Jxx sidesuit holding what to lead

What do you lead from Jxx (sidesuit holding) when forced

I lead the J
10
53%
I lead the middle x
0
No votes
I lead the lowest x
8
42%
Ive never thought about it, i dont know
1
5%
 
Total votes: 19

User avatar
dustin7609
Active Poster
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:22 pm

Post by dustin7609 » Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:35 pm

Thanks Galt.

By the way, the goal of a deep finesse (in contrast to a simple finesse) is really to set your holding up for 2nd and 3rd round control of the suit -- it really isn't a play designed to win the first trick. The idea is that you hope only one of the missing honors is to your left, this way you gain 2nd and 3rd round control. But hey, if both are to your right, even better!

You can apply the "rule of restricted choice" here as well. If your LHO plays the king on the first round, it is very unlikely that he also has the missing queen due to the law of restricted choice, so you can safely finesse on the next round. However, if your LHO plays the queen on that first round, now you have a guess/choice to make on the next round. It's almost like a bath coupe, by taking the deep finesse you get to gather more information for the next round of the suit.

I like finessing the jack sometimes as long as I can deduce that partner doesn't hold the king. After all, that's the real risk -- that partner could lose a 2nd round winner. This is why lead conventions are so important to my strategy.

For instance, we agree to lead lowest card from strength (Q32 lead the 2) and top-of-nothing from weakness (1062 lead the 10). One example of why this is good for me because if I hold AJx, I know it's a 50 50 shot when partner leads me the 2. Now it's not a 'deep finesse' because I know partner has a missing honor -- it is now a simple finesse. The lead of the jack tells me either that partner has support in that suit, or is short in that suit. Both occasions where I'd like to set my holding up for 2nd and 3rd round control and not surrender the ace easily.
Galt wrote:My only question is about your estimate of 99.99 on the deep finesse. Common, its gotta be higher than 1 out of 10,000. Don't ya think that it's at least 2?
You know it's really rare for me to see an opponent take 3rd seat finesses with the jack -- really really rare. In fact, it's so rare that I almost never split my KQ in second seat. I really don't. I can count the number of times on one hand that this has backfired.

I think it's a good play, but I hardly ever see it applied. I honestly think it might be around 1/10000. I mean on Yahoo spades alone, they have several hundred thousand players. Out of those players, I'd guess less than 500 have read a book on card theory. And of those maybe 1/10 correctly apply the theories. Of course, among competitive play you'll see it more frequently -- maybe 1% in that case!

Manic
Active Poster
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:08 am
Location: UP or DOWN

Post by Manic » Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:33 pm

Wow! Do you seriously think that approx 99% of players go up on their partner's J lead?

I always finesse the J lead unless i have some exceptional situations.
EG:
1. my team has a likely minority in the trump suit.
2. I have less than 3 spades and its risky to hold up the play with a finesse
3. we are well n truly in the lead, and we are looking at a more consolidating approach.

However if we accept the notion that our partner has led from shortness, then its very worth a finesse. despite the exceptional circumstances.
If u have ATx or AT9 its very worth it, we are not really in danger of losing the Ace on the 2nd round and most likely 3rd round.

If as you say we keep to a restricted lead with a J.
EG: J, Jx, JTx
Theres 2/3 holdings which if we hold up the lead with the ace we can potentially exploit.

(btw: without trying to be too anal, finessing with 2 withstanding honors such as ducking the J lead with the ace, wouldnt that be a WIDE finesse? when one finesses the T lead with the Axx wouldnt that be considered a deep finesse with 3 or more missing cards?)

This is esp important i think if i had ATx and partner led the J.
If as you suggest that WEST will duck the J and not cover with the Q, then EAST would certainly win the Q or K.
On return of the suit North can capture the other honor if it in fact does lie on his right, finessing the T for 2 tricks.

If some players advocate leading the J from Jxx as Galt and 5 others suggested earlier, then it makes for an even greater case to finesse that J lead, Else the J is just wasted.

The other good thing about holding up at least once, with Axx is that you can win the 2nd round if u want and then lead a 3rd round to partner for a 3rd round cut. By winning your ace first round u lose that control and tempo to an extent.

I would say that its even more likely that the majority of the spading community covers anything in 2nd seat...usually J is covered by a Q as is the Q covered by the K...etc...

