[jillybean]

There are so many rumours and rules in this game and very few prefix anything with "in my opinion", or "one way to approach this".
I discovered recently that a partner does not preempt without an outside feature, that is how she was taught. Guess how many prempts she makes?

Heard recently,

When leading against a NT contract holding 44 in Majors, lead the suit without the Ace. (absent any other indication of course)

My vote:BS

[mikeh]

lol. Many years ago two friends, husband and wife who played a lot together, insisted that they would never open a weak 2M with an outside Ace. They were adamant that this was a good rule to avoid phantom saves. I then asked each of them what they’d do as dealer, vul v not, with KQ109xx Axx xx xx. Both said they’d open 2S and sheepishly admitted that their rule maybe wasn’t really a rule

People say a lot of things about which they haven’t really thought much. Indeed, the main reason we have so many ‘rules’ in bridge is that rules reduce complex issues to simplistic ‘solutions’. That’s ok if you’re not interested in learning how to think about the game. But in bridge as in life simplistic solutions to nuanced issues are almost always a very bad idea.

As for which major to lead, imo it’s not as simple as lead the one not headed by the ace. On balance, given no other information, I’d expect that idea would usually work out ok, but at the table I’d know what my two suits looked like and how the auction had gone and the form of scoring and what my minors looked like and ALL of those factors would inform my decision making. No simplistic rule would prevent me from actually trying to play bridge.

As you may gather, I think simplistic rules are a poor substitute for thinking.

I’m maybe being too harsh, as I often am. Bridge is a very difficult game to play well. Unless you’re a savant, you’ll need to work very hard to become competent let alone expert and using rules can cover gaps in one’s knowledge, so long as one realizes that that’s what one is doing…rules are better than guessing (unless the so called rule is nonsense) and can help pending working to gain a better understanding of how to think at the table. My impression, however, is that those who promote ‘rules’ rarely explain that they’re really just training wheels, to be discarded when no longer needed,

[jillybean]

I had heard that rule too
I don't like rules but wonder sometimes if there is merit in some of them, considering the occasional person who swears by them.
I'd rather try to think, and sometimes get it wrong.


This was the hand

---

[pescetom]

I don't use such rules here, but that doesn't make me an expert
I don't think I can resist ♥K because I really want to inform partner clearly, see the dummy and see partner's discard. But I can imagine that ♥7 might pay off on some layouts.

[jillybean]

pescetom, on 2026-February-21, 17:07, said:

West made two nullo passes to confute the Comintern and is now on lead against his partner?

fixed, P's were in wrong order

[AL78]

mikeh, on 2026-February-20, 11:51, said:

As you may gather, I think simplistic rules are a poor substitute for thinking.

I’m maybe being too harsh, as I often am. Bridge is a very difficult game to play well. Unless you’re a savant, you’ll need to work very hard to become competent let alone expert and using rules can cover gaps in one’s knowledge, so long as one realizes that that’s what one is doing…rules are better than guessing (unless the so called rule is nonsense) and can help pending working to gain a better understanding of how to think at the table. My impression, however, is that those who promote ‘rules’ rarely explain that they’re really just training wheels, to be discarded when no longer needed,

I agree but rules, or more accurately, guidelines, are a good thing to get people going when they first start learning the game, but they are not something to be chained too, in order to advance it is necessary not just to be able to apply the rule, but understand where the rule comes from (analogous to a mathematical proof showing you where a relationship or identity comes from), from that you can appreciate where the rule might fail and switch to logic and probabilistic analysis in those cases, which I think is pretty much what you are saying.

I've given up on the idea of becoming competent in this game.

[jillybean]

Of course new players need guidelines. Unfortunately, "you cannot open 1nt with 2 doubletons" has created a generation of players afraid to play in 1nt with 4252
What catches me out now are apparently good players who throw out "rules" such as this in the OP. As Mike says above, the game is too complex to apply rules in place of thinking. Next time I hear this hopefully I will remember the player has shut off their thinking.

I lead the 7 but see now the K is far superior.

[barmar]

Rules like these are good for beginners, then over time you learn when to break the rules. That's how you can recognize "life novices" -- if someone has been playing for decades and still adheres stringently to many of these rules, they'll probably never learn to become a good player. If they have a shapely hand and make excuses for passing like "But I only had 4 points", they may be hopeless.

But guidelines shouldn't be ignored completely, either. People came up with them because they mostly work.

[Cyberyeti]

The "rule" is not for suits like AKJx, imagine Qxxx, Axxx - there it makes a lot more sense

[jillybean]

Cyberyeti, on 2026-February-23, 10:14, said:

The "rule" is not for suits like AKJx, imagine Qxxx, Axxx - there it makes a lot more sense

yes

---

I suspect the comment was inspired by my partner's spade holding.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-February-23, 16:19, said:

I suspect the comment was inspired by my partner's spade holding.

And maybe by the consequences of a risky ♥7 lead.
After ♥K lead and seeing the T, you would have had an obvious spades switch, curtain falls.