[MickyB]

Has anyone tried these, any thoughts? It feels like they should work well vs suit contracts, I am less convinced about their merits vs NT.

What should the second spot played in the suit mean, normally? Should it clarify both count+attitude or should it be suit preference?

Thanks

[Zelandakh]

Have you read this yet? Page 70 appears to have what you are looking for if it helps.

[MickyB]

Combine and Fantunes leads are both referred to as Slawinksi, but they are different methods. Fantunes lead their lowest spot from an even number of cards without an honour, or an odd number of cards with an honour. I think the file you have linked to refers to the other method, which includes 3rd+5th from an honour and top of nothing. Thanks though

[akhare]

Pard and I play it vs. suit contracts and it works very well indeed. We use 3rd/5th (not 3rd and low) from honour holdings, which opens up some interesting possibilities as well.

For example, on a hand we played last night, holding a void in a side suit, I led the 2♣ as an alarm clock lead after having opened 3♣.

Against NT, we play Rusinow with A for attitude, with K asking for unblock and low from interest...

[OleBerg]

MickyB, on 2011-May-05, 13:06, said:

Fantunes lead their lowest spot from an even number of cards without an honour, or an odd number of cards with an honour.

Sounds like something somebody might call "encrypted", if you have an unlucky day.

[blackshoe]

That somebody would probably need lessons on how to distinguish apples from oranges — or a burro from a burrow.

[Free]

OleBerg, on 2011-May-06, 23:58, said:

Sounds like something somebody might call "encrypted", if you have an unlucky day.

Not really. As far as I understand it, you lead the same card from xxx and Hxxx (in each case where the number of x's are the same). This way, partner can see that any missing honour is either in our hand or in declarer's hand. But he doesn't know for sure, so this can't be considered encrypted.

[WellSpyder]

Free, on 2011-May-09, 01:52, said:

... This way, partner can see that any missing honour is either in our hand or in declarer's hand...

I may be missing something here, but as a defender once I have seen dummy I usually find I can place any missing honours either in declarer's hand or partner's hand whatever system of leads I am playing...

[gnasher]

WellSpyder, on 2011-May-09, 04:55, said:

I may be missing something here, but as a defender once I have seen dummy I usually find I can place any missing honours either in declarer's hand or partner's hand whatever system of leads I am playing...

If so, playing Swalinski leads you will now also know how the small cards are distributed too.

[Free]

WellSpyder, on 2011-May-09, 04:55, said:

I may be missing something here, but as a defender once I have seen dummy I usually find I can place any missing honours either in declarer's hand or partner's hand whatever system of leads I am playing...

You're indeed missing something. The point is not that you or me or anyone with some ability is able to count HCP and place some honours, the point is that I argue against considering this as an encrypted signal.

Suppose the suit splits:

---

After West leads ♠5 to the 4, J and A, East doesn't know who has the ♠K (he can have an idea, but there's no certainty). West could've lead from 852 or from K852. Declarer can have A96 or AK96. East won't know for sure. Also, declarer won't know for sure because East can have J3 or KJ3. If it would be an encrypted signal, East would know somehow who has the King, while declarer still wouldn't have any clue. Playing pure 3/5 leads for example, declarer and East would know that West has the K.

[WellSpyder]

Free, on 2011-May-09, 06:18, said:

You're indeed missing something. The point is not that you or me or anyone with some ability is able to count HCP and place some honours, the point is that I argue against considering this as an encrypted signal.

Actually, I wasn't trying to make a point about counting or cardreading, just pointing out the stunningly obvious that any honour that is missing from your hand and dummy's must of necessity be in either declarer's hand or partner's, independently of any agreements! I agree with your conclusion that this is not an encrypted signal.

[Free]

WellSpyder, on 2011-May-09, 07:03, said:

Actually, I wasn't trying to make a point about counting or cardreading, just pointing out the stunningly obvious that any honour that is missing from your hand and dummy's must of necessity be in either declarer's hand or partner's, independently of any agreements!

Ah ok, I thought it was stunningly obvious that all I meant to say was that there's no certainty of which hand contains the actual honour card (playing 3rd/5th strict on the other hand usually takes that uncertainty away), I didn't expect a discussion about semantics. Soon we'll have a forum on spelling as well...