BBO Discussion Forums: Rusinow, journalist leads.Why aren't they popular? - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Rusinow, journalist leads.Why aren't they popular?

#1 User is offline   MomoTheDog 

  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 2007-November-18

Posted 2007-December-31, 08:57

I've read recently about Rusinow and Journalist leads and they seem to have distinct advantages over standard leads in that they clarify a lot of ambiguities. These leads also appear pretty simple. If they are good (with little disadvantages from what I understand) and are theoretically beneficial, why aren't these leads adopted in a more widespread fashion by the bridge players over the world?
1

#2 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 21,570
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-December-31, 09:10

Probably the same reason UDCA aren't more popular: it's just not what people are used to. It adds additional memory burden, and the advantages may not seem so obvious that it's worth learning.

#3 User is offline   Walddk 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,190
  • Joined: 2003-September-30
  • Location:London, England
  • Interests:Cricket

Posted 2007-December-31, 09:21

barmar, on Dec 31 2007, 05:10 PM, said:

Probably the same reason UDCA aren't more popular

I assume you are referring to North America because in continental Europe (except France) udca is "standard". As far as NA is concerned I believe that most top pairs play udca too. At least that's my impression from watching numerous vugraph broadcasts.

As to Rusinow and attitude, it's a bit more complex than choosing between "standard" and udca carding. The latter is simply the reverse of "standard" whereas Rusinow and attitude have more added to it and therefore more difficult to remember.

Roland
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice
0

#4 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,519
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-December-31, 10:21

Rusinow leads require more discussion. They are dangerous in any situation where you might lead from Hx, e.g. in partner's suit. Hence many agree not to lead Rusinow in partner's suit. Does that include a suit partner doubled for lead direction? I would think yes, but you should better have discussed that. Etc.

In short, Rusinow is not a good agreement in a pickup partnership.
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
1

#5 User is offline   pretzalz 

  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: 2005-September-06

Posted 2007-December-31, 10:26

MomoTheDog, on Dec 31 2007, 09:57 AM, said:

I've read recently about ... Journalist leads and they seem to have distinct advantages over standard leads in that they clarify a lot of ambiguities.

Yes, for declarer.

As for rusinow, I play them. I like them for a couple reasons, none of which is 'clarifying AK vs KQ'. Unsupported aces are led infrequently enough and in specific situations that leading A from AK is just as good. Alarm clock leads[leading the honors in reverse sequence] are more obvious. And it seems more consistent to me when I play 2/4 spot leads. These really aren't huge advantages. You also have the added problem of doubleton/stiff honor leads. This can be partially solved by having rusinow off when leading partner's unsupported suit, but this is another subtlety only for experienced partnerships.
1

#6 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2007-December-31, 11:01

I have played Rusinow leads against suit contracts for about 25 years. There have been a very few instances in all of that time when a Rusinow lead caused a problem that a Standard lead would have solved. On the other hand, Rusinow leads have been superior to standard leads many times over that period of time. Most of the time, they are equivalent.

A few players in my area play Rusinow leads against notrump contracts. I don't have any strong feeling on that treatment.

As for Journalist leads, I played them for some time, but I have gone back to standard leads against notrump contracts. I have rarely seen any advantage to the attitude lead part of Journalist leads. As for J denies, 10 or 9 implies zero or two higher, that works on occasion and helps declarer on occasion.

I do use 3rd and lowest against suit contracts (not 3rd and 5th, as it is sometimes referred to). I find that this is superior to 4th best against suits. It is more likely that you will be leading from a shorter holding against a suit contract than against a notrump contract, so you need a way to distinguish the two.

As with UDCA (which is clearly superior to standard carding), there is a learning curve and mistakes or memory lapses may occur. After one gets over the learning curve, one wonders why one ever used any other method.
0

#7 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,686
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2007-December-31, 11:12

If I remember Ruben and Rosler's book correctly, Journalist leads vs. suit contracts are more of an improvement over standard leads vs. suit contracts than are journalist leads vs. NT contracts over standard leads vs. NT contracts.

I would love to go back to Journalist leads, but none of my current partners is willing to make the effort. :)
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#8 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,371
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2007-December-31, 11:12

There are a number of issues preventing people from adopting various lead styles. Some of them:

(1) In the vast majority of cases, none of this matters. It is very rare that there will be a hand where playing/not playing rusinow or journalist leads makes a big difference.

(2) While these leads occasionally help partner, they also occasionally help declarer. It's not necessarily clear that playing "more informative" leads is a net winner. Most probably it depends a lot on the hand but few people have agreements to this level of depth.

(3) Which lead agreement is best depends a lot on your lead style. If you often lead from doubleton honors then rusinow is probably a poor agreement for you (partner goes wrong too often if you lead jack from Jx and QJx). If you often lead from three small cards against suits, then you might want to consider polish style leads (low from doubleton, high from three small) as it otherwise becomes hard to distinguish a lead from xxx versus xx (if you lead high or middle from xxx) or distinguish a lead from xxx versus Hxxx (if you lead low from xxx). Players (and countries) actually differ a lot in terms of their opening lead style.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
2

#9 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2007-December-31, 11:18

I echo some of the other posts (like Rusinow in defined situations, dislike journalist).

My greater personal WTF is why Smith Echo is so little used. I believe Smith to be almost as important to good defense as Stayman is to good NT bidding, myself.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#10 User is offline   mikeh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,000
  • Joined: 2005-June-15
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Canada
  • Interests:Bridge, golf, wine (red), cooking, reading eclectically but insatiably, travelling, making bad posts.