If as suggested that West doesnt cover the J with Qxx (only with QT) Then this makes the J lead much more effective i would think.
That means the J has more potential in pulling out East's Ace.
I dont think many East's would HOLD up the play with Axx.

The sad thing is that lots of opponents play the ACE in 2nd seat when u lead the J... Theres lots of reasons why you should limit the J lead in spades.

I agree with only leading the J from J, Jx, and JTx, the J would need to be supported if i had 3 or more.
I think the lead of the x, from Jxx loses less overall.
Unless u think WEST will not cover the J with Q, in that case i think it adds a lot more momentum to the J lead with Jxx.

If anyone decides to lead J from Jxx in their partnership conventions, then you must finesse the J lead...
That means u dont go up with the ace or king, as some players seem to do.

As i said, i wanted to take the lead from a Jxx as a FORCED lead.
There are many other worse leads than this 1...however there are many other better leads too.

It was important to take into context, a setting environment, trying to maximize tricks, and that we were on a level playing field in regards to players ability and score.
I think we should also consider we have a regular partner...Galt i find it hard to believe u dont have at least 1 reg partner. my condolences.

If you havent got a regular partner, then worrying about fine tuning your game, whether or not one should lead a J or x from Jxx is just a waste of time for you.

For others though, i think trying to earn extra tricks in all facets of the game and learning to maximize tricks is very important.
Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect

User avatar
dustin7609
Active Poster
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:22 pm

Post by dustin7609 » Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:51 pm

Manic wrote:Wow! Do you seriously think that approx 99% of players go up on their partner's J lead?.
Well of course I am "shooting from the hip" -- this is not meant to be an exact percentage. But yes, I think the number is over 99%. And this is just based on personal experience through years of playing against a very random and general populace of players from many sites. Of course, I'm a strange person. In fact I'm a geek if truth be told. I analyze hands frequently to see how my opponents play. I also kibitz a lot of games. It's amazing what you learn from doing this.

Because the jack finesse is utilized so incredibly infrequently, 2nd hand queen cover play is seldom useful. Again, play your opponents. When playing an expert pair, adjust accordingly.

Manic wrote:btw: without trying to be too anal, finessing with 2 withstanding honors such as ducking the J lead with the ace, wouldnt that be a WIDE finesse? when one finesses the T lead with the Axx wouldnt that be considered a deep finesse with 3 or more missing cards?)
No problem. Most theorists define any finesse against more than 1 card a "deep finesse". But you can call it a fuzzy finesse if you like -- I don't really care. After all, it's just a term. It's the concept that matters. And if we can agree on a term that works for the sake of discussion, that is all I care about. But please, let's not waste time on a terminological tangle.
Manic wrote:I would say that its even more likely that the majority of the spading community covers anything in 2nd seat...usually J is covered by a Q as is the Q covered by the K...etc...
Yes I agree that it is very common that players always "cover an honor with an honor".
Manic wrote:If as suggested that West doesnt cover the J with Qxx (only with QT) Then this makes the J lead much more effective i would think....
Yes and you've hit upon a very common conundrum in this game. That is, once you've found out a mannerism of the opposition, you can capitalize on it. Same goes for an opponent who doesn't cover the queen, the queen lead becomes very effective.

But we're focusing far too much on that single trick and how effective a particular card will be on that trick. We're losing sight of the more important issue -- hand texture communication. Again, if partner starts leading jacks from every holding headed by a jack, I've lost the ability to gain anything informative from his/her lead. This is significant. The jack needs to promise the 10, or be doubleton or singleton. For lots of reasons that would require an entire book. But let's keep it simple -- it allows me to read the hand much better.

Manic
Active Poster
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:08 am
Location: UP or DOWN

Post by Manic » Tue Nov 27, 2007 10:49 pm

Are you suggesting Dustin that there is no clear advantage gained by leading the J or x from Jxx?

It certainly appears that although u favor the x lead, you have actually promoted the J with the lack of 2nd seat cover.

It appears almost a contradiction.

Is this truly a discussion of no apparent advantage or disadvantage over either lead?

The whole concept of playing to your opponent's level, and their mannerisms is very important for sure...If u can routinely pick players for their relative quirks and plays then of course u are going to be able to gain an upperhand.

If we had 4 experts, i dont think you could tell me you would duck the J lead with Qxx, in 2nd seat.

