[MickyB]

The other day, when playing online, I described our leads as 2nd+4th, leaving declarer surprised when my partner had led small from Kxx. In the UK, standard leads are 4th highest from a suit with an honour in and 2nd highest from a suit without an honour (some count the ten as an honour, others do not) which is what would be understood by "2nd+4th". I believe that the Poles also describe their leads as "2nd+4th", but lead 2nd highest from Kxx. Are there any other differences? What does the term mean in other countries?

Leading 2nd highest from Kxx seems more in keeping with the name, so I suspect those playing the English style should be careful with their descriptions. Similarly, 3rd+5th is better described as "3rd+low" (3rd from an even number, low from an odd number) because the lead from 6 cards is 3rd highest.

[Echognome]

I was also surprised to find out that this is not standard at all.

I went to my bridge shelf and pulled out Watson, Kantar, and Klinger to see if they mention 2nds and 4ths. They all have quite extensive chapters on what you should lead from various holdings, but they don't say 2/4.

Also, there are many varieties of leads and many considerations.

Is it a lead against a suit contract? NT?
Are you leading partner's suit or your own?
Are you leading from length to an honour? or length to rags?
Are you leading an honour sequence?
etc. etc.

I looked in particular at xxx and xxxx. Again there were disagreements about what the standard leads were in this case.

Anyway, to the question at hand, I personally define 2/4s as when leading from length (4+ cards), I lead 4th if I have J or higher and 2nd if I do not. (assuming I do not have a sequence or near (interior) sequence)

By the way, I have always lead 5th from Hxxxxx playing 3/5. I did not know that wasn't standard.

[kenberg]

When someone tells me 2/4 I assume that when they are leading from four they lead second or fourth depending on the strength of the suit, some leading fourth from Txxx, others leading second from that holding, most all leading fourth from Jxxx. From three spots I expect them to lead second, while from Kxx I expect them to lead low, that is I expect 2/4 not to apply in that case. In short, I expect high cards to deny honors, low cards to suggest/promise them, and high spots to usually have a spot lying above them. 98x may be an exception where the 9 rather than the 8 is led.

When someone says 3/5, I expect them to lead seventh if they lead a spot from a seven card holding.

The names are not exact (no kidding) and apparently the interpretation varies.

Ken

[paulg]

My experience on BBO is that the leading style we call 'A42' is very much a British description. Even though this style appears popular in the US they don't tend to use the description (with me).

When I play 2/4 with a European I assume we are playing a Polish style ... and my understanding of that style is low from doubleton, MUD, second from Hxx and 4th from longer good suits.

As Mike knows, I now play Combine leads in my regular partnership - so low from doubleton, highest affordable from other bad suits, 3rd from Hxx(x), 5th from Hxxxx and 4th from Hxxxxx. I like this style despite the long explanations that it always leads to.

One of the great benefits of BBO is to receive free education of methods that are just not found in your own locale.

Paul

[han]

Paul, I agree with all you say except MUD. I think MDU is standard when playng 2/4, and it makes more sense too (as you have already showed the highest spot).

Mike, I think the British 2/4 name is also misleading because you don't lead low from a doubleton. But a name is just a name.

[paulg]

Hannie, on Apr 19 2006, 03:16 PM, said:

Paul, I agree with all you say except MUD. I think MDU is standard when playng 2/4, and it makes more sense too (as you have already showed the highest spot).

Thanks - less confused partners in the future now (although leading from xxx is not generally the path to success)

Quote

Mike, I think the British 2/4 name is also misleading because you don't lead low from a doubleton. But a name is just a name.

It is not misleading as everyone in the Empire and colonies leads top of doubleton - where is Europe anyhow?

p

[Gerben42]

Quote

The other day, when playing online, I described our leads as 2nd+4th, leaving declarer surprised when my partner had led small from Kxx.

And rightfully so, the third is not a 2nd or 4th.

2nd 4th:

xX
xXx
xXx
hXx
hxxX
hxxXx

etc.

If you lead high from doubleton you have to add that.

[jdonn]

MickyB, on Apr 19 2006, 08:58 AM, said:

The other day, when playing online, I described our leads as 2nd+4th, leaving declarer surprised when my partner had led small from Kxx. In the UK, standard leads are 4th highest from a suit with an honour in and 2nd highest from a suit without an honour (some count the ten as an honour, others do not) which is what would be understood by "2nd+4th". I believe that the Poles also describe their leads as "2nd+4th", but lead 2nd highest from Kxx. Are there any other differences? What does the term mean in other countries?

I would refer to your lead practices as simply 4th best from strength. If someone told me 2nd and 4th, I would assume that means second highest from 3 card holdings, except things like QJx or KQx.

MickyB, on Apr 19 2006, 08:58 AM, said:

Leading 2nd highest from Kxx seems more in keeping with the name, so I suspect those playing the English style should be careful with their descriptions. Similarly, 3rd+5th is better described as "3rd+low" (3rd from an even number, low from an odd number) because the lead from 6 cards is 3rd highest.

3rd and 5th is not automatically a misdescription, many people indeed do lead 5th from a 6 card suit. It's probably inferior, but whatever some people still do it.

[Free]

Me and Willem changed everything to 1/3(/5) leads. It seems a lot more useful to lead 3rd than 5th from most suits. Usually partner can place the honours a lot better. We combine these with coded 9/10's so these are still 1/3 leads. From doubletons we also lead the highest.

I never understood the logic in playing 2/4 leads and high from doubleton... However most people (over here) still play it that way

[Gerben42]

Quote

I never understood the logic in playing 2/4 leads and high from doubleton... However most people (over here) still play it that way blink.gif

One of my partners likes it. We call it 1st 2nd and 4th.

