[awm]

I've tried the Polish-style leads and strongly prefer 3rd/low (probably the same spot card leads Justin plays). We lead low from three small, and either high or third from four small (depending on whether we think high from four small might be confused for a doubleton). The major issues I've encountered:

1. I actually lead from Hxx fairly frequently. Both the middle card (looks like Xxx) and the low card (looks like HxxX or xX) are very difficult to read from this holding.
2. I've found leading low from small doubleton to cause some problems (even assuming ten is an honor).
3. My subsequent signals emphasize attitude and suit preference, and Polish works best if subsequent signals are count (in fact many Poles seem to play a style where most signals are count). While in principle I could change this it's a pretty big shift in approach.

I've tinkered with Fantoni-Nunes style leads a little bit, and also watched them play quite a bit, and have not really been impressed with this lead style. The basic issue is that with good signaling methods one can usually figure out what's going on after the first half-dozen tricks or so. The problem is figuring out what's going on early in the hand, and the Fantunes method basically gives you no useful information until the second card in the suit is played (whereas Polish style you normally know attitude with count to come later and Justin and my "American" style you normally know count with attitude to come later).

[JLOGIC]

akhare, on 2013-May-16, 20:23, said:

Can you elaborate on why Rusinow leads are better at NT? Do you play them all the way down to leading the T from JT?

Here is the basic premise compared to "standard leads" (maybe these are only "standard" in USA) where the A and Q ask for unblock (eg, AKJT9 leads A, KQT98 leads queen).

The K lead can be from AKTx or KQTx for instance. So, with Jxxx do you encourage with 2 small in the dummy? it is an impossible problem, if you discourage partner might have KQTx and shift fearing AJx with declarer. If you encourage partner may continue from AKTx and blow a trick. Yes, with expert judgement you might be able to judge more accurately than most what to do in these situations, but it is imperfect and you will go wrong sometimes.

So, a lot of people realized, why don't we change that and make the K the power lead, and lead the A and Q for attitude. This means AKJT9 and KQT98 lead the K, AKTx leads the A and KQTx leads the Q. Great, problem solved right?

Well, it's an improvement, but now on the Q lead do you encourage with say Txxx? The Q could be from KQ9x, or it could be QJ9x. So, if you encourage partner might continue into AJx, that's no good. If you discourage, declarer might duck and partner might shift fearing AKTx. Or, more likely declarer might win and put partner in and he might shift not knowing where the ten is. Yes, this is a lesser problem and might be solved by something like smith echo, but again it is imperfect, and will cause some problems. Even playing smith echo, you have to waste the smith to discourage then positive smith showing the ten. This could be a much more useful and efficient signal if you could have just shown the ten or denied the ten at trick 1.

There is an obvious solution to this. Lead the jack with the QJ. So now the A is non power and K is power, queen is non power but always with the king, you lead the J with the Q. I won't bore you with the ramifications of leading the J from the QJ or JT, but the sam argument applies to just lead the T from the JT, and the 9 from the T9. This happens to be rusinow leads.

I think this shows that rusinow with K power lead is superior to standard honor leads. Analyzing which is better between J denies is less linear and depends on your priorities, but I think if you're like me and prefer not to play 0/2 since it gives away too much info to declarer immediately that you should play this instead of standard. However, it's hard to switch if you've played the same way your whole life. I will just say that with Hamman I play standard honor leads in all sequences and 4th best against suits, basically completely standard carding and leads, since he says he has played the same leads and carding for 50 years and it would be too much to change. Fair enough, that kinda suggests to me it doesn't matter *that* much.

[MickyB]

awm, on 2013-May-16, 21:38, said:

The problem is figuring out what's going on early in the hand, and the Fantunes method basically gives you no useful information until the second card in the suit is played

I disagree. It feels like that at first, but once you've played it you get used to processing the information you have been given. Usually it is easiest to start by imagining the holdings headed by an honour.

The advantages are -

Sometimes we can work out partner's count or attitude, in which case the lead tells us the other.
Often, this "mixed" signal solves a problem that neither count nor attitude alone would.

For an example of the latter, we have AJTx and there is xxx on the dummy. We are unsure if partner has three or four cards, and we are unsure whether he has an honour or not. We wish to continue the suit if there is a trick there to set up.

If partner shows an honour, that doesn't help us. Declarer could have Kxx or Kx.
If partner shows an odd number, that doesn't help us. Declarer could have Kxx or KQx.

Playing Fantunes style, the lead is consistent with either KQx and Kx, or Kxx and KQ.

[Zelandakh]

As someone who has played Journalist leads against NT for many years, a couple of questions about the Rusinow style. First of all, how do you ask for the unblock of the king, with AQJTxxx for example? Secondly, is there any way of combining Rusinow with the Journalist 10 lead that shows an internal sequence HJT or HT9? It seems like this should be a no since you need the J lead for JT9x/JT8x but perhaps there is a clever idea around.

[MickyB]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-16, 22:38, said:

I think this shows that rusinow with K power lead is superior to standard honor leads.

