[Shugart23]

You hold Q 9 3 of spades. Bidding goes 1S-4H by opponents - all pass. You have decided to lead the spade suit, and your agreement is to give count if you did not support suit. Using upside down count, do you lead the Q or the 9 ? Or is this just a partnership agreement that when faced with a choice, lead the top or middle?

second question, same bidding but you have A 9 3 of spades. As a general rule, are you better off leading a different suit or banging down your Ace ?

(Bidding could have gone 1S -2H-Pass-4H -all pass vs 1S-4H- all pass if that makes any difference)

[mike777]

1. You don't give upside count when you are making the opening lead. When you are the leader. This seems to be common confusion for some reason. Lead a low spade to show three. You can give upside down count when
Anyone else leads a suit, not you.

2. Often lead another suit.

[DavidKok]

I recently taught some lessons on opening leads for an evening. It helped me structure some of the advice, and I'll copy it now:

Finding the best lead, in general, is not possible. The best you can do is combine the information you have and take a best guess. However, even at the world class level, there is an expected difference between the normal lead and the best lead (and, in fact, this gap is considered sufficiently robust that it's used as a metric for cheating). You simply won't get it right always.
On the other hand, everyone has to start somewhere. Therefore it is good to have a foundation of relatively simple but effective rules to fall back on. From there you can expand to more sophisticated guesses and inferences.

Generally finding a lead is split into two steps. Step 1: which suit do you want to lead. Step 2: which card do you lead of that suit. The second step is (almost) entirely determined by your lead agreements - it is rare that those are optional or ambiguous. Lead agreements, then, are a list of specifications of what card to lead from any suit at any situation, conditional on having chosen to lead it. By contrast the first step is not studied as much, and more flexible and complicated.

In deciding the first one, here is a general list of priorities:

• both: Lead from an honour series (possibly an interior one).
  
• both: Lead partner's suit.
  
• active against NT: Lead your long suit.
  
• active against trumps: Lead your singleton.
  
• passive: Lead a weak suit.
  
• passive: Lead the opponents' suit.

On any auction the decision to lead active versus passive is complicated (and one you should actively investigate!), but from best to worst this is an approximate general approach.
Then last but not least: when you have the ace, against a trump suit, do not underlead it. Also, regardless of denomination, do not lead the ace unless it's a sequence or partner's suit. We want to capture an honour with that ace, not blow it on air. Against notrump it is fine to underlead the ace though, if the other rules suggest leading that suit.


As for your particular lead questions: my systemic lead from Hxx is the middle one (playing Polish leads). I think your agreements are different, and I would make sure you are familiar with your systemic lead from that holding. However, the lead systems I know will generally recommend either of the small cards. Having an agreement to lead the queen here would be unusual.
I would not underlead the ace of spades here. Declarer is marked with short spades, and this has a high chance of blowing a spade trick.

[shugart24]

mike777, on 2025-May-25, 06:50, said:

1. You don't give upside count when you are making the opening lead. When you are the leader. This seems to be common confusion for some reason. Lead a low spade to show three. You can give upside down count when
Anyone else leads a suit, not you.

2. Often lead another suit.

Thanks Mike for confirming my thinking on question 2.

I am a bit surprised by your answer to 1. You say lead a low spade to give count, so if giving count is correct, what difference does it make which method ? (I also thought another possible answer might be lead 3rd down when holding an honor and partner will apply Rule of 12)

[Huibertus]

Shugart23, on 2025-May-25, 06:43, said:

You hold Q 9 3 of spades. Bidding goes 1S-4H by opponents - all pass. You have decided to lead the spade suit, and your agreement is to give count if you did not support suit. Using upside down count, do you lead the Q or the 9 ? Or is this just a partnership agreement that when faced with a choice, lead the top or middle?

second question, same bidding but you have A 9 3 of spades. As a general rule, are you better off leading a different suit or banging down your Ace ?

(Bidding could have gone 1S -2H-Pass-4H -all pass vs 1S-4H- all pass if that makes any difference)

Normally upside down count is paired with 2nd/4th best leads, so that'd be the 9.
You'd of course be leading the Q if you want to have a look at dummy while holding the lead when partner has AK, It might be the last opportunity for the down-switch if either opp has a singleton ♠.

Second question; It depends on the bidding, normally , don't lead aces into the blind. In partner's suit less of an issue, but often still handing declare a trick with the K. Lead the Ace if the bidding implies you need to cash out.

[shugart24]

DavidKok, on 2025-May-25, 06:56, said:

I recently taught some lessons on opening leads for an evening. It helped me structure some of the advice, and I'll copy it now:

Finding the best lead, in general, is not possible. The best you can do is combine the information you have and take a best guess. However, even at the world class level, there is an expected difference between the normal lead and the best lead (and, in fact, this gap is considered sufficiently robust that it's used as a metric for cheating). You simply won't get it right always.
On the other hand, everyone has to start somewhere. Therefore it is good to have a foundation of relatively simple but effective rules to fall back on. From there you can expand to more sophisticated guesses and inferences.

Generally finding a lead is split into two steps. Step 1: which suit do you want to lead. Step 2: which card do you lead of that suit. The second step is (almost) entirely determined by your lead agreements - it is rare that those are optional or ambiguous. Lead agreements, then, are a list of specifications of what card to lead from any suit at any situation, conditional on having chosen to lead it. By contrast the first step is not studied as much, and more flexible and complicated.

In deciding the first one, here is a general list of priorities:

• both: Lead from an honour series (possibly an interior one).
  
• both: Lead partner's suit.
  
• active against NT: Lead your long suit.
  
• active against trumps: Lead your singleton.
  
