A leading question

The problem of which card to lead from a sequence or near-sequence of honors has been with us since the early days of whist. "Standard" leads are the top of any sequence, except that from AK, the K is led. At first glance, this may seem inconsistent but of course there was a good reason, historically speaking. In whist, there was always a trump suit so, typically, only one or two rounds of a suit would be cashing (it's unusual in a suit contract that you happen on the lead of a suit where all follow to three rounds). So, therefore, it was important--if you held the lead--that you don't give up a trick on the second round in case there was a useful third round. That's why the "come on" signal was developed to help you know whether to continue or to switch.

Originally, this was called a "peter" after "Blue Peter," the flag that told sailors in port that their ship was about to set sail. Failure to heed the Blue Peter would result in a charge of desertion. Not good. At bridge (or whist) the consequences might be expensive but you wouldn't (normally) lose your life over it. These days, in North America, we call it an echo or, less poetically, an attitude signal.

A minor diversion on a subject I think I've addressed here before: sequences. Bridge (the play) and whist are, to a large extent, a game of sequences and position. If you are the last to play to a trick, you have the luxury of being able to cover whatever is the highest card (assuming you have such a card). You don't have to worry too much about it. But if you are one of the early position players, especially leader and third-hand, you want to try and make the best use of your sequences if you have any. You don't normally lead unsupported honors, at least not unless you have good reason to think your partner might have a touching honor (thus giving our side a sequence).

This is why defense is so much harder than declarer play. Defenders cannot directly see where they might, between them, have a sequence. A suit might be distributed KJ53 opposite AQ42. If declarer has that suit, he knows for sure that there are four tricks to be had, however he plays it. But if the defenders have that suit, each partner may be reluctant to lead the suit for fear of giving away a trick. Just last week I gained two overtricks in a suit contract because my LHO was twice reluctant to lead from KJTx (his partner having AQxxx).

Returning to opening leads: if the K is led, partner knows, holding the A, that he always wants to encourage a continuation because the K promises the Q (or perhaps Kx). This guards against the so-called Bath coup (a whist term) where fourth hand has AJx of the suit and holds off the first trick. But what if opening leader's partner holds the J but not the A? If partner led K from KQ, then the card will form a sequence with leader's remaining card and, therefore, another lead in the suit is safe. But what if partner holds the AK and declarer has the Q. A continuation would now be unfortunate because the declarer has the Q for the third round. But as mentioned already, the rules were set up to keep us relatively safe for just two rounds of any suit. Recall that in whist, there is no declarer. The hand playing last to the opening lead may not have sufficient high cards ever to draw trumps and cash that queen.

The problem with this cozy little scheme is that, in bridge, we do have a declarer. That player, fourth to play on the opening lead, likely does have sufficient high cards and/or trumps to eventually make use of that queen on the third round of a suit.

So, various schemes over the years have tried to clarify opening lead sequences. One rather complex scheme was developed by Norwegian Helge Vinje and was later reported by the Bridge Journal in 1964. Such leads became known as "Journalist" leads. They tend to be more popular as leads against notrump contracts, although Vinje actually described two somewhat different schemes for trump and notrump contracts. There is much to be said for these lead conventions, but they are too complex for most casual partnerships.

A very common revision of "standard" leads is always to lead the highest of any sequence, even ace from AK. One problem of course is that when you want to lead an ace, you don't always have the king and partner may well go wrong (this is more typically true of higher-level contracts). It's common, especially in Europe, to agree that against suit contracts at the five-level or above, ace still asks for attitude (but now it's only the king that is good) and the king asks for count. There's also a perhaps minor problem that has to do with UI (unauthorized information) when you agree to play ace from AK. How long does it take you to select a lead from a hand with an AK combination in a side suit? About half a second. So, when you quickly lead an ace, your partner knows that you have the king to back it up. But when you think for thirty seconds and then lead an ace, partner knows that you don't have the king. He's not authorized to know this and so must go out of his way to avoid taking advantage of such information. Is this really a big problem in reality? I don't know. But experts like to avoid giving their partners any kind of problem so that brings us to one more opening lead convention: Rusinow Leads.

Originally banned by the ACBL, they were adopted by Blue Team greats Belladonna and Avarelli and sometimes therefore called "Roman Leads." The principle is simple: you lead the second of touching honors. Typically, it is agreed to play this only against suit contracts and not in partner's suit. When asked about honor leads, the defenders will say "shows the honor above or shortness." Usually, the ten is considered the lowest "honor" for this purpose so that the 9 could be from T9(x) or it could simply be the 9 from 9(x). There will always be a little ambiguity with any such convention but isn't it much better to have the ambiguity over the 9 than over the ace?