You've ignored the disadvantages IMO.

First, leads from doubleton honours/9x are now more tricky - better that, when you lead the jack from Jx [or perhaps stiff jack?], partner think you have JT not QJ. I think this is generally considered to require rules for when you switch back to standard vs suit contracts.

Secondly, the nine is now reserved for showing T9, whereas before it was free for other purposes. Not a big loss, admittedly, unless you are a fan of leading 9 from H98. You can lead the 8 from that but then it conflicts with 98xx or similar.

I think Rusinow is good vs NT, I'm less sure vs suits.

This post has been edited by MickyB: 2013-May-17, 08:48

[straube]

Found this...http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.games.bridge/2008-03/msg01126.html

So I'm getting the impression from this and from Justin that 2/4th against suits are better. And from Q83 one leads the 8, right?

So Polish leads are basically attitude leads...which I like...and 3/5 are basically count leads.

Also liking Rusinow against NT. Would it make sense to lead top of sequence when you are leading partner's suit or trying to "hit" partner and lead Rusinow when you are trying to establish your own suit? Not sure which way to go holding QJx then.

Does Rusinow make sense against suit contracts as well? Why or why not?

Does 2/4th leads make sense against NT?

[MickyB]

straube, on 2013-May-17, 08:28, said:

Found this...http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.games.bridge/2008-03/msg01126.html

So I'm getting the impression from this and from Justin that 2/4th against suits are better. And from Q83 one leads the 8, right?

So Polish leads are basically attitude leads...which I like...and 3/5 are basically count leads.

Also liking Rusinow against NT. Would it make sense to lead top of sequence when you are leading partner's suit or trying to "hit" partner and lead Rusinow when you are trying to establish your own suit? Not sure which way to go holding QJx then.

Does Rusinow make sense against suit contracts as well? Why or why not?

Does 2/4th leads make sense against NT?

Yes 8 from Q83. "Low from two, middle from three, 2nd and 4th from length" was how I explained it when I played it.

Vs NT, Meckwell play Rusinow from 4+cards, standard from 2 or 3 cards. I've played this for a while in one partnership, I've no strong feelings on it.

I believe the Poles lead low from doubleton vs NT too, this seems pretty bad to me, as previously discussed you want the low card to be encouraging.

[awm]

MickyB, on 2013-May-17, 04:50, said:

For an example of the latter, we have AJTx and there is xxx on the dummy. We are unsure if partner has three or four cards, and we are unsure whether he has an honour or not. We wish to continue the suit if there is a trick there to set up.

If partner shows an honour, that doesn't help us. Declarer could have Kxx or Kx.
If partner shows an odd number, that doesn't help us. Declarer could have Kxx or KQx.

Playing Fantunes style, the lead is consistent with either KQx and Kx, or Kxx and KQ.

Sorry, I don't get this one. There are four possibilities:

1. Declarer KQx, partner xxx
2. Declarer Kx, partner Qxxx
3. Declarer KQ, partner xxxx
4. Declarer Kxx, partner Qxx

You want to continue the suit only in case four (where we can establish a trick). Playing Fantunes you distinguish 1/2 vs. 3/4, so half the time you know not to continue and the other half you're on a guess. Playing attitude-style leads, you distinguish 1/3 vs. 2/4, so half the time you know not to continue and the other half you're on a guess. Playing count-style leads, you distinguish 1/4 vs. 2/3, so half the time you know not to continue and the other half you are on a guess. In other words, all three styles seem to break even.

[MickyB]

awm, on 2013-May-17, 10:29, said:

Sorry, I don't get this one. There are four possibilities:

1. Declarer KQx, partner xxx
2. Declarer Kx, partner Qxxx
3. Declarer KQ, partner xxxx
4. Declarer Kxx, partner Qxx

You want to continue the suit only in case four (where we can establish a trick). Playing Fantunes you distinguish 1/2 vs. 3/4, so half the time you know not to continue and the other half you're on a guess. Playing attitude-style leads, you distinguish 1/3 vs. 2/4, so half the time you know not to continue and the other half you're on a guess. Playing count-style leads, you distinguish 1/4 vs. 2/3, so half the time you know not to continue and the other half you are on a guess. In other words, all three styles seem to break even.

If you know the layout is 1 or 2, you switch. If you know the layout is 3 or 4, you continue if declarer plays a small card, but switch if he plays an honour.

[broze]

straube, on 2013-May-17, 08:28, said:

Does Rusinow make sense against suit contracts as well? Why or why not?

More from JL and BBF on Rusinow here and here.

I play Rusinow against suits and imo the main advantages come from the signals you get on the lead of an Ace; room for p-ship agreement here too. Also as JL mentions in one of his post if your style is to bang down aces a fair amount then it complements that nicely.

[awm]

I guess what I said in my prior post doesn't make sense because declarer would have to play an honor from KQ tight.

