BBO Discussion Forums: robot leads - BBO Discussion Forums

Looking for information on robot leads. I think the Granovetters have advocated them, but I haven't come across a writeup or book by them. Has anyone played them? How well do they work? Links or notes appreciated.

Thought this was gonna be a thread about weird leads that gib makes

JLOGIC, on 2012-March-15, 11:22, said:

Me too, i was gonna say how difficult it makes for declarer if people just closed their eyes and pick a random card and lead, lol. Having no clue what the lead can be from is a major disadvantage imo.

Here's a cut and paste from PrecisionL's notes on the subject (in the Ultra Club document).

ROBOT OPENING LEADS

by Granovetter:

Advantages: Don't get upset, systemic. Helps partner place the cards for defense, partner can easily read

your lead, your % of success will increase, you will save brain energy for defense, you rarely give away the contract, you will usually defeat an aggressive contract by being stingy. Disadvantage

Your choice of leads (from best to worst) against suit contracts below 5-level:

A-K
K-Q [I don’t like this lead except at 5 or 6-level - LPL]
Q-J [QJ9(x) is better, but often gives away a trick – LPL]
J-T
any singleton (not trumps)
xxx(x)(x)
small trumps
H-x
Hxx (the smaller the honor the better) [Jxx(x) is poor - LPL]
xx [Hard for partner to read a singleton lead]
A-x [Gambling lead – LPL]
any other ace lead [Usually a very poor lead - LPL]

I will be careful as I am not sure if the thing I saw under this name is really the thing you mean but... the idea to base your 1st lead solely on holding in suits is total disaster.

bluecalm, on 2012-March-16, 02:00, said:

Did Matthew Granovetter have his tongue in his cheek when he wrote the article: Robot Opening Leads? I DON'T THINK SO.

Here is the preamble from BRIDGE ADDITIONS 96, Matthew Granovetter, 1995, pgs. 53 - 57:

"... There is a great deal to be said for making regimented opening leads. ... By regimented opening leads, I mean that your choice of leads is by a fixed preference system. For example, against suits, you first lead from an ace-king combination, otherwise you lead a singleton, otherwise you lead from a king-queen, otherwise from a queen-jack, and so forth. .... By always leading in a prescribed method, you help your partner with the entire defense. ... If your partner knows your style of leads, it will also increase his ability to defend well."

"Consistency = Success

The important thing here is consistency. By keep[ing] consistent in your style of leads - in fact, by leading like a robot - you can turn what otherwise was a blind choice with no implications to a meaningful card, a building block for the entire defense."

"Concrete Vs. Circumstantial Evidence

There are two clues to the best lead: your hand and the bidding. The cards in your hand are concrete evidence, whereas the bidding is circumstantial. Thus, when you are determining your opening lead, it stands to reason that you should give much more weight to the former than the latter. Most people do this the other way around, however. ..."

"In one of my early books, 'Murder at the Bridge Table,' I outlined the choices for opening leads (based solely on your hand) from the best to the worst. Here is a similar chart for review. [Chart similar to one in Ultra Club notes]

I do NOT follow these suggestions blindly, I don't always lead from AK or a singleton if I have one and I have found KQx and QJx leads to be poor at game contracts. I defend passively against 1NT contracts unless I have a 5-card suit.

What the chart in my system notes (or in Granovetter's book) accomplishes is that it a starting point for discussion of style of leads and defense.

I don't know what this article is saying tbh.
It seems like a lot of words, some random assertions, some contradictions, some faulty logic and no real point.
My understanding of it is "follow the lead chart but not really". Why all the talk about weight to the bidding/hand when making a choice and why give the chart anyway is a mystery to me.

Yes, you should discuss leads and make predictable choices. At the same time your choices should be efficient leads. How the chart and all that robot philosophy help with that is not explained nor implied.

Quote

I don't think so either.
He is either clueless or tries to sell some idea of his which seems completely bogus. I don't know which. What I know is that using honor chart for leads will make you weak player in no-time unless this chart is 50 pages long with chapters for common bidding situations but then you don't need a chart in the first place.