[cherdano]

jdonn, on Apr 19 2006, 08:16 PM, said:

I would refer to your lead practices as simply 4th best from strength. If someone told me 2nd and 4th, I would assume that means second highest from 3 card holdings, except things like QJx or KQx.

I agree about calling the English "2/4" style just 4th best from strength (or even just "4th best" would be ok).

However, I don't think leading "2/4" implies Rusinow (if you lead J from QJx and Q from KQx I would think you always have to lead this honor regardless of length), I would take it as referring to spot card leads only.

Arend

[P_Marlowe]

Free, on Apr 19 2006, 04:55 PM, said:

I never understood the logic in playing 2/4 leads and high from doubleton... However most people (over here) still play it that way

Hi,

usually this style was called 4.th best and MUD.
Playing MUD allows you to distinguish, that the lead
was made from a doubleton vs. suit with a tleast 3
cards.
Additional one leads low from a 3 card suit, in case
the suit is headed by an top honor.

If one also plays MUD, i.e. 2nd, from a worth less 4
card suit, the implication is, that a low spot card
promises a honor and middle spot card a worthless 3+
card suit and a high spot card shortage.

---

The above lead system is completely different to strictly
length based systems 2/4 - 3/5.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[mike777]

ROFL...LMAO ok guys so when 2/4 is announced at my table the above posts make this lead as clear as Mud!!!!!!!!!!!.

I have no idea what 2/4 means based on all of the above. Are you leading low from 2 small or what the heck?

[kenberg]

My expectations online are different from my expectations f2f. On-line I mostly assume that the lead agreement is that the person on lead will produce a card. Often this is the extent of a pair's agreement. But it would be nice to introduce a higher standard.

When I am on lead, if we have agreed to play the nine is 0/2 higher and I am about to lead a 9, I usually (not always, but I think I always should) send a private message to the opps that the 9 is 0/2 higher and then produce the 9. With spots, things get trickier to explain and I usually let it be unless asked.

Perhaps the software could do the following: As the opening lead is made, a chart automatically comes up for declarer with the relevant information on display. It's true of course that pairs have, or should have, placed all the information on their cc but more room could be provided in this manner for a fuller explanation, it would come up automatically and perhaps more readably, and the fact that a pair knows it is going to spring up would encourage them to fill it out with care. Sort of like the FD card for bidding.

In casual games, pairs should be able to turn off this feature, but in things such as acbl tourneys it could be required.

Ken

[Gerben42]

Quote

ROFL...LMAO ok guys so when 2/4 is announced at my table the above posts make this lead as clear as Mud!!!!!!!!!!!.

You mean clear as MDU right?

[dcvetkov]

I am not sure, but suspect that term 2/4 comes from Polish system, I think its internal part of WJ2000

I played few hands this way, they always lead low from doubleton ( BTW this applies, when you hold a doubleton, want to ruff and partner leads from AKxxx) , 4th best from suiits, 2nd best from bad suits. From Kxx? I have to say I dont remember. Sombedy more qualified should explain the whole idea behind 2/4

But quite a few people play it on BBO. I guess my point was that low from any doubleton is part of the system.

[FrancesHinden]

I think the phrase "2/4" has evolved separately in different countries, hence the confusion. I've heard the English style called "2nd & 4th" for years before Polish Club was heard of in this country.

I think it's supposed to mean "2nd from a bad 4-card suit, 4th from length to an honour" - top of a doubleton was just assumed. I don't think, in f2f here, that the lead from 3 low is defined - traditionally it was top, but then MUD was invented.

There was a ruling and appeal at Brighton a few years ago, when a visiting (Polish?) pair described their leads as standard 2nd/4th and made their standard lead of low from a doubleton, completely foxing declarer. The ruling is irrelevant (there was much debate about whether declarer had actually been damaged) but the point about what 'standard' means is well taken!

[mink]

We are talking about leading a 9 or lower card. There are 2 possible strategies here: show count or show presence/absence of an honor. I think it is not a good idea to mix these 2, as I have no idea how to find out if a particular lead shows count or attitude.

Leading a suit with no honor is not recommended most time, so I would suggest to show count with the lead. I think it is no big deal wether a low card shows odd count (3rd/5th) or even count (2nd/4th). But I find it more natural if the lead is consistant with your general way of showing count, so I perfer to play 3rd/5th with standard carding and 2nd/4th with udca.

Up to now I had no idea that the English interpretation of 2nd/4th existed, and it sounds most strange to me.

Karl

[Gerben42]

I sure hope the poor Polish player wasn't ruled against. How is he supposed to know that 2nd 4th suddenly means that you play the 8 from 85, i.e. the first. If only the English had named their "2nd 4th" leads "1st 2nd 4th" there would have been no problem...

Quote

I am not sure, but suspect that term 2/4 comes from Polish system, I think its internal part of WJ2000

Yes and no. Yes in that it's in the WJ booklet, and no that most Poles that do NOT play WJ still lead 2nd 4th.

[MickyB]

Gerben42, on Apr 21 2006, 10:59 AM, said:

I sure hope the poor Polish player wasn't ruled against. How is he supposed to know that 2nd 4th suddenly means that you play the 8 from 85, i.e. the first. If only the English had named their "2nd 4th" leads "1st 2nd 4th" there would have been no problem...

If declarer made fewer tricks due to the explanation, I would expect the Polish player to be ruled against. He is playing in a country where "2nd and 4th" means 2nd from bad suits, 4th from good suits; there is no chance that a Brit, playing in an English event, would consider that it might mean anything else, whereas the Pole should quickly realise that the term means something different over here. Why should the poor English player get a bad score because of an (arguably misleading) terminology introduced long before he started playing?