Nonetheless, if you have one less card in the suit the same problem arises.. say partner leads the suit and you have ATx and dummy has Jxx. Suppose you know partner lead from three or four, the possibilities are:

1. Partner xxxx, declarer KQx
2. Partner xxx, declarer KQxx
3. Partner Qxxx, declarer Kxx
4. Partner Kxxx, declarer Qxx

You want to return the suit in case 3; in case 4 it probably doesn't matter; in case 1/2 you blow a tempo continuing. Note that attitude leads give you a 100% solution to this problem whereas Fantunes leads you cannot distinguish case 2 from 3/4 since partner would lead the same card.

Another example, partner leads a suit and you have AKxxx and dummy has Jxx. If declarer has Qxx you want to cash two rounds and give partner a ruff. If declarer has xx you can cash two rounds if you want, but then you must switch to another suit. Playing 3/5 leads this will certainly be clear-cut. Playing Fantunes leads where you lead the same card with two small spots regardless of whether there's a higher honor, it won't be clear and it's not like partner can unblock the queen.

[JLOGIC]

MickyB, on 2013-May-17, 05:31, said:

You've ignored the disadvantages IMO.

First, leads from doubleton honours/9x are now more tricky - better that, when you lead the jack from Jx [or perhaps stiff jack?], partner think you have JT not QJ. I think this is generally considered to require rules for when you switch back to standard vs suit contracts.

Pretty sure I was only talking about NT leads in my post. I was directly replying to this quoted question:

Quote

Can you elaborate on why Rusinow leads are better at NT?

in fact.

So stiff J and Hx are not really a problem unless you fire those out a lot vs NT . And I suspect even if you do it is a desperation lead where if it works out your partner won't be wondering if it's rusinow or not lol.

Quote

Secondly, the nine is now reserved for showing T9, whereas before it was free for other purposes. Not a big loss, admittedly, unless you are a fan of leading 9 from H98. You can lead the 8 from that but then it conflicts with 98xx or similar.

Yes, you're right this is the disadvantage of rusinow vs NT. If you play it down to the 8, it conficts with your 8 lead as a 2nd from 98xx or maybe a top of 832. Personally I have never been an H98 guy so for me the disadvantage is when I have like 932 both the 9 and the 3 have risk of being misread whereas in standard I could have led the 9. This seems like a very minor issue compared to the gains lol.

Agreed that vs suits it is far less clear, that's why I only referred to NT in that post.

[JLOGIC]

broze, on 2013-May-17, 10:56, said:

More from JL and BBF on Rusinow here and here.

I play Rusinow against suits and imo the main advantages come from the signals you get on the lead of an Ace; room for p-ship agreement here too. Also as JL mentions in one of his post if your style is to bang down aces a fair amount then it complements that nicely.

lol at least I'm consistent. I have had more JTx and T9x scary moments since then vs suits but I still play it/like it vs suits myself, mainly because I just dislike ambiguous K and A from AK.

[broze]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-17, 11:24, said:

lol at least I'm consistent. I have had more JTx and T9x scary moments since then vs suits but I still play it/like it vs suits myself, mainly because I just dislike ambiguous K and A from AK.

I think it just makes sense. When you in effect move your honour leads down a notch it follows that you will see gains at the top (AK) and losses at the bottom (JT9). AK leads are much much higher in frequency ergo this style of leads looks like a winner. Ok, that is oversimplifying it A LOT but still sound reasoning. Leading from Hx holdings is ambiguous but I've noticed that I very rarely do this anyway.

[MickyB]

awm, on 2013-May-17, 11:10, said:

I guess what I said in my prior post doesn't make sense because declarer would have to play an honor from KQ tight.

Nonetheless, if you have one less card in the suit the same problem arises.. say partner leads the suit and you have ATx and dummy has Jxx. Suppose you know partner lead from three or four, the possibilities are:

1. Partner xxxx, declarer KQx
2. Partner xxx, declarer KQxx
3. Partner Qxxx, declarer Kxx
4. Partner Kxxx, declarer Qxx

You want to return the suit in case 3; in case 4 it probably doesn't matter; in case 1/2 you blow a tempo continuing. Note that attitude leads give you a 100% solution to this problem whereas Fantunes leads you cannot distinguish case 2 from 3/4 since partner would lead the same card.

Another example, partner leads a suit and you have AKxxx and dummy has Jxx. If declarer has Qxx you want to cash two rounds and give partner a ruff. If declarer has xx you can cash two rounds if you want, but then you must switch to another suit. Playing 3/5 leads this will certainly be clear-cut. Playing Fantunes leads where you lead the same card with two small spots regardless of whether there's a higher honor, it won't be clear and it's not like partner can unblock the queen.

Sure, I was just giving an example where mixed leads work best based on the cards played to trick 1. Slawinski's work concludes that mixed leads are superior to count leads, and the flaws in his methodology that I have noticed are no more biased towards one method than the other. Of course, the question of which method is more helpful to declarer is not dealt with, but I would expect this to go in favour of mixed leads as well.

My experience of playing both methods is that count leads are good, but mixed leads are probably better.