[perko90]

Me and my partner are an advanced partnership, but we've had some accidents of late that key around the same theme.

When ptr leads A from AK vs a suit contract, how does 3rd hand signal?

FWIW, our agreements are primary signal to ptr's lead is attitude. We also play UDCA.

We've been signaling positive attitude for all of these situations:
- doubleton and want to ruff
- possession of Q
- "might as well cash the 2nd card" fearing that it could go away or no switch can help the defense

The now obvious problem with the above is that the leader doesn't know if it's safe to continue a 3rd rd after an initial encouragement (for ex. fear of ruff 'n sluff)

Some possible modifications:
1) for this special case, a positive signal reflects attitude toward a 3rd round of the suit. Downside: Leader is on his own for whether to cash a 2nd high card; also, signaler can't always be sure when a ruff 'n stuff is threatened
2) For this special case, switch to count. Downside is apparent: Leader can't always be sure the correct continuation
3) Have some sort of hybrid agreement: one for the case where dummy has a doubleton (ruff/sluff considerations) and another for when dummy has 3+ in suit led

I'd really like to hear how others handle this situation. Thanks!

[Zelandakh]

Your count card on the second round should resolve most of the cases. Not all of them of course but there's basically no way of distinguishing, for example, xx from Qxx without going into methods with other drawbacks well beyond most players. Occasionally you need to discourage with a queen to avoid giving partner a tough guess despite it no doubt confusing them no end. Last time it came up, I apologised to partner after the hand but she managed to work out the right play and we got a great score.

[sfi]

One other point - if you do encourage with three small because you need to cash out, a ruff and sluff might in fact be the best defence.

[Douglas43]

Have you tried Ace for attitude and King for count? That can be useful in ordinary situations as well as the classic situation of cashing out against high-level contracts. It's a bit simplistic, but fairly robust.

[Zelandakh]

 Douglas43, on 2021-January-04, 03:09, said:

Have you tried Ace for attitude and King for count? That can be useful in ordinary situations as well as the classic situation of cashing out against high-level contracts. It's a bit simplistic, but fairly robust.

From a theoretical point of view, it makes much more sense to play ace count, king attitude but it lacks the convenient mnemonic to gain a cult following. If it played the traditional way, it should probably be accompanied by Rusinow leads for the lower honours but noone seems to do that against suit contracts.

[pescetom]

 Zelandakh, on 2021-January-04, 07:03, said:

From a theoretical point of view, it makes much more sense to play ace count, king attitude

Could you please explain why?

[Zelandakh]

 pescetom, on 2021-January-04, 07:28, said:

Could you please explain why?

One of the more common leads in a suit contract is from KQx(x) and you really want to hear an attitude signal for it. If you are playing A att, K ct without Rusinow though, you have no choice but to get a count signal. This alone is a bigger issue than any of the ones you are solving. If you use Rusinow though you lead the queen from KQx(x), which solves that. This is quite a popular method against NT contracts but less so in suit contracts. The cheap solution, if you do not want to go so far as Rusinow, is to reverse the ace and king. Now the king shows the queen or ace and interest in attitude while you lead the ace for those specific occasions when you want count. It is not really as good as Rusinow (your attitude signal is less precise and banging down an unsupported ace becomes problematic) but at least avoids the most serious issues.

[pescetom]

 Zelandakh, on 2021-January-04, 08:30, said:

One of the more common leads in a suit contract is from KQx(x) and you really want to hear an attitude signal for it. If you are playing A att, K ct without Rusinow though, you have no choice but to get a count signal. This alone is a bigger issue than any of the ones you are solving. If you use Rusinow though you lead the queen from KQx(x), which solves that. This is quite a popular method against NT contracts but less so in suit contracts. The cheap solution, if you do not want to go so far as Rusinow, is to reverse the ace and king. Now the king shows the queen or ace and interest in attitude while you lead the ace for those specific occasions when you want count. It is not really as good as Rusinow (your attitude signal is less precise and banging down an unsupported ace becomes problematic) but at least avoids the most serious issues.

Thanks, added to the annual experiment list. The acronym in Italian is RGAC, not quite as bad as KAAC.

[paulg]

It is common in Scotland, and perhaps other places, to play ace or queen for attitude and king for count. This includes leading the queen from KQx although no-one would call this Rusinow as they lead the top honour in other circumstances.

As others have said, this method is used by many. Personally I dislike it and just live with the problems identified by the OP, although I've never found them that troublesome.

But it must be said that no leading system or signalling method is perfect and it probably makes far less difference than most of us would hope. As long as you are playing the same as your partner

[perko90]

Yes, I agree with Zel. If you adopt A for Attitude, K for count you HAVE to adjust your other leads in some way. Otherwise, you'll always be in jeopardy of falling for the Bath Coup. One way to do so without adopting full Rusinow is to lead Q from both KQx(x) and QJx(x). It's not as awkward as it first seems. As 3rd hand, if you can see either the K or J in dummy or your hand, there is no ambiguity. And even if you can't, you would normally encourage with the A opposite either holding anyway. But you will have to discourage when holding the T. At least that's a much less important problem. There are a few other times where the ambiguity hurts the defense, but it's decent and, yes, I've tried it.
Anyway, back to my problem assuming A from AK. Thanks for the replies so far.

