[david_c]

Moving on from the discussion of "2nd + 4th" (whatever that means) ... any opinions on what's the best lead style when leading a small card against a suit contract? What do you like to play, and why? On what sort of hands do you feel your lead style gives partner useful information?

[Codo]

I prefer attitude leads, so a low card shows strength in this suit. If you can combine this with a length signal fine, but I prefer to lie about the length more then about the strength. (But this happen quite seldom).
But I think, that any lead must be seen in the whole contect of defence. So, when you think, that finding out the length is more important, then you cannot use attitude leads. But I prefer the defence methods from the Granovetters (obv. switch and att. signals), in which you first goal is to show pd where your strength is, not where your length is.
And then, attitude leads are more useful then length showing leads.

I don`t care much about the advantages of 4. best against 3./5. There are different hand types, where one or another works better.

[Free]

I prefer to show my partner how the high cards are situated. That's why we play 1/3(/5) leads, also with honours. Coded 9's and 10's are also part of this (also 1st/3rd) and it's usually better to lead 3rd than 5th from a long suit, unless the 3rd card is a little too high and you need unblocks (when he supported).

The only exception we make is with AK: we lead K with odd nr of cards, and A with even nr of cards. This is helpful for partner to know if he should encourage for a ruff or not.

[kenberg]

One quick thought, leading from a three card holding against a suit contract:

If you lead MUD from three spots and small from an honor then you lead the same card from 862 as from Q86. If you lead small from three spots and from three to an honor, you lead the same card from 862 as you lead from Q62. However, in the latter case your partner is at least sure you are not leading from a doubleton.

It's my understanding that arguments about what to lead from three spots have been going on for forty years minimum. I doubt the above observation is new. Maybe those who frequently play in expert circles could tell us if there is any consensus, or perhaps an American consensus, a European consensus, etc. I'm pretty sure there is not unanimity among experts.


Ken

[Double !]

for the longest time I used to lead 4th best versus everything, and then try to remember what our agreements were about follow-up carding: original count? remaining count? no count? Count Dracula?

I shifted to 1/3/5 versus suits because it's a count lead from the get-go, and I can just continue with the original length carding from there.

I have no idea what to lead from 3 small. Whatever I do, it will be wrong anyway. Partner told me so!

I like coded 9s and 10s a lot. However, one can not play Rusinow leads with them should one so inclined. (Lead of Jack denies higher honor: It can't also be led from Q-J).

Question: If one is to lead A from one type of AK holding, and to lead King from another AK holding, how is partner to know whether or not to encourage holding the Jack of the suit (to help P should the lead be from KQ.. whatever). Same problem, as I see it, with having one (either A or K) ask for count and the other ask for attitude.

This game is difficult enough for me without having to invest extra mental energy in working out interpreting partner's carding more than necessary.
and, to any partner: Please, do not false-card me! I will never read it..too stupid. If I do read it, then it's a case UI!!!!!!

enjoy
DHL

[luke warm]

i prefer 3rd from even, low from odd, with rusinow honor leads

[luis]

I'm liking Slavinsky (mind the spelling) leads.
The only problem is that my pd thinks they are a satanic invention to make his head spin :-)
2nd and 4th with std honor leads until I can de-satanize Slavinsky :-)

Luis

[Double !]

luke warm, on Apr 21 2006, 06:06 PM, said:

i prefer 3rd from even, low from odd, with rusinow honor leads

Jimmy, you wouldn't, by any chance, be an old Journalist leader from way back when?

low from odd, 3rd from even was the wording i was taught back then, too
lol/
:-)

DHL

[luke warm]

yep

the most i can say about other methods is, some may work as well

[1eyedjack]

Same for suit and NT:
Bottom from any even holding
From odd holdings:
Xxx, hXx, xXxxx, hxxXx

With odd holding, partner can work out both suit quality and length.
With even holding, suit quality is left in doubt, but length (hopefully) not.

