[Hanoi5]

---

South opens 1NT. West leads the ♥K which asks for count. East plays the 8. ♥Q, East's 3. West switches and they take 9 tricks.

Usually there's a lead to ask for count and another for attitude. Is count the right one to ask for here? Should the signal change when there's a singleton on the table? Is this too basic?

[WellSpyder]

These situations always feel like they should be easy, but I have seen them go wrong too often at the table to assume they are too basic to worry about.

My approach against NT is to combine the count ask with a request to partner to unblock an honour if he has one. What sort of holding would you have to want to ask for count rather than attitude? Presumably a strong holding. So it is likely to be even more useful to know that partner holds the missing honour than the count. So partner only actually gives count on a K lead when not holding an honour.

On this hand this means the K would be overtaken with the A. It is perhaps slightly less clear what to lead back (original 4th highest would be normal for me, but holding a second honour do you want to lead 10 back to show partner that card, too? Certainly with an original holding of 4, playing A followed by 10 looks the most helpful). In this case it shouldn't matter which one you return.

[lowerline]

King Count Ace Attitude usually implies King Count or unblock against NT. That means West has lead from a strong holding and East can overtake with the ace and continue the suit. West will not know the count, but he doesn't need to. After he cashes the queen he will know if there are 5 or only 4 tricks in the suit.

Steven

[Hanoi5]

Really? What about:

2
KQJ9 - AT873
654

[EricK]

These can be difficult. One thing to add is that from a suit headed by KQJx, it is better to follow up with the J rather than the Q. You might, after all, also lead the K from KQx. You don't want partner overtaking the Q in the latter scenario. If the lead is from KQJ tripleton, you can follow up with the Q and then the J on the third round, and partner knows to overtake at that point.

[MrAce]

Hanoi5, on 2013-December-18, 07:27, said:

Really? What about:

2
KQJ9 - AT873
654

This is exceptional. Read one of Justin's posts in the past (i can't find it now) . He gave very similar hand and commented something like " It is best not to make your strong lead from this holding incase pd may have Txxxx or Axxxx, which you don't want him to unblock"


I think the hand he gave was KQJT or KQJ9, not sure. Simply what Steven said is correct and if you are playing "Unblock or give count " in that specific order, you should be aware of the danger that you may actually be the one who needs to unblock.


There is also another phrase for defense players that says " Both defenders do not unblock" which means, if you start with K and then continue with Q it means you are willing to unblock and asking pd to hold, as oppose to leading K and then leading J or T means you want your pd to unblock. None of those work perfect and we can construct hands which can screw your agreements, use your logic in those cases and try to find your way out of it . Practicing a lot of combinations with your pd helps a lot for avoiding disasters most of the time.

[gnasher]

Why did West switch?

[CSGibson]

As said previously, leads that ask for count also ask for unblock, usually unblock being the highest priority.

East should have dropped the ♥T on the first round; after all, what is he holding onto it for? He can look at his holding, combined with the count-requesting card led by West, and figure out that his partner is going to have a problem if he doesn't drop the T.

To be 100% safe, he should overtake - after all, leading the count/unblock card should usually imply a 5+ card suit unless its a holding like KQT9, which we know it isn't because we have the T.