[gwnn]

---

South gets to a super game in 3NT after a non-descriptive 1NT-3NT sequence @ MP. West, after not much thought, lays down the 9 of spades (ie 2nd from nothing).

East takes the king and queen of spades, thinks for a while, and then switches to something totally different. Declarer looks a bit like a kid on Christmas eve who got his secret dream-gift and claims +1 (yay, not +2!).

Now even though it will surely become a fun memory, I was wondering... East thought "o no, partner lead from T9xx, I'll give declarer's jack a trick". I know this is usually not a very good philosophy, but sometimes it's an appealing one. There exist a couple of situations where we do need to go passive and then declarer, with 8 tricks, will have to surrender. Suppose, then, that East knows that if declarer has jack-fourth, it will be a bad thing to clear the suit. The question is:

If you lead from a long and bad suit, and your lead is always 2nd from this, how can p subsequently know your count? ty.


PS: I know I should have posted the whole hand, but I don't remember it. this is about signals anyways. Dummy had some long bad clubs and other high cards I think.

edit: awful spelling and grammar upgraded to semi-awful

[cherdano]

I have the same lead agreements, except I would sell T9xxx as a good suit usually and lead 4th best.

[whereagles]

After 1NT-3NT, there's a good possibility declarer is jack-3rd, no?

[Edmunte1]

Giving count on second card would have helped. So considering playing UDCA, and signaling present count, you'll play the 3 from intial 5 card holding and the 6 from an initial 4 card holding

[gwnn]

whereagles, on Feb 16 2007, 09:34 AM, said:

After 1NT-3NT, there's a good possibility declarer is jack-3rd, no?

Yea, especially after hearing declarer shout at his partner for about half an hour before asking for dummy's card

[brianshark]

The 9's a very misleading card to play. I don't see what's wrong with 4th highest (or 3rd/5th if you play that)? 2nd from nothing implies you have nothing, but you have an honour.

[pclayton]

I try not to lead 2nd highest from any top sequence.

4th best would help here.

[Gerben42]

Playing 2nd 4th the 9 was the correct card to lead, and partner should have known that it included the 10, since from 9x the x is led, and from 9xx the middle one...

[temp3600]

When I lead against NT, I consider a suit bad if all cards are below the 9 (included).

Quote

If you lead from a long and bad suit, and your lead is always 2nd from this, how can p subsequently know your count?

Playing standard carding, I show remaining count.

[brianshark]

Yeah I too consider T to be an honour, hence 4th highest. Why would you assume the lead from 9x is x? And he didn't say anything about MUD either. Oh and unless they had a specific agreement to the contrary, the lead or the 9 denies the ten, playing standard anyway. So leading 9 from T9 is unusual.

[cherdano]

Gerben42, on Feb 16 2007, 05:28 AM, said:

Playing 2nd 4th the 9 was the correct card to lead, and partner should have known that it included the 10, since from 9x the x is led, and from 9xx the middle one...

There is a difference between Polish style 2/4, and "4th best (2nd from bad suits)".
I am pretty sure the original poster is playing the latter.

Anyway, the 9 from T9xx(x) can only be right if you also have agreed Rusinow, I would claim.

[Apollo81]

West should have made a length lead, regardless of methods.

This reminds me of an urban legend in my area...a certain expert player is said to have reached 3NT with 10x opposite a void, and made it even when the opps led that suit.

[FrancesHinden]

i) I also would lead 4th highest from 109xxx

ii) However, the more relevant point is that West should have signalled current count on the second heart, in whatever the partnership style is. This applies if he had led the 8 from 98xxx and declarer had J10x.

iii) As a very minor point, in the partnership in which I play "2/4" leads against NT, I lead 4th highest from any 5-card holding.