[movingon]

Can someone explain to me what opponents mean when they announce that they play "Ace--even; King--Odd" ?


Thanks!

[PhantomSac]

If they have an even amount of cards in the suit they lead the A from AK, if they have an odd amount they lead the K.

[SteveMoe]

Check out Count Coded Leads by Jerry Fink and Joe Lutz, aka Cincinnati Leads (Bridge Guys)

[1eyedjack]

Possibly pioneered by Helge Vinje? Maybe he was not original, but certainly predated the first 2001 publication of Cincinnati Leads by a couple of decades (New Ideas in Defensive Play, 1979 - unfortunate title - not exactly new now, but still a good read)

[PhantomSac]

I have played this with Sheri, it has never mattered (good or bad) that I can remember. Maybe if Fred reads this he can comment since I assume he plays it with Sheri and has a lot more experience with it than I do.

[movingon]

SteveMoe, on 2014-July-14, 18:20, said:

Check out Count Coded Leads by Jerry Fink and Joe Lutz, aka Cincinnati Leads (Bridge Guys)

Thank you (and everyone else who responded)....
I did find the Bridge Guys references to Cincinatti leads very informative-- Both the count leads and the possible dual signal by partner showing both attitude and suit preference. I have encountered this at the table but did not fully grasp it before....

Noreen (movingon)

[fred]

PhantomSac, on 2014-July-14, 23:20, said:

I have played this with Sheri, it has never mattered (good or bad) that I can remember. Maybe if Fred reads this he can comment since I assume he plays it with Sheri and has a lot more experience with it than I do.

I learned this method from George Mittelman in the mid-1990s. Subsequently I played it in my partnerships with both Sheri Winestock and Brad Moss.

Brad and I went into more detail with our agreements concerning these leads. We basically played King from Ace-King and would always lead the King if either it was a situation in which we might lay down an Ace without the King (not well-defined but never a problem in practice) or if we didn't wish to give count for whatever reason. We also had some fairly detailed agreements about how 3rd hand is expected to signal in various situations.

In my experience, deals in which this agreement is a winner are not especially rare. Sometimes when it is a winner, it is a big winner (ie it becomes easy for the defense to get the hand right rather than having to guess). There are occasions in which it costs (typically by giving declarer useful information he could not have otherwise obtained), but my sense is that the gains outweigh the losses.

Overall I think this is a good method, but not sufficiently good to make it something I would eagerly recommend, particularly for non-serious partnerships.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[aguahombre]

Fred's ears were burning, or he has developed an alert system around the keyword "Fred", or someone ratted out Justin's post to Fred.

In any case it is good to get Fred's occasional input; would be better to get more of it.

[fred]

aguahombre, on 2014-July-15, 10:36, said:

Fred's ears were burning, or he has developed an alert system around the keyword "Fred", or someone ratted out Justin's post to Fred.

In any case it is good to get Fred's occasional input; would be better to get more of it.

I periodically do a search for "fred" in order to find out if someone wants my opinion or if something requires my attention.

Please feel free to include "fred" if you want to know what I think, but I can't promise I will respond to all such posts and I may sometimes take a while to respond (especially in times like the present when I am about to start playing in a long tournament).

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[foobar]

fred, on 2014-July-15, 10:20, said:

In my experience, deals in which this agreement is a winner are not especially rare. Sometimes when it is a winner, it is a big winner (ie it becomes easy for the defense to get the hand right rather than having to guess). There are occasions in which it costs (typically by giving declarer useful information he could not have otherwise obtained), but my sense is that the gains outweigh the losses.

Fred,

Do you have any thoughts on how it compares with a method in which lead of the K demands count? One obvious advantage of your method seems to be that third hand has more flexibility in giving suit preference (if continuation isn't right).

[fred]

foobar, on 2014-July-15, 11:54, said:

Fred,

Do you have any thoughts on how it compares with a method in which lead of the K demands count? One obvious advantage of your method seems to be that third hand has more flexibility in giving suit preference (if continuation isn't right).

I have only ever played the Ace-even-King-odd convention against suit contracts (sorry I didn't mention that before) and I don't think it would work very well against notrump.

I suspect your reference to King demanding count pertains to notrump where you really want to have a "power lead" for count/unblock purposes. I prefer to play Rusinow leads versus notrump where using the King as the power lead is part of the package.

I am not familiar with the concept of the lead of the King demanding count versus a suit contract, but my instincts suggest that it is not a very good idea (since attitude will usually be more important when you have a holding headed by the AK or KQ). As far as I can tell, there are some parts of the world in which it is normal to give count in various situations in which experts in my part of the world (North America) use attitude signals. If your question does pertain to suit contracts, perhaps the method you mention is popular in some other parts of the world.

But to answer your question, as far as I am concerned, you can't really compare the two methods since one only makes sense versus suit contracts and the other only makes sense against notrump.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[foobar]

fred, on 2014-July-15, 12:50, said:

I have only ever played the Ace-even-King-odd convention against suit contracts (sorry I didn't mention that before) and I don't think it would work very well against notrump.

I suspect your reference to King demanding count pertains to notrump where you really want to have a "power lead" for count/unblock purposes. I prefer to play Rusinow leads versus notrump where using the King as the power lead is part of the package.

Actually, it was in the context of suit contracts. As you noted, it's likely more popular on the other side of the pond. David Bird's book seems to indicate that most WC pairs use it against NT only, but apparently at least one English pair uses it against suits as well.