On the odd occasion it would help when the J was led from JTx, but it would not work as successfully if your partner didnt hold up the play with A9x, if they beat the J, ur Q would be on a hook to the K

I have yet to see where holding up the Q in 2nd seat with Qxx and refusing to cover the J could be of advantage unless ur partner also held up the play too, unless 3rd seat player is a clutz.

I think holding up the play when a Q is led could be of advantage, but i dont see it being the same with the J lead.

I know we dont generally come up against high level players often, but if we dont know our opponents to start the game like u seem do always do Dustin, then shouldnt we not assume they are experts until proven otherwise??

Maybe all of our threads and replies should be split into 2 categories...

A. Experts
B. Average opponents

Then talk about how differently u would play either skill level

It seems to me that although u have posted some very good replies Dustin, at the same time u have actually created more doubt as to whether the J or the x is in fact the better option.

There appears to be more gray area than before... Do u think?
Is there a clear better lead in this situation?

Does it just come down to player style?

If WEST is NEVER going to cover my J lead unless they have QTx then the J lead is an outstanding lead preference is it not? lol
Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect

User avatar
dustin7609
Active Poster
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:22 pm

Post by dustin7609 » Wed Nov 28, 2007 7:07 am

Manic wrote:Are you suggesting Dustin that there is no clear advantage gained by leading the J or x from Jxx?

It certainly appears that although u favor the x lead, you have actually promoted the J with the lack of 2nd seat cover.

Is this truly a discussion of no apparent advantage or disadvantage over either lead?
Certainly not. There is a distinct advantage to following the conventional rules of when to lead the jack. If you read my posts, I am stressing the importance of communication -- regardless of whether or not West decides to cover. I cannot predict what West will do and there are more important considerations than this single trick that I am leading to. Even against a West which does not cover (which is the correct play) the lead of an empty jack suit that isn't a singleton or doubleton is still a bad play.
The thing is, most players will automatically cover the jack, even though it rarely pays to do so. You're just surrendering 3rd round control when you do this.

Again, re-read my posts that stress the importance of being able to ascertain what partner holds.

I will admit this, however. In the rare occurance that you have a LHO who correctly doesn't cover jacks with queens, and you also have an expert partner who knows how to play 3rd hand correctly, then yes you may gain a very slight advantage by leading an emtpy jack. Very very slight. BUT, the damaging thing about doing this is that partner will lose any kind of ability to know what you hold. This is extremely damaging and not worth gaining a miniscule advantage that you might gain. Especialy since this scenario is so infrequent.

Communications for the hand, telling a story to my partner, this is more important than determining whether or not I can sneak one past West.

Manic wrote:I know we dont generally come up against high level players often, but if we dont know our opponents to start the game like u seem do always do Dustin, then shouldnt we not assume they are experts until proven otherwise??
No! Hell no! Are you kidding me?

I can count the number of spades experts out there on 2 hands -- maybe 1! On the other hand there are hundreds of thousands of mediocre players. It is such a rare occurance to play an expert player that one should assume you're playing two people that have no clue about card theory until proven otherwise.

User avatar
Just_Ice
Grand Master
Posts: 2918
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 8:51 am
Location: Ozarks

Post by Just_Ice » Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:26 am

As I have been reading the forum lately, I couldn't help but notice something. Without getting too lengthy, I'll simply say that some people have a Classic Spades mentality while some have a Duplicate Spades mentality.

This issue being discussed is a prime example. I do not play Duplicate Spades. My game play is not centered around maximizing points over an entire evening of play. My focus is winning the current game.

Is there any chance these two approaches might make different plays in some situations... like this one? In a different thread, it was mentioned that the Big 5 causes you to "lose more points" over the long haul so experts don't use it. My point is, that if it was the last hand of a game in a tournament, as Joe's post showed an example of, did not the Big 5 help win 1 game?

With a focus being placed on "points over 10,000 games" instead of "winning the game" it might lead to a different conclusion.

If there are only 10 or less experts, would it be wise to join a random game at Hardwood and play the "maximize points over a night" approach over the "win the current game" approach, when your goal is to win the game?

It's an honest question I've had for quite some time.

And, what happens when a "maximize tricks" expert plays with a "win the game" expert? Are they compatible?

What does everyone think?

Are the "expert" plays always the same when you're maximizing tricks as opposed to trying to just with the current game?

What about this one? If you're just trying to win the game, is the x lead better than the J? Which lead will cause you to go set in that game more often than the other? What percentage of Spades games played will the x lead actually communicate something? Will that communication out weigh the chance your partner will lose his K and you go set as a result, giving you a greater chance of losing the game? If two experts are partnering each other, they can make that distinction ahead of time.

