could have
the diamond king and if you don't cash your ace and king at tricks
one and two, declarer might be able to pitch his losers on a side
suit.
If your agreement is A from AK+, and you lead the Ace from the
above hand, does partner's encouraging signal mean that he has
something useful in that suit or that he thinks you have the king
and wants you to cash it next? If he knew you did not have the
king, perhaps a negative card might encourage a useful shift.
Also, match points, Vul vs not; if your right hand opponent, known
to be frisky at favorable vul, deals and opens three spades and
left hand opponent raises to four. All pass and you have the same
hand as above?
One solution is Rusinow leads. I don't know why they are not more
popular. I like them against suit contracts. The opening lead of
K, Q, J, T, or 9 shows the next higher honor or shortness
(singleton or doubleton) so when you lead from a sequence of
honors, partner always know which top two honors you hold. They
do not apply when you lead partner's suit. The lead of an ace
denies the king unless AK doubleton.
Of course if you lead a Q from Qx and partner ducks with the ace
you might loose to a singleton King!
Regards,
Verne (VL on OKB)
.
- References:
- Why lead K from AKx and KQx?
- From: Stig Holmquist
- Why lead K from AKx and KQx?
- Prev by Date: Re: Is it unethical?
- Next by Date: If it's a splinter then how do I...
- Previous by thread: Re: Why lead K from AKx and KQx?
- Next by thread: Re: Why lead K from AKx and KQx?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