• passive: Lead a weak suit.
  
• passive: Lead the opponents' suit.

On any auction the decision to lead active versus passive is complicated (and one you should actively investigate!), but from best to worst this is an approximate general approach.
Then last but not least: when you have the ace, against a trump suit, do not underlead it. Also, regardless of denomination, do not lead the ace unless it's a sequence or partner's suit. We want to capture an honour with that ace, not blow it on air. Against notrump it is fine to underlead the ace though, if the other rules suggest leading that suit.


As for your particular lead questions: my systemic lead from Hxx is the middle one (playing Polish leads). I think your agreements are different, and I would make sure you are familiar with your systemic lead from that holding. However, the lead systems I know will generally recommend either of the small cards. Having an agreement to lead the queen here would be unusual.
I would not underlead the ace of spades here. Declarer is marked with short spades, and this has a high chance of blowing a spade trick.

Thanks David. We all have different algorithms when leading against a suit contract vs a NT contract and we all have a third algorithm when leading partner's suit. I am tightening up a few loose ends on my son's and my three algorithms. But I am also starting to think that even on the 3rd algorithm - leading partner's suit - that maybe this needs to be split into two: leading aprnters suit againt a suit contract vs leading his suit vs a NT contract.

I do know that JOurnalist leads that they recommend that when leading aprtners suit against a NT contract that the lead of a J, qo, or 9 shows 0-2 above it

[mike777]

 shugart24, on 2025-May-25, 06:59, said:

Thanks Mike for confirming my thinking on question 2.

I am a bit surprised by your answer to 1. You say lead a low spade to give count, so if giving count is correct, what difference does it make which method ? (I also thought another possible answer might be lead 3rd down when holding an honor and partner will apply Rule of 12)

Fwiw
In regards to giving a count on opening lead.
If you have not supported partners suit and have three, almost always lead low even from three small. At times you may wish to lead top honor, but rare.
If supported lead high from 3 small. No matter upside count or not.

Upside count does not apply if you are leading a suit, at any time
This seems to be confusing for some reason

As far as giving count, versus suit contracts, on opening lead in suits not bid natural by partner. You can try experimenting with this. Again assuming you are not leading from a sequence
Try low from odd, third ( or second if not costly) from four or six.
Still high low from two.

[DavidKok]

shugart24, on 2025-May-25, 07:04, said:

Thanks David. We all have different algorithms when leading against a suit contract vs a NT contract and we all have a third algorithm when leading partner's suit. I am tightening up a few loose ends on my son's and my three algorithms. But I am also starting to think that even on the 3rd algorithm - leading partner's suit - that maybe this needs to be split into two: leading aprnters suit againt a suit contract vs leading his suit vs a NT contract.

I do know that JOurnalist leads that they recommend that when leading aprtners suit against a NT contract that the lead of a J, qo, or 9 shows 0-2 above it

I want to clarify the following point: my advice focuses on the first question I posed - which suit do we lead. As for what card to lead of any given suit, to me that's mostly something to decide on once and then not deviate from. I have some personal opinions on lead and carding systems, but have mostly kept that to myself because it's a study field filled with strong opinions and little to no evidence. Your questions on leads and signals have almost always been on the second half: given that we lead the suit, what's the correct card.
The split you propose above is also of the second type - you're making more nuance for which card to lead of partner's suit, conditional on wanting to lead it in the first place.

Personally I am a bit contrarian when it comes to lead agreements and signals. I think that some simple rules are regularly better than complicated rules. Therefore I'd shy away from some of the nuances and exceptions to general agreements, unless you have a strong reason to believe that you're losing on your lead agreements.

[shugart24]

DavidKok, on 2025-May-25, 07:58, said:

I want to clarify the following point: my advice focuses on the first question I posed - which suit do we lead. As for what card to lead of any given suit, to me that's mostly something to decide on once and then not deviate from. I have some personal opinions on lead and carding systems, but have mostly kept that to myself because it's a study field filled with strong opinions and little to no evidence. Your questions on leads and signals have almost always been on the second half: given that we lead the suit, what's the correct card.
The split you propose above is also of the second type - you're making more nuance for which card to lead of partner's suit, conditional on wanting to lead it in the first place.

Personally I am a bit contrarian when it comes to lead agreements and signals. I think that some simple rules are regularly better than complicated rules. Therefore I'd shy away from some of the nuances and exceptions to general agreements, unless you have a strong reason to believe that you're losing on your lead agreements.

Yes, I am focused on AFTER you have decided upon which suit to lead and particularly today, what card in your partners suit -given you have made this decision to lead his suit. I agree I don't want deviations from the agreement so I'm tightening up some loose ends.

And for sure, my son and I are getting down in the weeds and the agreement we have would not work well with a pick-up partner at a club or on-line.

I think we are doing well- He is in Chicago and I am in Oklahoma and we play the 8 board competitive tournaments on-line. Our rolling 12 game average is at 53 percent. He only started playing about 18 months ago, so I think we are doing pretty good as most of the people playing these boards claim to be advanced and experts with a few world class.

As usual, thanks all

[AL78]

Huibertus, on 2025-May-25, 07:02, said:

Second question; It depends on the bidding, normally , don't lead aces into the blind. In partner's suit less of an issue, but often still handing declare a trick with the K. Lead the Ace if the bidding implies you need to cash out.

What would you lead in this situation?

---

I cannot remember all of the auction other than the fact we bid hearts and the opponents ended up in 4♣ with me on lead with this hand. Over to you.

[Shugart23]

Probably the 10 of diamonds, showing the jack. What did you do

[Shugart23]

Probably the 10 of diamonds, showing the jack. What did you do