Personally, I think people are different, and people do things for different reasons. The same applies to Spades. I enjoy the thrill of being in the moment of a game and doing whatever necessary to win that game. I tried Duplicate, and the maximizing tricks mentality, for a while. I even won some tournaments. It's not for me. But, I did notice I had to think differently to win a Duplicate tournament. You can not have the "win the game" mentality at a Duplicate tournament. That doesn't mean that it's not for others. But, I wonder if the expert advice is different (rightfully so) coming from the experts on both sides of the fence?

Maybe in some cases the x is better and in some cases the J is better. Maybe each game situation would determine which is better. Maybe the x lead is better to maximize tricks if you're playing someone who understands the communication behind it and you 2 plan on playing a Duplicate tournament where you have to maximize points all night. Maybe the J is better for those simply interested in winning the current game.

Or, is the x better even if it doesn't communicate anything because you're playing with a pick up partner who is just interested in winning the game (because that's the format you're playing under)?

Most Spades discussions I've seen fail to make a lot of these distinctions. This is why I believe arguments arise. Not because one side is right and the other is wrong, but because each side is right in their way of thinking. The hard part for most people is to see that the other side's opinion might have value the way they play the game. Written text is such a bad medium for discussions because it gives little opportunity for actual discussion. It's so one-sided.

User avatar
dustin7609
Active Poster
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:22 pm

Post by dustin7609 » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:31 am

Just_Ice wrote:As I have been reading the forum lately, I couldn't help but notice something. Without getting too lengthy, I'll simply say that some people have a Classic Spades mentality while some have a Duplicate Spades mentality.
While I can see your point, I don't think anyone (at least on this thread) has posted any strategies specific to duplicate spades. Duplicate strategy is quite unique to the 500 game, and it's rarely discussed because it is no longer available.
Just_Ice wrote:This issue being discussed is a prime example. I do not play Duplicate Spades. My game play is not centered around maximizing points over an entire evening of play. My focus is winning the current game.
I don't think these two concepts are mutually exclusive, as you suggest. But this thread is focusing more on a play-of-the hand issue for a general hand. Certainly the context of the game and score should always be considered when making a decision, but for this discussion, the author is focusing more on a general situation. It's important in card theory to separate general theory from situational theory -- otherwise concepts quickly get muddled. The idea of course is to first study general theory and then apply situational theory to the concept.
Just_Ice wrote:I My point is, that if it was the last hand of a game in a tournament, as Joe's post showed an example of, did not the Big 5 help win 1 game?With a focus being placed on "points over 10,000 games" instead of "winning the game" it might lead to a different conclusion.
From a probability standpoint, if a play costs you more in the long run than it gains you (risk versus reward -- courtesy of John Galt), then it is logical to not make that play during any specific game. Surely there are occasions where it would have benefited you -- as is the case of Joe's example. But we aren't concerning ourselves with hindsight or exceptions to the rule. We are wanting to make the most probable play. And if a play gives you even a minute advantage over another play over the course of many games, then it's only logical to always make that play. I think Galt would agree with this as it's in line with the philosophy of his book.
Just_Ice wrote:If there are only 10 or less experts, would it be wise to join a random game at Hardwood and play the "maximize points over a night" approach over the "win the current game" approach, when your goal is to win the game?
Ok now I am confused. Where are you getting the notion that we are discussing maximizing points rather than winning the game? I haven't seen anyone mention this. Certainly winning the game is the goal. To achieve this, one needs to master many things -- and this discussion is focusing on a play-of-the hand concept. Certainly no one is saying that play-of-the hand is one's ONLY consideration. That would be silly to assume.

But if you think my general aggressive style is not conducive to winning games, I have always maintained a 90+% winning ratio, which is truly the highest I've ever seen. And I can tell you with 100% certainty that the reason I win so many games is chiefly because of my team's ability to maximize our hand's potential in conjunction with an intimate understanding of the situational aspects of this game. I'm not stating this to brag or anything, rather my point is that learning how to manage your hand to maximize the number of tricks you can take is an extremely important facet of the game -- and I think I am proof of this as my winning % was only around 70% before I started studying the play of the hand in depth. It allows me to gain many sets that most others would never get. Obviously "winning the game" is always important and one's focus certainly shouldn't ONLY be on trick maximization. Situational considerations are extremely important and I can't overstate this enough.
And this goes back to risk versus reward.

