[jerryblu]

What I really want is an authoritative book (so I can know what is "standard") that describes how to follow suit when partner makes an opening lead of Ace (from AK), dummy has 3 small, bidding is irrelevant, and you hold either
QJT, QJX, QJ, Qx, QJ9x, JTx.

Anyone know of a good source?

FWIW, I play that the Q always promises the Jack, and the Jack always promises the ten.

TIA
Jerry

[Fluffy]

I have no source but it is easy that the answer is

QJT, QJX, QJ, Qx, QJ9x, JTx.

The last one you play low because you cannot afford any other card if declare has Q9x. The others are easy.

[Phil]

Usually you can't express count here, unless the bidding makes it obvious what your length is.

I think you have the concept down. If it makes you feel better, send me $15

I looked at my copy of Kantar Teaches Bridge Defense, and its not covered.

[jerryblu]

Yes, I agree with everything you said. (but you can forget the $15)

I need a way to convince a partner that his idea of "standard" is incorrect

Jerry

[karlson]

If you play upside down, maybe techincally the right play is still low from JTx and hope that partner figures it out, but in practice I have never had partner figure it out, and it's hard to construct an example where he will. So I just play the J and at least we'll get it right if it's partner that has the 9.

I know that you're supposed to play standard in that spot even if you play upside down normally, for precisely this reason, but that's too easy a forget for me.

[Jlall]

karlson, on Oct 28 2009, 08:07 PM, said:

If you play upside down, maybe techincally the right play is still low from JTx and hope that partner figures it out, but in practice I have never had partner figure it out, and it's hard to construct an example where he will. So I just play the J and at least we'll get it right if it's partner that has the 9.

I know that you're supposed to play standard in that spot even if you play upside down normally, for precisely this reason, but that's too easy a forget for me.

Just play low slowly obv

[Hanoi5]

Jlall, on Oct 28 2009, 11:32 PM, said:

karlson, on Oct 28 2009, 08:07 PM, said:

If you play upside down, maybe techincally the right play is still low from JTx and hope that partner figures it out, but in practice I have never had partner figure it out, and it's hard to construct an example where he will. So I just play the J and at least we'll get it right if it's partner that has the 9.

I know that you're supposed to play standard in that spot even if you play upside down normally, for precisely this reason, but that's too easy a forget for me.

Just play low slowly obv

That wasn't funny, he might think you mean it. This is not dominoes.

I play the Queen in all the examples except Qx or JTx where I'd play small. If I'm playing UDCA I would probably play the Ten in the last one. Bidding, contract, etc are very relevant: playing the Queen under partner's Ace asks him to underlead the King next so if I'm not interested in such a thing I shouldn't play the Queen.

[Jlall]

Hanoi5, on Oct 29 2009, 03:58 AM, said:

Jlall, on Oct 28 2009, 11:32 PM, said:

karlson, on Oct 28 2009, 08:07 PM, said:

If you play upside down, maybe techincally the right play is still low from JTx and hope that partner figures it out, but in practice I have never had partner figure it out, and it's hard to construct an example where he will. So I just play the J and at least we'll get it right if it's partner that has the 9.

I know that you're supposed to play standard in that spot even if you play upside down normally, for precisely this reason, but that's too easy a forget for me.

Just play low slowly obv

That wasn't funny, he might think you mean it.

Umm I will give you 1000:1 bet on any amount of money that he did not think I meant it lol (as long as he= karlson).

I would agree with your general point if this was the beginner/int forum but luckily I am posting on the adv/exp forum where I am sure no one would take me seriously.

After all this is the description of this sub forum: Forum designated for experienced and adept bridge players to discuss more advanced topics.

I do not think any adept or experienced bridge player would take my joke seriously right? What, you mean to tell me not everyone who posts on this sub forum is advanced or expert?!

[Jlall]

On a positive note, if a beginner or intermediate is ever looking for advice, this is the description of the beginner/intermediate sub forum:

For our novice to intermediate members to discuss issues and share advice (and for more skilled players to answer questions .

Sounds perfect! Glad everyone follows these descriptions! So there is no chance that the OP will be confused by my comment either.

[OleBerg]

I generally agree with the other posters.

Slightly off-topic, your partner may have been confused by this:

Some people play, that when you split your honours, you play lowest from two, but highest from three; So if dummy plays a small, and you want to split, you play J from QJ, but Q from QJ10. (When falsecarding is not an issue.)

[jerryblu]

"Some people play, that when you split your honours, you play lowest from two, but highest from three; So if dummy plays a small, and you want to split, you play J from QJ, but Q from QJ10. (When falsecarding is not an issue.)"

I suppose that brings up another topic: splitting honors. If partner leads small, and dummy has xxx, I play lower of touching honors. When declarer leads small toward ATx, I play higher (if I decide to split)

[bid_em_up]

jerryblu, on Oct 28 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

What I really want is an authoritative book (so I can know what is "standard") that describes how to follow suit when partner makes an opening lead of Ace (from AK), dummy has 3 small, bidding is irrelevant, and you hold either
QJT, QJX, QJ, Qx, QJ9x, JTx.

Anyone know of a good source?

FWIW, I play that the Q always promises the Jack, and the Jack always promises the ten.

TIA
Jerry

It is in print somewhere, but at the moment, I cannot recall where I've seen it.

When partner leads an honor vs. a suit contract, you play the higher of touching honors in order for partner to know that it is safe to underlead his remaining honor (if necessary). You will either have the next lower honor, or your honor was originally stiff, in which case you will be ruffing the trick.

When partner leads small in a suit, standard is to play the lower of touching honors. The play of a higher honor denies any lower honor. However, there are occasions here where you may wish to deceive either declarer or your partner and choose to deviate from the norm.

[Lobowolf]

Probably in Kantar's big red book (if that's still around).

[lmilne]

A reasonably authoritative source is "Defensive Signals" by Marshall Miles. He has some good suggestions for honor signals when following suit to partner, as well as what to play as second hand (which has rarely been discussed in literature).

Firstly, it depends what your lead of an Ace means. You say you lead A from AK, whereas Miles decided that the old-fashioned style of King from AK was better (for various reasons stated in his book). Thus, he would not play the Q from QJx facing the lead of an Ace against a suit contract, as partner doesn't have the King and this could blow a trick.

Anyway, lots of situations are covered in the book, as well as lots of other interesting topics (when cards are suit preference, when they are count, some general rules, as well as lots of good defensive problems using the methods he suggests). Give it a read!