As with any system, there will be ambiguous hands, and declarer can try to muddy it by falsecarding, but I think that this has the best "mix" (that I have found so far) of combining unambiguous and honest signals without having to lead a card that costs a trick in order to signal.

[FrancesHinden]

Codo, on Apr 21 2006, 01:54 PM, said:

I prefer attitude leads, so a low card shows strength in this suit. If you can combine this with a length signal fine, but I prefer to lie about the length more then about the strength. (But this happen quite seldom).
But I think, that any lead must be seen in the whole contect of defence. So, when you think, that finding out the length is more important, then you cannot use attitude leads. But I prefer the defence methods from the Granovetters (obv. switch and att. signals), in which you first goal is to show pd where your strength is, not where your length is.
And then, attitude leads are more useful then length showing leads.

I don`t care much about the advantages of 4. best against 3./5. There are different hand types, where one or another works better.

I strongly prefer 3rd & low (as I was taught the name - third from even, low from odd) over 2nd/4th. I haven't played some of the newer methods around.

I find no need to play attitude leads against suit contracts, although I like them against NT. Essentially, our partnership style is to make aggressive leads against suit contracts unless the auction clearly indicates something else. So I won't lead from random small cards in a side suit unless it's partner's suit or I have no choice, and in the latter case partner will usually be able to work that out from his hand and the auction anyway.

[1eyedjack]

FrancesHinden, on Apr 23 2006, 12:29 PM, said:

I strongly prefer 3rd & low (as I was taught the name - third from even, low from odd) over 2nd/4th.  I haven't played some of the newer methods around.

This sounds very similar to my preference - but diametrically opposite.
As such, the net gains and losses probably even out.
I think that one of the main reasons that I go for the other way around is that too frequently to lead X from hxXx costs a trick when hxxX does not, third highest being a "significant" card when one of the opponents may also have 4 cards in the suit.

[david_c]

I'm still a bit confused about the "why". Suppose I were to agree to lead top from a doubleton, low from any other holding. What would I be missing out on then?

(Edit: Perhaps that comes across as a rather silly question. Of course I can see that a lead style gives you plenty of inferences. But it seems to be fairly rare that this is actually useful, and I worry that I'm helping declarer just as much.)

[kenberg]

1eyedjack, on Apr 23 2006, 07:43 AM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Apr 23 2006, 12:29 PM, said:

I strongly prefer 3rd & low (as I was taught the name - third from even, low from odd) over 2nd/4th.  I haven't played some of the newer methods around.

This sounds very similar to my preference - but diametrically opposite.
As such, the net gains and losses probably even out.
I think that one of the main reasons that I go for the other way around is that too frequently to lead X from hxXx costs a trick when hxxX does not, third highest being a "significant" card when one of the opponents may also have 4 cards in the suit.

A few years back Kantar wrote an article exactly along these lines, presenting hands presumably from actual play. Although there is no doubt you might regret the 7 from Q972 I have found the count information of this approach valuable enough that I still lead third from even, low from odd. The payoff comes not here of course but rather when the 2 is led from Q72, and partner knows you hold three or five but not four. This argument applies to leads against suits only, since leading from Q72 against NT is less common and because the lead of the 7 from Q972 at NT is more likely to cause trouble.

If the choice is simply between listening to me and listening to Kantar, I suggest me (joking! I suggest Kantar). But I think a fair number of high level players go with the third-even low-odd approach.

I'm inclined to think that if you adopt third-even from an honor, then probably you should also lead low, rather than mud, from three spots. This is not entirely clear to me though.

Ken

[1eyedjack]

Well I get to lead 7 from Q72, not 2 (hXx), so the same count information is conveyed, without risking the trick-costing lead of 7 from Q972. And I agree, that playing low from odd you should also lead low from xxX. The ambiguity between that and hxX is more acute than in my method where partner has a chance (no certainty, I agree) of distinguishing hXx from Xxx.