Posted 2007-December-31, 11:18

I have played both Journalist honour leads and Rusinow, but don't see either as useful and so stopped many years ago.

J denies and 9/10 0/2 higher are very informative, but the person who benefits most from the information is declarer. While I agree that the leads will sometimes help partner, they almost always help declarer in terms of early placement of cards.

As for Rusinow, you do have to make more complex rules than for standard leads, especially in terms of leading in partner's suit or from shortness and the benefits that I have seen are few and far between. While I am fond of 'science', this is one example where the added memory load, even if small, outweighs the benefits I have seen, and I suspect that this may be true for many, hence the rarity with which one now encounters this carding approach.
'one of the great markers of the advance of human kindness is the howls you will hear from the Men of God' Johann Hari
0

#11 User is offline   kenrexford 

  • Brain Farts and Actual Farts Increasing with Age
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,586
  • Joined: 2005-September-21
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lima, Allen County, North-West-Central Ohio, USA
  • Interests:www.limadbc.blogspot.com editor/contributor

Posted 2007-December-31, 11:22

BTW, my own rules for Rusinow, in case anyone wants a suggestion:

1. Rusinow at 5-L or higher
2. Rusinow in own bid/initiated suit (opened, overcalled, transferred to, etc.)
3. Rusinow against notrump contracts if from length.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."

-P.J. Painter.
0

#12 User is offline   fred 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,599
  • Joined: 2003-February-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas, USA

Posted 2007-December-31, 11:42

I have a lot of experience with both Rusinow and Standard versus notrump. I think Rusinow is definitely superior there.

I have a lot less experience with Rusinow versus suits, but those experiences I have had were not good ones. I remember one particularly painful hand when part led a stiff Queen and I had the Ace...

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com
0

#13 User is offline   FrancesHinden 

  • Limit bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,482
  • Joined: 2004-November-02
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:England
  • Interests:Bridge, classical music, skiing... but I spend more time earning a living than doing any of those

Posted 2007-December-31, 12:01

I play attitude leads against NT in one partnership. I love them. (We don't play Journalist honour leads.)

However, it's true that I see very few other pairs playing them, and I can't persuade my other regular partner to change from 4th highest.
1

#14 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,784
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2007-December-31, 12:19

FrancesHinden, on Dec 31 2007, 01:01 PM, said:

I play attitude leads against NT in one partnership. I love them. (We don't play Journalist honour leads.)

However, it's true that I see very few other pairs playing them, and I can't persuade my other regular partner to change from 4th highest.

I also play attitude leads vs nt and love them.

Easy to remember, easy to play. I also play Jack denies ten or nine is zero or 2 higher. Rarely comes up but works fine and whatever advantage expert opp may gain seems slight in practice in non blue ribbons bridge.
0

#15 User is offline   dake50 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,211
  • Joined: 2006-April-22

Posted 2007-December-31, 13:20

How about parity signal: hi-lo = 1suit of even length; lo-hi =1 suit of odd length. I played this gem from Vinje and liked it. Only conflicted with Smith echo v NT.

Any one else play, or like this? ?

I too wonder why proven superior methods are so-o-o slow to catch on. xfer advances, 'known shortage' jumps. Esp. the Swiss raises had 24 routes after 1S to reveal control structure if desired, yet 24 yrs later too few raises complaints. And whole artificial schemes to get what Swiss (J Besse) had. Is it because of the false idiom 'it doesn't matter what system is played, just how well each play that system' ? ? Partnership is about 4+% of winning to system proved 1+%.
0

#16 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2007-December-31, 23:36

dake50, on Dec 31 2007, 02:20 PM, said:

I too wonder why proven superior methods are so-o-o slow to catch on.

Could it be that some of these improvements are not so clearly superior at all?
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#17 User is offline   SoTired 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,016
  • Joined: 2005-June-20
  • Location:Lovettsville, VA

Posted 2008-January-01, 04:07

Hannie, on Jan 1 2008, 12:36 AM, said:

dake50, on Dec 31 2007, 02:20 PM, said:

I too wonder why proven superior methods are so-o-o slow to catch on.

Could it be that some of these improvements are not so clearly superior at all?

And they have to be known to people willing to change. And they have to be enough better to pay for the cost of learning something new and failing during the learning curve. And players that want to change have to have willing partners.
It costs nothing to be nice -- my better half
0

#18 Guest_Jlall_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 2008-January-01, 13:49

Hannie, on Jan 1 2008, 12:36 AM, said:

dake50, on Dec 31 2007, 02:20 PM, said:

I too wonder why proven superior methods are so-o-o slow to catch on.

Could it be that some of these improvements are not so clearly superior at all?

Han usually I would agree with you but I think that in this case it's different since Rusinow is clearly better vs NT. I only recently made the switch despite knowing that rus was better because it was very difficult for me to see QJT9 or whatever and not just fire out the queen lol.
0

#19 User is offline   han 

  • Under bidder
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,797
  • Joined: 2004-July-25
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Posted 2008-January-01, 13:55

Did you read the full Drake post that I was quoting from? I also think that Rusinow leads against notrump are superior, but there was a lot more in Dake's post.
Please note: I am interested in boring, bog standard, 2/1.

- hrothgar
0

#20 Guest_Jlall_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 2008-January-01, 13:56

Hannie, on Jan 1 2008, 02:55 PM, said:

Did you read the full Drake post that I was quoting from? I also think that Rusinow leads against notrump are superior, but there was a lot more in Dake's post.

No I didn't
0

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users