[Kaitlyn S]

Hi, assume you lead "standard", such that you would lead the king from KQJx.

What do you lead from AKxx against a suit contract?

[Vampyr]

Some will lead one card to get count and the other to get attitude. The rest of the hand and the auction will determine which. You should include this as an option.

[Zelandakh]

Standard carding against a suit contract is the ace - top of a sequence. A highly popular alternative in the UK is ace for attitude, king for count, in which the card chosen will depend on what information the leader deems more useful. Then there is a different group of players that get confused between suit and NT contracts and, learning that you only lead an ace against a NT contract with specific holdings (strong ace), carry the same logic over to suit contracts. If you choose any method where you always lead a specific honour from AKx(x), regardless of whether standard or Rusinow, you should agree that you lead the opposite card with AK bare.

[steve2005]

Either is ok. Leading A from AK does create one dilemma which I witnessed on a hand last week.
If you have AK you usually have an easy lead and do so quickly. When you want to lead from Axxx you don't have an easy lead and will think longer than normal.
So when you lead an ace after taking a long time there is a good chance you don't have K and people especially your partner can figure this out.

[Kaitlyn S]

Vampyr, on 2017-June-04, 02:09, said:

Some will lead one card to get count and the other to get attitude. The rest of the hand and the auction will determine which. You should include this as an option.

Thank you. I have given those as options. I didn't think anybody did that against suit contracts but I've been out of tournament bridge for over a decade.

[Kaitlyn S]

Thanks to the few that answered. I had assumed that king from ace-king and also from king-queen went out of fashion many years go but apparently I am wrong.

The author who wrote the book which made me ask this question likes to lead unsupported aces far more frequently than i do, so I guess for someone who does that, king from AK and from KQ might make sense, although maybe Rusinow makes more sense (but probably not for his target audience.)

[fromageGB]

The question is specifically what lead from AKxx, not "what do you lead in general". My general play is K asks for count and A asks for attitude, but with this holding against suit contracts it is always K.

I don't understand Vampyr's (and others') answer. Under what circumstances would they lead which card from this holding against a suit contract?

[ggwhiz]

I lead Ace for attitude, King for count but it's all because of an early partner.

I would lead a K to dummies QJTx and he would always signal "I don't like them". Duh! I never changed back since it seems to work as well as anything else.

[cartruck]

As complex as it gets at times, I truly believe in the "Tell your entire hand as quickly as possibly" mentality/philosophy. SAYC that is core basic at first, then jumps into mild complexity once game/slam is established. Just get there fast. That is what seems to work best to me.

I lead Ace from AKXX as to not confuse my partner. He/she would already know that I do not lead unprotected Aces unless I am desperate to see the dummy and reasonably know it is safe.

[pescetom]

I added my vote (different agreements with different partners, playing in Italy) but don't pretend to be able to help others very much.
More curious to read the replies.

cartruck, on 2017-June-08, 16:14, said:

I lead Ace from AKXX as to not confuse my partner. He/she would already know that I do not lead unprotected Aces unless I am desperate to see the dummy and reasonably know it is safe.

I follow you, but for me that's still one reason to lead King: I wasn't just desperate to see the dummy.
Plus: if I have the Ace it's protected by King, but not by KQ.

[Vilgan]

I switched to rusinow with all willing partners, so K from AK is just part of that. I've been surprised at how nice it is to resolve the ambiguity, leading unsupported aces in certain situations comes up a lot more than I would have expected.