[jh51]

I recently proposed to one of my partners that we play coded 9's and 10's as suggested in a number of Kanter's books. He objected, stating that Wolff feels that it gives too much information to declarer.

What is the general feeling about this lead convention?

[aguahombre]

We use them and are content with them. Yes, extra info to declarer is sometimes a byproduct, which we just live with. Sometimes the situation is still unclear to declarer, but clear to our side --because of the holding in partner's hand --and sometimes it doesn't matter what declarer knows because he can't do anything about it.

Interesting that they are called "coded". Like encrypted carding (illegal), sometimes the information is available to partner but not declarer. Only this time it is legal.

[Jlall]

I'm not a fan but a lot of people play it

[jjbrr]

I don't like them much myself. I can't find much wrong with standard leads.

[kfay]

jjbrr, on Jan 28 2010, 12:52 PM, said:

I don't like them much myself. I can't find much wrong with standard leads.

Yes, dude. Yes.

[matmat]

kfay, on Jan 28 2010, 12:57 PM, said:

jjbrr, on Jan 28 2010, 12:52 PM, said:

I don't like them much myself. I can't find much wrong with standard leads.

Yes, dude. Yes.

playing coded 9s and 10s shows a level of commitment to the partnership that standard leads simply cannot express.

[Jlall]

Meh that's not really fair. Obviously the problem with standard leads is that if you lead a J or T it is unknown if you have an interior sequence or not, which can lead to guesswork by the defenders.

[eyhung]

My feeling is that there are some hands where playing coded leads will help the defense, but there are more hands where they will help the declarer. If you play against poor declarers who don't bother to look at your carding conventions or are incapable of using the information against you, go ahead and use them. Otherwise I recommend playing standard leads -- most of the top pairs I see do not use coded leads or odd/even discards.

[ArtK78]

I used to play coded 10s and 9s but gave them up in favor of standard signals. I have not missed them.

Some play Rusinow leads against NT as well as against suits. I find Rusinow leads to be an improvement over standard leads, but Rusinow leads are aimed at solving a different problem than coded 10s and 9s.

I thought that the use of odd/even first discards was nearly universal among experts. At least, that is my experience.

[gnasher]

I think you should play them when you've already shown length in the suit. That rarely tells declarer anything that he didn't already know. At a suit contract it may save partner a guess when the layout is something like:
               Qxx
KJ10xxx or        Axx
J10xxxx
               x or K

[aguahombre]

---

stumpled into 3NT --so did our opps at the other table.

club ten was led. Gulp. (oops, I had kj tight of clubs)

[Jlall]

gnasher, on Jan 28 2010, 01:33 PM, said:

I think you should play them when you've already shown length in the suit. That rarely tells declarer anything that he didn't already know. At a suit contract it may save partner a guess when the layout is something like:
               Qxx
KJ10xxx or        Axx
J10xxxx
               x or K

hmm I would still hate to lead the jack when I don't have an interior sequence and let declarer know my partner has the short king

[ArtK78]

aguahombre, on Jan 28 2010, 01:45 PM, said:

---

stumpled into 3NT --so did our opps at the other table.

club ten was led. Gulp. (oops, I had kj tight of clubs)

3NT? That violates a couple of good rules:

1) Never put down an 8 card suit in the dummy (this can be a problem when both partners have an 8 card suit - I guess they have to defend).

2) What do you call an 8 card suit to the AKQJT? TRUMP!

Seriously, while I can understand how it is difficult to bid this sort of hand, I cannot understand how anyone holding the North hand would be willing to allow his partner to declare 3NT at IMPs.

[jdonn]

Art your focus is outstanding lol.

[Jlall]

jdonn, on Jan 28 2010, 03:28 PM, said:

Art your focus is outstanding lol.

haha

[ArtK78]

jdonn, on Jan 28 2010, 03:28 PM, said:

Art your focus is outstanding lol.

My comment was about the hand that was posted. The hand also had no direct relationship to the original question posed in this thread. Obviously, 3NT is making or going down depending on the location of the ♣A (assuming declarer plays the ♣Q at trick one, which seems clear). And, just as obviously, 3NT is a hideous contract. I was just having some fun with it.

[bid_em_up]

Focus, Art, Focus.

He says "oops, I had KJ♣ tight". Now how would you play if your opponents had said that they are playing coded 10/9 leads? Ok, he didn't state that, but otherwise, as you said, the hand would not be on topic. As it stands, I believe that it is.

Obviously, playing the Q has to be wrong. The only hope is to play small (which seems clear) and hope that RHO plays the Ace.

[ArtK78]

bid_em_up, on Jan 28 2010, 03:58 PM, said:

Focus, Art, Focus.

He says "oops, I had KJ♣ tight". Now how would you play if your opponents had said that they are playing coded 10/9 leads? Ok, he didn't state that, but otherwise, as you said, the hand would not be on topic. As it stands, I believe that it is.

Obviously, playing the Q has to be wrong. The only hope is to play small (which seems clear) and hope that RHO plays the Ace.

OK. So I was looking at the hand, not the added comment.

Still, the contract is pretty funny.

[Jlall]

Saying that you cannot understand how one would allow partner to play 3N when they have 8 solid of a minor is pretty funny also...

[jdonn]

Jlall, on Jan 28 2010, 04:26 PM, said:

Saying that you cannot understand how one would allow partner to play 3N when they have 8 solid of a minor is pretty funny also...

Yeah it would make more sense to criticize the guy who is 5-6 in the majors than the guy with 8 solid diamonds lol.