[FM75]

Hmm. Seems like upvoting Fred's comments is simply not possible.

so +1 for them here.

I have played A=attitude, K=Kount with a regular partner against suit contracts. It does not come up often that one wants to lead K from an AKx(x) holding.

But if the "real" Fred disagrees, then it suggests that our partnership needs to do some research!

[Zelandakh]

A attitude and K count is very popular in some parts of Britain so I have encountered it and played it a bit. From this I personally think it is one of the poorest methods around. I did manage to convince a couple of partners to reverse it to A count, K attiude, which I thought was an improvement, since you really want attitude from KQ. Rusinow is a good alternative to that but a leap too far for most players. We have also had a fair few threads concerning this so a search on the subject might be rewarding for anyone with a burning interest. On the other hand, the subject of the OP is not one I remember BBF covering in great detail...anyone else with some practical experience?

[1eyedjack]

Slight thread drift but related. It is my observation that most players who play Ace for Attitude, King for Count (or the reverse) tend to limit their explanation of such leads, on enquiry, to just that, which I think is questionable ethics. If I feel inclined to ask what their leads are, I want to know the opening leader's holding, rather than the anticipated signal. If I want to know what the signal is I may ask for that as well, but not as a substitute.

To be fair, most standard convention cards contain a table of possible holdings with the lead underlined or ringed (if properly completed) although I have seen some players who ring both Ace and King on the grounds that on a whim they may decide that they require a particular signal which may vary from hand to hand.

But the truth of the matter is that for most players who adopt these methods, they do have in mind types of honour holdings from which they would habitually lead one honour in preference to the other.

You might argue (and I think that some do), that it is "just bridge", that you have no duty to give bridge lessons at the table, and that if you can derive for yourself from what sort of holdings it is sensible to ask for a particular signal, that is the limit of the obligation on disclosure. I disagree. There might be more of a case for that excuse if dummy was exposed before the opening lead, but without that knowledge you cannot be certain (in many cases) what signal you prefer from a specific holding. A partnership may adopt a tendency in that scenario which may not be obvious nor derivable.

@Zel, I think that one of the main reasons for playing it standard-way-up is that you might wish to lead an unsupported Ace, but much less likely to lead an unsupported King. If leading an unsupported Ace you are more likely to want an attitude signal than a count signal.

[RMB1]

Zelandakh, on 2014-July-20, 18:05, said:

A attitude and K count is very popular in some parts of Britain so I have encountered it and played it a bit. From this I personally think it is one of the poorest methods around. I did manage to convince a couple of partners to reverse it to A count, K attiude, which I thought was an improvement, since you really want attitude from KQ. ...

I thought that "A attitude and K count" required Q from KQx.

[Zelandakh]

RMB1, on 2014-July-21, 04:53, said:

I thought that "A attitude and K count" required Q from KQx.

It probably does for better players, which brings us back to the Rusinow option already mentioned. However this is not the way it is played by regular club players in my experience. They learn ace attitude, king count and top of a sequence. This is the leading system I dislike.

1eyedjack, on 2014-July-21, 04:14, said:

But the truth of the matter is that for most players who adopt these methods, they do have in mind types of honour holdings from which they would habitually lead one honour in preference to the other.

It seems pretty straightforward. You lead the count card with AKQ and the attitude card with AKx or AKxx. With AK and length you lead the count card if you think knowing whether the second round will cash is of key importance or the attitude card otherwise.

1eyedjack, on 2014-July-21, 04:14, said:

@Zel, I think that one of the main reasons for playing it standard-way-up is that you might wish to lead an unsupported Ace, but much less likely to lead an unsupported King. If leading an unsupported Ace you are more likely to want an attitude signal than a count signal.

Well yes obviously it is rare to lead an unsupported king. But there are issues with this type of ace lead, such as what to signal with the queen when the king is not displayed in dummy. If going down the Rusinow route then always leading the king from AK and keeping the ace as unsupported makes the signaling simpler and helps to avoid accidents. Whether that is a good idea might depend on how much the pair likes to lead unsupported aces and the level of the contract. Instinctively this would seem to cover more cases than ace atttiude, king count though.

[1eyedjack]

Zelandakh, on 2014-July-21, 08:32, said:

Well yes obviously it is rare to lead an unsupported king. But there are issues with this type of ace lead, such as what to signal with the queen when the king is not displayed in dummy.

Nothing's perfect. If I happen to encourage with the Q, based on an anticipation that partner has AK and he doesn't have the K, then at least most of the damage was done on the opening lead, not on the signal.

[blackshoe]

Hm. Should I go back and re-read Journalist Leads? As I recall, the Journalist deprecated Rusinow Leads against Notrump, though I don't remember the reasons. Now, it seems, folks have decided the Journalist was wrong.

[lowerline]

I play Ace Attitude King Count for some years now. It is more complicated than it sounds. For starters, people tend to forget it also implies "Queen Attitude".

Against suit contracts: From a doubleton or 3crd the A or Q is lead. From a 5crd or longer the K is lead. Only from a 4crd there is a choice to make. Usually the K is lead from AK but the Q from KQ.

Against no trump contracts: The K is the power lead, meaning the A or Q is lead from less powerful holdings.

Against a 5-level contract (or higher) the K is always lead from AK (the A lead denies the K).