The player who has the most complete understanding of risk/reward will win the most games. And over the many years that I've played if there is one major thing I've learned it is that it pays greatly to have an aggressive approach for the most part while at the same time understanding the situation to know when to be conservative. Aggressiveness, in general, pays great dividends/rewards over risk. But knowing when to be conservative is key.

Hope that helps.

- D
Last edited by dustin7609 on Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:53 am, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Post by Galt » Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:34 am

It's a really good question J.

I think that most people know that my position is that Spades is much more of a strategy game (as opposed to cardplay or trick maximization) as compared to other card games.... and further that superior strategy can often overcome superior cardplay to win games.

I do also think that if you wind up with one pard who focuses strongly on trick maximization (or maybe has the orientation that you should try to set on every hand) and one pard who is trying to strategically place his team in a good position to win the game, you can wind up with a mess.

Obviously, the best spader will be a player who knows how to maximize tricks but also understands when to play a conservative and positioning game.

The above is also why I believe that duplicate misses the point when it comes to representing the be all and end all of spades, as opposed to being an innovative and challenging variation of the game which certainly is true.

The above was not necessarily in response to the Jxx issue.
Image

User avatar
Joe Andrews
Active Poster
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 10:48 pm
Contact:

Leads J x x + Others

Post by Joe Andrews » Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:48 pm

Pursuant with the question about the best lead with the holding of Jack and two small (not - J 10 9 or J 10 X), the best lead with this holding is the lowest card. The score, table bid for the hand in question, and bag count are also critical factors. (We assume that we are referring to "off-suit leads".)

I do agree with Dustin that communication is vital, and the lead of J promiss the ten (and a three or four card suit). If I have a stiff Jack or a doubleton Jack, then the lead of the Jack is fine, as my partner will know I will be trumping no later than the third round of that suit. As for those who have penchant of covering with the Q, the ten will now become valuable, especially if partner has the King (and the Ace is played in fourth seat). If had lead the J from J and two small spots, then the cover by the Q would kill my partner's King (as the ops would now score their tenspot. A lot is hinged on where the higher cards are located. The J can be a very valuable card. Finally, "hi-low" becomes very ambiguous if one case a lead is from J x x, and another time it comes from J x.

As for other plain suit holdings and preferred leads, we have to consider what to do when holding "broken high card combinations (often called "tenaces). Two examples are A- Q - 10, etc. or K - J - 9 etc.
A lead from any of these tenace or unsupported honor card holdings is more likely to give a trick away than gain one. If the table bid is 12 or 13, it is best to consider another suit lead. Wait for the oponents to lead into your tenace combination. One in a while, you may be left with limited alternatives, and are forced to lead one of these "sticky" combination. In which case, follow the examples listed below:

A Q 10 9 x lead the Ace
A Q x x (or more lead the Ace

A J 10 x (or more) lead the Ace
K J 10 x (or more) lead the Jack J
K 10 9 x (or more) lead the tenspot

(Underleads of Kings are always desperation or "forced" plays!)


Q 10 9 x (or more) lead the ten spot
A x x (or more) lead the Ace (avoid leading from a suit such as this!)
K J x (or more) lead the small card
K x x (or more) - avoid this lead at all costs

J x x (or more) lead the small spot -----------------------------------------------------------------

Note: A good lead understanding or system is to lead K from a suit headed by A K x , or A K x x (x) , however, you lead A from A K doubleton. The latter is preferred by most partners.

A lead of x from a four-card or longer holding should normally be fourth best (lead the 4 from 4 5 7 9)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Defensive Play

Encouragement/Discouragement

An unnecessarily high card discard in an "off suit" is encouraging, an unnecessarily low one is discouraging.

High-low is encouraging, low-high is discouraging.

Do not use these plays if the information is of no value or help to partner.


In the Spade suit, it is a little different! A hi - low is played to show a three-card holding. Play low-high with a doubleton. This is called the "Trump Peter" . The Peter tells partner that you have a trump left for ruffing purposes.

