[aguahombre]

 rduran1216, on 2011-May-10, 09:54, said:

when you hold AJxxx and LHO leads the Q, you know its from

 Bbradley62, on 2011-May-10, 10:43, said:

Is this a standard lead?

Depends on your definition of standard. It is common, but the ACBL CC does not have it in BOLD, so you need to mark it. Another thread a while back talked about the "power leads" (K, vs A or Q to ask for unblock or count).

Of the top pairs who have CC's posted on line, very few use the Queen as the power lead any more. Ham and Z are a rare exception.

[peachy]

 aguahombre, on 2011-May-10, 11:30, said:

Depends on your definition of standard. It is common, but the ACBL CC does not have it in BOLD, so you need to mark it. Another thread a while back talked about the "power leads" (K, vs A or Q to ask for unblock or count).

Of the top pairs who have CC's posted on line, very few use the Queen as the power lead any more. Ham and Z are a rare exception.

In the cards that I have, KQ109 lead against NT, the Q actually *is* in bold. Maybe you might look again, or do I have old version of card? I don't think so, got them just a month ago at a sectional.

[G_R__E_G]

There's a pretty big difference between KQ10x and KQ109 when it comes to wanting the jack unblocked.

[aguahombre]

yeh...Q is bold vs NT. K is bold vs suit. Since we do the same vs both, I overlooked that.

Anyway, the thing about top pairs using the K as the only power card is still valid.

[chrism]

Without excusing declarer's question in any way, your side also appears not to be faultless in case 1, assuming that your treatment of Q leads against NT is typical. When asked about your carding, full disclosure is required, so your partner's response should have been along the lines of "normally upside down count and attitude, but in this context partner is expected to unblock the J if he holds it, and otherwise give count, so specifically the D3 denies the DJ and, if it is a low card and not a singleton, would show an even number of cards" [I know, everyone can see the D2, but we are not obliged to think for declarer]. "Upside down" (unless that is indeed the sum total of your carding agreements) is neither complete nor accurate.