It's easy to forget that you're playing Rusinow. We have all done it. Even though I've played Rusinow (or Vinje) leads perhaps more than any other lead convention, I've still forgotten it occasionally, sometimes with disastrous consequences. But, if you are part of a regular partnership that wants to improve, Rusinow leads are a very sensible and simple lead convention.

Incidentally, whether or not you play Rusinow yourself, you should be aware that some people play it. If you are declarer and you need to know the location of a particular high card (that's to say most contracts), you may need to know what their lead conventions are. You can simply ask "leads and carding?" or you can pick up their convention card and look for yourself. You probably shouldn't ask "is that lead standard or Rusinow?" as that tends to give away the fact that you don't have one of the adjacent honors.

The principle of substantive discretionary bids

I mentioned this idea long ago in one of my first blogs in this series (see Every bid tells a story) and maybe it's time to dust it off and give it another airing. For brevity, I prefer to call it the "Principle of Stuff."

It strikes me as simply common sense that if you are making discretionary bids (that's to say a free bid when an opponent was the last to act, especially when it was your right-hand-opponent who last acted) then you should have some substance in your suit. And I will go further. The more you are sticking your neck out, the better your suit will be for the purposes of partner's lead.

Here's an example that came up in a club duplicate. I dealt myself the following hand at favorable vulnerability: ♠AJ ♥T98642 ♦AKQ7 ♣4. Naturally, I opened 1♥ which was followed by 2♣ on my left. Partner passed smoothly, as did RHO and it was back to me. I didn't have to bid again, although with a 14 count and shortness in their suit I think I always would. But technically my second bid was discretionary. So should I repeat the bad six-bagger, or bid diamonds where I actually had some stuff and would welcome a lead if the opponents win the auction with 3♣? Double is also a possibility I suppose but with only two spades and no extras to bid a third time, that seemed unpalatable.

This decision (2♦) helped us to a 75% board and I later mentioned to my partner that I had chosen to bid diamonds at my second turn at least partly for lead-directing purposes. He was a little surprised, saying that if he'd ended up on lead, he would have certainly led a heart. So much for this idea being "common sense."

When you are bidding in a constructive (non-competitive) auction, your choice of bids is largely dictated by your system and the relative lengths of your suits. With two five-card suits, for example, you will open the higher ranking and at your next turn bid the lower ranking. There's no way for partner to infer which might be the stronger suit. But this is because you believe that it's your hand and that you are simply trying to determine what strain and what level to play in.

If, instead, you make an overcall you are putting yourself in some danger. Partner may have no fit and no high cards. You should have some good stuff in your suit. What if your hand is good enough to make two overcalls without any encouragement from partner? Having survived your first overcall unscathed, you are seriously sticking your neck out the second time. Partner can of course give preference to the first suit if he likes it more, but there may be no escape from a bad result if partner has little support for either suit. It makes sense then that the second suit is likely to be the better suit because if it was weak, you would be unlikely to mention it at all – you haven't been forced to make a second overcall. Perhaps it's only a minor inference but it seems to me to be valid.

Here's a more compelling example from the recent 0-5000 Blue Ribbons...

What's going on here? Partner could have bid 2NT over 2♠ to show both minors, right [well, let's assume so, anyway]. Why is he bidding out his suits like this? He's either a lunatic or he's get a good hand with both minors. Which do you think is his better minor? If he had equal quality in both suits, he might perhaps have bid 2NT. But what we do know for sure is that his clubs must be very good to stick his neck out quite so far (a four-level solo effort, vulnerable).

So, are you tempted to do anything? 5♦? What makes you think we can make 5♦? The spade king might be useful but the hearts are tram tickets. We have no fitting honors in diamonds. Partner might be able to make a four-level contract with a trick or two from our side. But we basically have half a trick unless he has losing clubs to ruff. And if 5♦ might be a sacrifice, why are we doing it red on white?

How about double? Partner has overcalled two suits, so double will not be cooperative. It will be penalty. Do you think they can make 4♠? Each player is limited in values. North seems to have an extra spade. But I see no reason to assume that they can actually make 4♠. Indeed, our singleton is opposite partner's best suit. That sounds like a bit of a misfit. Double is the right call (+300 for about a 90% board) but pass would be acceptable too (70%).

On defense, I think it's rather obvious that we will be leading a club and indeed that is the only lead to achieve down two. Here is the hand record. Possibly, West overbid in the circumstances, but it gave our side the chance for a very good score. Without the club bid, the opponents would most likely be making 140 for about 40%.

So, I think it's worth paying close attention to the way partner bids his suits, especially if there was an alternative method of showing both suits. A dangerous bid should be based on a good suit. Therefore, when my partner freely bids a second suit, I always lead it if there's no clear reason to lead the other, such as a singleton. It seems to work out pretty well most of the time.