Suit Preference Plays (Taking out the guess work)

Suit preference signals apply when partner is going to trump, or when he will have a choice of suits next time he is on lead. The decision is almost always between two suits only, because you can rule out the suit being presently led, and you can (almost always) rule out Spades . The suits are ranked as they are in the game of Bridge. (Spades / Hearts / Diamonds / Clubs). If hearts is the suit being trumped, then your lead of low heart lead tells partner your entry is in clubs, (the lower- ranking side suit) and your lead of a middle or higher heart, tells your partner your entry is in diamonds (the higher ranking side suit).

This may seem to be overhwelming; however, once you have taken the time to learn the suit preference lead system, you and your partner will see an improvement in your defensive game.

It is important not to confuse these signals with encouraging/discouraging signals. So only use them when it is obvious that another suit is wanted.

Once you have this standard scenario in mind, you will notice all kinds of other situations where partner is going to switch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete partnership understanding is a must; do not try these leads with "pick - up" or random partners. This is why having a regular partner is vital to success.
Image

CogDis
Noob
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:05 am

Post by CogDis » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:23 am

Certainly the score, table bid and bag situation may dictate that either the J lead or x lead is better with a Jxx holding. However, my discussion assumes that we are trying to maximize tricks and that there is not enough information available to infer any likely holdings by the other players.

I looked at the various (approx. 80) holdings of the AKQT cards. I found that the advantage gained by either lead (J or x) was about equal for what I would call "likely" or "very possible" tricks. I should say that the card play by the opps and pard are somewhat unpredictable with many holdings and the result could tilt one way or the other for different playing choices. However, I believe that the 2 leads would come out about equal overall for most playing styles considering "likely" or "very possible" tricks.

An advantage of the x lead that occured very frequently was that after 2 rounds our hand and pard's hand are both left with honors in the suit (K or Q for pard and J for us of course). From our lead of the x and then seeing another x come out during play, pard should be thinking that our x lead was from a suit in which we held an honor. So pard should be aware of the situation (and we will probably also know that pard has the boss honor). This information can be very helpful and the choices it gives can be very useful. If pard would like an entry into my hand he may play low. If pard wants to keep lead, he may play high. We can also lead the J and let pard make the choice that way. Playing the x can lead to nice communication between the hands later on down the line. Of course, this 3rd round/4th round opportunity is much more likely to bear fruit after spades have been pulled from opps. So, if one of the opps shows out at the second round, then we may try to hold off on the suit until after we attack spades.

Dustin has discussed the advantage of the x lead because it communicates something about our holding. Whereas, if we lead the J, then it could be from so many different holdings that it fails to communicate usefully. I agree with him.

So, it seems to me that the x lead is superior.

Umm, however. The human factor should be considered a little. If I were playing with one of my regular pards (most of whom would be able to capitalize on the subtle advantages of the x lead), I would lead the x for sure.

With a lobby pard that I have seen is not likely to capitalize on these advantages, I would probably lead the J. And not because I think the J lead is better from a strategic card-play standpoint with a less-skilled pard. Rather, I think the J lead would be more comfortable for pard. If pard has the K and it gets gobbled up and later he sees that I had the J, I think he may lose confidence in my play (and/or get mad at me). This would not be good for our performance as a team. The fact that he would most likely have lost his K no matter whether I led the J or x will not matter in the least.

So, as so often with spades questions I think it comes down to: it depends ...

In the event that any of my regular pards are reading this, I will be leading the x from Jxx.

CogDis/
VladTepes
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant stuggle." - George Orwell

User avatar
dustin7609
Active Poster
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:22 pm

Post by dustin7609 » Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:29 am

Good reply, Cogdis.


As a side note and to ramble a bit, I was thinking the other day why so few players ever take jack finesses (From a AJ type of holding, or when partner leads a jack).

Where is the risk? After all, you're maintaining control of the suit just as if you had taken a Q finesse.

If you're not using a conventional leading system, the risk is that your partner could be losing a 3rd round king. Most people don't use any sort of lead convention system (other than top-of-sequence), so it's very difficult to ascertain when partner holds the king and when he doesn't. This is why such a very very small percentage of players ever take this finesse and why covering is unnecessary.

Thus the importance of lead conventions....low from strength, top-of-nothing, top-of-sequence (except from AK where the K is led -- reserve ace for doubleton), etc. Very powerful tools!

TrashCanCharlie
Active Poster
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:23 am
Location: expert spades
Contact:

Hmmmm? Do Not Lose Track of What Leads Are Supposed To Do?

Post by TrashCanCharlie » Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:11 pm

Leads...............

