[shugart24]

We play Journalist leads, but that doesn't matter with regards to this question. Playing against a suit contract, holding QJx or J 10 x or 10 9 x, if we have decided to lead this suit, we will lead the second card. But in my pre-pandemic notes, I have it that if you have QJxx(x) or J-10xx(x) or 10-9xx(x), lead 3rd down if even or low if odd, instead of the touching honor (assuming that is the suit you have chosen to lead)

So I'm trying to see what is the 'normal' opening lead if you have at least a 4-card non-trump suit headed by a doubleton honor (not AK and not KQ ). My note surprised me, so I don't want to steer my son wrong.

Thank you

[mike777]

shugart24, on 2025-April-18, 08:23, said:

We play Journalist leads, but that doesn't matter with regards to this question. Playing against a suit contract, holding QJx or J 10 x or 10 9 x, if we have decided to lead this suit, we will lead the second card. But in my pre-pandemic notes, I have it that if you have QJxx(x) or J-10xx(x) or 10-9xx(x), lead 3rd down if even or low if odd, instead of the touching honor (assuming that is the suit you have chosen to lead)

So I'm trying to see what is the 'normal' opening lead if you have at least a 4-card non-trump suit headed by a doubleton honor (not AK and not KQ ). My note surprised me, so I don't want to steer my son wrong.

Thank you

My understanding is in general try and avoid leading that suit.
That means, what card should you lead? Answer, none.

[Shugart23]

mike777, on 2025-April-18, 09:09, said:

My understanding is in general try and avoid leading that suit.
That means, what card should you lead? Answer, none.

Well that’s not the question. If you like ,, you are void in trump and are Axxx,Axxxx andJ-10-5-2. What’s your lead?

[mike777]

Shugart23, on 2025-April-18, 09:59, said:

Well that’s not the question. If you like ,, you are void in trump and are Axxx,Axxxx andJ-10-5-2. What’s your lead?

I

Again probably avoid leading that suit, if that is the question. I would lead A from 5 card suit, probably.

Are you demanding a lead from JTxx??

[shugart24]

mike777, on 2025-April-18, 10:21, said:

I

Again probably avoid leading that suit, if that is the question. I would lead A from 5 card suit, probably.

Are you demanding a lead from JTxx??

yes sir. Given you are leading a suit that has at least 4 cards headed by doubleton honor Q-J, J-10 or 10-9, I want to know if the consensus is to lead an Honor or to lead one of the low spot cards..You are QJxx, QJxxx, QJxx in H,D,C and spades are trump 1S-2S-4S

[mike777]

Prefer to lead from T9 suit first.
Second choice JT
Last choice QJ

Would lead top card
Again just try and avoid the suit.

If you prefer spot card,ok

[Shugart23]

Thanks. I just don’t know why my notes had it to lead a spot card. I’ll see if anyone else opines

[johnu]

mike777, on 2025-April-18, 09:09, said:

My understanding is in general try and avoid leading that suit.
That means, what card should you lead? Answer, none.

Silly answer

Especially in the context of leading an unsupported ace from a 5 card suit

mike777, on 2025-April-18, 10:21, said:

Again probably avoid leading that suit, if that is the question. I would lead A from 5 card suit, probably.

[johnu]

shugart24, on 2025-April-18, 08:23, said:

We play Journalist leads, but that doesn't matter with regards to this question. Playing against a suit contract, holding QJx or J 10 x or 10 9 x, if we have decided to lead this suit, we will lead the second card. But in my pre-pandemic notes, I have it that if you have QJxx(x) or J-10xx(x) or 10-9xx(x), lead 3rd down if even or low if odd, instead of the touching honor (assuming that is the suit you have chosen to lead)

Just write down some suit distributions where the remaining cards are arranged among the other 3 hands. Leading low instead of an honor will work out worse on average.

I'll get you started,

You have QJxx, dummy has K9x, partner has A10x

You lead low, dummy plays the 9, partner wins the 10, but can't continue the suit without setting up the king. Before you can get back in to lead through dummy, declarer is able to throw a losing card (or cards) on a side suit, and you end up with 1 or 2 tricks instead of the 3 you would have had if you led an honor.

Or changed slightly

You have QJxx, Dummy has xxx, partner has xxx, declarer has AK10.

If you lead low, declarer has 3 immediate tricks in the suit.

[mike777]

johnu, on 2025-April-18, 18:31, said:

Silly answer

Especially in the context of leading an unsupported ace from a 5 card suit

Clearly we disagree on the given specific example hand.

Unfortunately you failed to state any logic against the lead of an unsupported ace on the given hand or what you would lead and why.

Why did I choose the lead of an unsupported Ace?
Hoping that looking at dummy or partners signal may guide whether to switch or continue.

[mycroft]

"In NT, lead your correct spot card (third and low?) from two touching honours without a broken third. At suits, lead the agreed honour."

That's been standard since Watson at least. Maybe your notes meant that, or were confused?

[johnu]

mycroft, on 2025-April-18, 20:05, said:

"In NT, lead your correct spot card (third and low?) from two touching honours without a broken third.

Bird and Anthias in Winning Notrump Leads took a brief look at touching honors with small cards. With QJxx, leading an honor was better by a decent amount. From J10xx, leading an honor was just a little better. Of course, they use double dummy analysis so real life results could be a little different as well as different hands and bidding.

[DavidKok]

johnu, on 2025-April-19, 04:29, said:

Bird and Anthias in Winning Notrump Leads took a brief look at touching honors with small cards. With QJxx, leading an honor was better by a decent amount. From J10xx, leading an honor was just a little better. Of course, they use double dummy analysis so real life results could be a little different as well as different hands and bidding.

I've been applying this in real life bridge, and so far I am happy with it. Conditional on wanting to lead the suit at all, I now prefer the honour from a two-card sequence. However, I think the question is what's standard and not what's believed to be best.

For what little it's worth, I recently taught local beginners about lead agreements. For two-card honour sequences (or 'sequences', if you will) I told them that this is a controversial topic and any approach is fine as long as it is disclosed properly and partner plays it the same way.

[shugart24]

johnu, on 2025-April-19, 04:38, said:

Bird and Anthias in Winning Notrump Leads took a brief look at touching honors with small cards. With QJxx, leading an honor was better by a decent amount. From J10xx, leading an honor was just a little better. Of course, they use double dummy analysis so real life results could be a little different as well as different hands and bidding.

Thanks all. Not sure why my notes had that . Must have copied over from somewhere. I was surprised to see it.

[shugart24]

shugart24, on 2025-April-19, 05:04, said:

Thanks all. Not sure why my notes had that . Must have copied over from somewhere. I was surprised to see it.

And of course, shortly after I type that, I find this from Cornell Dept of Mathematics: 

Two-Card Sequences. With a 3-card suit, you should lead the top of a two-card sequence headed by the K, Q, J, or T:

KQ5 QJ8 JT2 T96
With four or more cards, you should lead high from KQxx, and low from JTxx or T9xx:

KQ84 JT64 T9642
With QJxx, you have a choice between leading the queen and leading low.

EXCEPTION: Always lead the top of a two-card sequence in a suit which your partner has bid.

[awm]

Normally one leads high from two touching honors against suit contracts. I agree that this is not always the best suit to lead, but if you lead from QJxx or JTxx you lead an honor.

Against notrump it is traditional to lead low unless you have the next card or just below, so low from QJxx but an honor from QJTz or QJ9x. However, Bird/Anthias suggest that an honor is more often correct here.