[perko90]

BTW, here was our latest accident.
I led the A; ptr encouraged.
I continued K and a 3rd Spade.
And we never got our diamond trick. (Yes, 4♠ makes, too. But let's not get distracted)

---

[Stephen Tu]

Well on that one South should just discourage and you have to work out the club shift.
On some other dummy, if South really wants you to cash 2nd spade but not play a third, they can try something like the 3 then the 2.

[Zelandakh]

 perko90, on 2021-January-04, 10:41, said:

BTW, here was our latest accident.
I led the A; ptr encouraged.

This is your problem. Your partner should discourage here and your club switch will now take the contract off.

[apollo1201]

 Zelandakh, on 2021-January-04, 12:49, said:

This is your problem. Your partner should discourage here and your club switch will now take the contract off.

You can also play A for count (so that partner knows how many tricks are cashing), unless dummy has 3 small where in that case, attitude is more useful. Or dummy singleton then the card is more of a suit preference.

[blackshoe]

 Zelandakh, on 2021-January-04, 07:03, said:

…it should probably be accompanied by Rusinow leads for the lower honours but noone seems to do that against suit contracts.

Interesting, considering that about sixty years ago "the Journalist" suggested Rusinow leads against suits, but not notrump. Any idea why and when the reversal happened?

[johnu]

 Zelandakh, on 2021-January-04, 07:03, said:

From a theoretical point of view, it makes much more sense to play ace count, king attitude but it lacks the convenient mnemonic to gain a cult following. If it played the traditional way, it should probably be accompanied by Rusinow leads for the lower honours but noone seems to do that against suit contracts.

I confess that I am one of the Rusinow degenerates

[Zelandakh]

 blackshoe, on 2021-January-07, 10:34, said:

Interesting, considering that about sixty years ago "the Journalist" suggested Rusinow leads against suits, but not notrump. Any idea why and when the reversal happened?

It might surprise you that I am currently playing Journalist Leads against NT in my current partnership. They are, in my view, fantastic at club level, where most declarers just do not bother to use the additional information at their disposal. I feel that Rusinow versus suit contracts also makes sense but since the differences are minimal and every partner I have had is much more familiar with Standard, that is what I have always played too. In terms of change, I am sure that Rusinow has never been mainstream versus suits. It is still played, it is just that I cannot remember seeing it on a CC in combination with ace attitude, king count.

The Rusinow NT change seems to be more significant. When that method started taking off I honestly do not know - long before I came across it for sure. I suspect it might be linked to the rise and success of Rodwell but I daresay that others here are better placed to report on the history properly.

 johnu, on 2021-January-07, 14:26, said:

I confess that I am one of the Rusinow degenerates

But do you play it in combination with Ace attitude, King count? It is the combination of the two that I have not seen, not Rusinow per se.

[johnu]

 Zelandakh, on 2021-January-07, 21:23, said:

But do you play it in combination with Ace attitude, King count? It is the combination of the two that I have not seen, not Rusinow per se.

Against NT, I also play Journalist based leads. I play ace asks for count, king asks for attitude. King could be from AK or KQ. If from KQ, you want attitude to avoid a potential Bath Coup. Obviously you lead K from KQJ and don't frequently need attitude. Queen is lead from KQ10, partner should unblock or give count, or QJ(10).

Against suits, Rusinow unless leading to length with partner. King from AK usually asks for attitude, but depending on dummy and the bidding in a cashout situation, count if obvious. Ace also asks for attitude since it will be from ace empty. Count is unlikely to be helpful.

[Zelandakh]

 johnu, on 2021-January-07, 23:15, said:

Against NT, I also play Journalist based leads. I play ace asks for count, king asks for attitude. King could be from AK or KQ. If from KQ, you want attitude to avoid a potential Bath Coup. Obviously you lead K from KQJ and don't frequently need attitude. Queen is lead from KQ10, partner should unblock or give count, or QJ(10).

You actually lead the king from KQTx(x) in Journalist Leads but the queen from KQT9(x). What you describe (A unblock/count); K att; Q unblock J/att) along with J weak; T strong; 9 weak is also my understanding of the honour leads. Proper Journalist Leads also used Busso (attitude) pips but it is quite possible to combine them with 4th, 3/5 or 3/low styles if preferred, with the only caveat being that you cannot use a 9 as a pip so might have to compromise from certain holdings.

 johnu, on 2021-January-07, 23:15, said:

Against suits, Rusinow unless leading to length with partner. King from AK usually asks for attitude, but depending on dummy and the bidding in a cashout situation, count if obvious. Ace also asks for attitude since it will be from ace empty. Count is unlikely to be helpful.

This is the common, and imho better, way of playing Rusinow. Whether this represents an improvement over Standard essentially rests on a matter of style - how often does your partnership like to lead actively from Ax or bang down an ace to see Dummy? If that is common then Rusinow is probably indicated. If you prefer a different style where these leads are rare then you might not get so much out of them. As I mentioned earlier, I quite like them in theory but have not had a chance to test them in practice.

[johnu]

 Zelandakh, on 2021-January-08, 00:02, said:

This is the common, and imho better, way of playing Rusinow. Whether this represents an improvement over Standard essentially rests on a matter of style - how often does your partnership like to lead actively from Ax or bang down an ace to see Dummy? If that is common then Rusinow is probably indicated. If you prefer a different style where these leads are rare then you might not get so much out of them. As I mentioned earlier, I quite like them in theory but have not had a chance to test them in practice.

If you've looked at some of the hands from Nicolas Hammond's Suspicious Leads project, you'll see that some players don't need signals from partner because they already know what partner has before they lead