[awm]

I'm curious how people play attitude leads against notrump. If you would never agree to such a thing, feel free to ignore the poll.

[The_Badger]

Generally dislike leading against NT with A(K)(Q)xxx and a four card suit, but in the absence of any other information and a non-Stayman 1NT-3NT raise, will do so from a major suit.

As for a A(K)(Q)xxxx five card suit will always lead 4th against NT except on the very odd occasion when I feel leading 5th could possibly deceive declarer into miscounting a hand (but that is so difficult to judge on a 1NT-3NT auction admittedly.)

[cherdano]

I wonder whether attitude leads are a bad match for the more popular modern style of more frequent passive leads. If you never lead from xxx, you can afford to use your spots to distinguish between Qxxx and Qxxxx, or Qxxx and stronger 4-card holdings. But when xxx is a common lead, distinguishing between xxx and Qxxx may be more important.

[ArtK78]

If I am playing Attitude leads, I lead low from a suit that I want returned. That can only be determined in the context of the whole hand. Saying that I have 8 HCP is not enough information to make that determination.

Therefore, I voted OTHER in both polls.

[mike777]

fwiw I was taught vs nt if you want the suit returned you lead low, in your examples the lowest card.
If I lead the suit and I don't care for it to be returned I would lead a much higher card...so from 4 spot cards I would tend to lead high

attitude leads

Granted this is years old lead theory but what I was taught was:

attitude leads are better
help partner a lot in deciding whether to continue or switch
they don't help declarer much esp in giving declarer count

[fourdad]

impossible to determine without seeing the entire hand. you are asking a "static" question in the context of a "dynamic" environment.

[billyjef]

For my partnerships, the choice to lead attitude against NT is, with situational consideration, choosing to prefer not to lead from strength (i.e. preferring passive leads), especially dangling and tenace honor holdings. Strong honor combinations still take priority. So the weaker the 4 or 5+ card suit, tend to be more desirable to make a 4th lead, just not 4th from longest and strongest. Leading from Jacks or tens preferable to leading from queens...

[foobar]

billyjef, on 2017-August-02, 07:48, said:

For my partnerships, the choice to lead attitude against NT is, with situational consideration, choosing to prefer not to lead from strength (i.e. preferring passive leads), especially dangling and tenace honor holdings. Strong honor combinations still take priority. So the weaker the 4 or 5+ card suit, tend to be more desirable to make a 4th lead, just not 4th from longest and strongest. Leading from Jacks or tens preferable to leading from queens...

This is similar to my position, with the addition of Jack denies + coded T/9s to disambiguate holdings to the extent possible. It has been argued that coded leads help declarer more than the defence, but it hasn't been the case IME.

On a tangential note, Bird's book on NT leads suggested that leads from KJxx are more likely to cost a trick in DD...wonder if there are any other opinions on the matter.

[Zelandakh]

In isolation it seems logical to lead lowest from HHxx(x), second-lowest from Hxxx(x) and highest or second-highest from xxx(xx) but as others have pointed out the rest of the hand and the specific size of the available spots also needs to be taken into consideration. A good example of the latter is K984 playing Journalist. You would have to lead the 8 from 984 so the 4 tends to be more descriptive. This is just one reason why hard and fast count-style rules do not work well in combination with Busso.

[nullve]

I think the Bird/Anthias book on NT leads suggests that with HHxx vs. (1N)-(3N) it's best to

* lead an honour instead of a low card if the honours are connected¹;
* not lead the suit if the honours are disconnected.

So it may make sense to play an opening lead system against (1N)-(3N) where small cards can "never" be from HHxx.

Leading from HHx or HHxxx(x...) is a different matter, of course.

¹ [Edit:] At least if the led suit is a major. I found an example in the book where low from ♦KQxx was marginally better than the K.

[rhm]

ArtK78, on 2017-August-01, 06:18, said:

If I am playing Attitude leads, I lead low from a suit that I want returned. That can only be determined in the context of the whole hand. Saying that I have 8 HCP is not enough information to make that determination.

Therefore, I voted OTHER in both polls.

One of the advantages of attitude leads are that the card you choose is determined by the whole hand you hold, not only by the quality of the suit you lead.
When I hold a two suiter against notrump I may well lead a middle card from my weaker five card suit.
When I lead my lowest card I expect the suit to be returned.

Most players use attitude leads when they switch to a new suit in the middle of the game.
This is not much different.

Michael Rosenberg once said on Bridgewinner:

When partner switches to the 2 of a new suit, you either return the suit or another card beats the contract.

cherdano, on 2017-August-01, 05:05, said:

I wonder whether attitude leads are a bad match for the more popular modern style of more frequent passive leads. If you never lead from xxx, you can afford to use your spots to distinguish between Qxxx and Qxxxx, or Qxxx and stronger 4-card holdings. But when xxx is a common lead, distinguishing between xxx and Qxxx may be more important.

I think attitude leads are a much better match for passive leads than anything else invented so far.
For example I want to lead my highest card, say from 873 when leading passive against notrump (not second best), as long as the card led will not risk giving away a trick.
It is my experience that declarer profits from count leads at notrumps at least as much as partner, who will often have clues form the bidding or who can make inferential assumptions what is required to beat the contract.
I have seen more than once declarer's frustration when he was told the opening lead is attitude.

Saying you never lead from xxx against notrump contracts is the hallmark of a losing player.
I want to be able to lead from any holding of a suit, even under-leading aces against suit contracts, though I will do this about twice per leap year.

A simple but good advise for opening leads is to first determine from the bidding whether an aggressive or passive lead is called for.
Then you should also try to determine from the bidding which suits the bidding suggests and which not.
Only then should you look at your hand again, not the other way round.
Sometimes the bidding will be uninformative and sometimes your hand may over-rule, but far more often than not you should stick to the suit suggested by the bidding.

It is a pity that too many players remember their hand from the bidding and are incapable or too lazy of doing the above mental effort.

Rainer Herrmann

[billyjef]

Rainer or anyone else, correct me or comment freely please,
I suspect the 4th best from longest and strongest is by the far most helpful lead we offer declarer albeit, still can be the best lead for an attacking defense if the strategy can be fulfilled timely, and I think that "if" is questioned these days. But if the leads are just count, not implying strength, although more likely to deny it in my current practice, what would benefit declarer more, information wise, a lead saying I'm not interested in this suit, or a lead showing count, all things being equal? Count (maybe implying attitude), vs attitude and no count.

Jef Pratt

rhm, on 2017-August-04, 06:10, said:

One of the advantages of attitude leads are that the card you choose is determined by the whole hand you hold, not only by the quality of the suit you lead.
When I hold a two suiter against notrump I may well lead a middle card from my weaker five card suit.
When I lead my lowest card I expect the suit to be returned.

I think attitude leads are a much better match for passive leads than anything else invented so far.
For example I want to lead my highest card, say from 873 when leading passive against notrump (not second best), as long as the card led will not risk giving away a trick.
It is my experience that declarer profits from count leads at notrumps at least as much as partner, who will often have clues form the bidding or who can make inferential assumptions what is required to beat the contract.
I have seen more than once declarer's frustration when he was told the opening lead is attitude.
Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

Jxxx low
10xxx high (Seocnd)
10xxxx low