JLOGIC, on 2012-March-15, 11:22, said:

in your darkest dreams Justin
same here

Robot leads as some other ideas by the Granoveters does not mean to be the best solution to the problem, but to be a good enough solution. for some reasons people think of these (the better example is the obvious shift signaling) as expert material were its actually trying to give a key for the intermediate pair that will give them good results most of the time. its all Kiss.

But robot leads are neither good enough nor good way to teach someone.
I mean.. it's like crippling beginners at the very start of their playing adventure. why not teach what is good instead:
-try to imagine how the hand looks and how the play will likely go
-think what's the best way to counter declarer's likely plan
-think what minimum assets are needed in partner hands to make your plan work

etc.
Beginners will make mistakes in that process and so be it, they will learn from such mistakes fast. First time a beginner leads a trump after 1S - 2D - 2S - 4S auction just to see his side suit winners dissapear on diamonds it will be valuable lesson.
Following the chart and "giving more weight to your hand than the bidding" is as counter productive and bad as you could get with bridge advice.

Its possible that this idea is not good even for beginners, i am not sure, since there are many cases that it will help them get the correct lead and more important get partner to understand what they lead, and also save energy (and time) for other issues of the game.
But the important part is that this staff is not what they (Granoveters) play or suggest as best way to play.

Astounding! Reasoning backwards.
No logic can convince me that I do not start
my thinking in defense with what cards are in
front of me.
Secondarily, does the auction suggest a
divergence from what I see?
Try to give me an opening lead plan for
every auction. 50 pages as someone said.
Conversely, some exceptions to a standard
for opening leads seems rational.

Ok, I see.
We have new expert forum for people to defend ideas like robot leads. Awesome !

Quote

This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game.
You will never see anyone good saying things like: "well, I would lead this and this but now let's see if bidding suggest otherwise". In fact if you were to defend such reasoning you will instantly be seen as someone not very good no matter where this reasoning leads you to in particular deal.

Makes no sense. A singleton lead is very good, much better than QJ or JT (!!).

I just recalled one of the great books I've read when I started playing bridge. Excerpt:

"Among the traditions of teaching in bridge, none is less worthy than that which prescribes for opening leads an order of preference based upon the character of a player's holding in various suits (...) It is all quite ridiculous because every player of any experience and judgement knows that there are hundreds of times when these conventional preferences are no guide at all to the choice of the best lead (...) There is great scope for judgement in the choice of opening lead; to judge well, the player must attend to the bidding very carefully and in the light of this bidding and of his own holding must try to foresee what type of hand it is going to be"

from "Reese on Play".

Its not only a problem of not analyzing the bidding, but also not looking at the rest of your hand.
I'm sure everyone understand that leading from singlton is not such a good idea when you have QJ109 of trump.
Its also not a good idea when you are strong and partner is unlikely to have an entry.
Anyway i would say this idea is great if you wish to build a very simple robot.

Reading further in Bridge Additions 96 (pgs. 104 - 114), New Age Opening Leads:

"The Interior 9


"Ace asks Attitude, King asks Count

"Drop the Touching Honor

"Come-on = Cash

"T or 9 shoes 0 or 2


"T Promises, J denies

"Now you have the whole lead system against notrump (and you can play it against suits as well)."

Well, how about robot leads for only low-information auctions? Like 1S-2S, 4S or 1N-2H, 2S-3N, 4S?

Btw, I think I remember the Granovetters preferencing AK before stiff before KQ etc against suit contracts.

straube, on 2012-March-18, 11:24, said:

You remember correctly, what was in our Ultra notes is not exactly in their 1996 book:

Your choice of leads (from best to worst) against suit contracts below the five level:

A-K
any singleton (not trumps)
K-Q
Q-J
J-T
7-x and lower doubletons
snall trumps
T-x
J-x
Q-xK-x
3 or more to an honor (the smaller the honor the better)
A-x
any other Ace lead

Ok, I see.
We have new expert forum for people to defend ideas like robot leads. Awesome !
This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game.
You will never see anyone good saying things like: "well, I would lead this and this but now let's see if bidding suggest otherwise". In fact if you were to defend such reasoning you will instantly be seen as someone not very good no matter where this reasoning leads you to in particular deal.

***
So you won't lead K from KQJ1098 against 3NT?
That's a preferred lead, high on any list of leads.
I defend that reasoning. Don't impute a red-herring
just for your inability to rationally discuss this topic.