Thread has not stated......."Opening lead" "Subsequent Lead"

To decide is very important because many partners have agreements, agreements where what is acceptable on the opening lead as partnership trust and trust that can not ever be tampered with, can drastically change on subsequent leads where info has been gained.

Next.............

When making any lead one should ask several questions........

1.What would I like to accomplish with this lead? Nothing? Just get out of the lead? How does this lead impact our side, my partners hand, opps tricks, etc etc.

2.Do I want to make a lead that is informative? How informative? Do I want partner to field my lead and not have the opps privy? Do I want the entire table to know how weak I am in some suit?

Sooooooooooooooooooo.....

The lead of the x, or the lead of the Jack can and are both good leads and both acceptable.............Each of the leads conveys a specific message.

Normally the lead of the Jack denies any higher honor card and can be led as a stiff, dub, or from J10, Jx, J109....but typically not from Jxx

However, as the hand progresses it is very important at times to let pard know you do not have a card higher in some suit.......The other reason the Jack can be useful is for unblocking purpose............and or to retain the lead.

If opp covers suit is established and pards runs, if opp does not cover the jack u retain the lead to lead again and the finesse is repeated.

A lead of the jack is risky and is best used holding three or more when fact is gained via plays and bidding that leaves you placed to make this judgement lead...........notttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt on the opening lead....................almost almost almost always some lead is better than J from Jxx on the opening lead............................................


TrashCanCharlie

Manic
Active Poster
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:08 am
Location: UP or DOWN

Post by Manic » Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:49 pm

Out of curiosity, What holdings would be in contrast better to lead from than the Jxx and what holdings would be worse to lead from?

Charlie, Can u give some examples?
Surely any tenace might be worse to lead from than Jxx?
How would you contrast Axx, Kxx, Qxx and KQx

Also speaking of this communication argument by Dustin, wanting to lead low x from Jxx to show odd count, or denying a doubleton, what about:
Txx or 9xx Did u say you would lead TOP?
Dustin doesnt that contradict your count idea?

Heres 5 opening lead examples: You are south and have opening lead, what do u lead?

EG 1:
_______N(3)
W(3)_________E(3)
_______S(3)
__S____7654
__H____AQ8
__D____KJ7
__C____J76

EG 2:
_______N(3)
W(3)_________E(3)
_______S(3)
_______7654
_______AQ8
_______KQ7
_______J76

Eg 3:
_______N(3)
W(3)_________E(3)
_______S(3)
_______AT54
_______AQ8
_______Q87
_______J76

Eg 4:
_______N(3)
W(3)_________E(3)
_______S(3)
_______AJ54
_______AQ8
_______973
_______J76

Eg 5:
_______N(3)
W(3)_________E(3)
_______S(3)
_______Q542
_______AQ8
_______A87
_______J76
Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect

User avatar
dustin7609
Active Poster
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 4:22 pm

Post by dustin7609 » Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:07 pm

Manic wrote:
Also speaking of this communication argument by Dustin, wanting to lead low x from Jxx to show odd count, or denying a doubleton, what about:
Txx or 9xx Did u say you would lead TOP?
Dustin doesnt that contradict your count idea?
I don't use odd/even count signals, nor did I mention them here.....not sure where you got that from. The primary goal of our lead system is to show support, strength, or weakness.

Although one could certainly implement different count systems and still utilize the conventions we use.

The only time we lead the jack is from support, singleton, or doubleton. Thus from Jxx, Jxxx, Jxxxx, etc you would start low.

Our lead conventions are as follows. These apply only to 11+ bid hands. 10 bids and lower, most conventions are "off".

Top-Of-Sequence (support lead --except from AK, in which case the king is led first).
Ace is led first from AK to show doubleton
Lead low from strength (when holding at least the jack or higher)
Lead Top-of-nothing from empty suits (10 or lower)

CogDis
Noob
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 11:05 am

Post by CogDis » Thu Dec 06, 2007 7:31 am

In reponse to Manic's examples:

Lacking any information other than that provided, I would lead the following with most of my regular pards (on MOST occasions).

1. club 6
2. club 6
3. club 6
4. dime 9
5. club 6 (btw: you sure we didn't bid 4 here? lol)

There are score situations and partners with whom I would make different leads. With some situations / some partners I would consider leading the K from KQx, the x or Q from Qxx, and the J from Jxx.

CogDis/
VladTepes
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant stuggle." - George Orwell

Post Reply