[goobers]

My understanding is that a lot of players like to lead 3/5 from length at a suit contract... 3rd from even, 5th from odd. (If I am incorrect about this, please let me know)

What are the merits of this, and why is it preferred from leading 4th best?

[awm]

I think the main question is what you would lead from a three-card suit. Playing fourth best leads, leading a high card will "look like" a doubleton and leading a low card can be taken as from four. I know some people play "middle-up-down" but this is likely to confuse partner until the second card is played (meaning partner won't know whether to return the suit) and can also be silly from holdings like Hxx where you can't waste the honor on the second round.

Of course, if you would never lead from a three-card suit I suppose this doesn't matter, but especially against suit contracts it can be effective to lead from three-card holdings sometimes.

[P_Marlowe]

goobers, on Mar 18 2007, 11:19 PM, said:

My understanding is that a lot of players like to lead 3/5 from length at a suit contract... 3rd from even, 5th from odd. (If I am incorrect about this, please let me know)

What are the merits of this, and why is it preferred from leading 4th best?

Hi,

I think there is little to choose between
3/5 and 2/4 leads.

The saying goes, that 3/5 leads make it a
bit easier to get the length right, i.e. one
may or may not obtain a ruff more easily.
Vs. NT contracts the 3rd card is sometimes
to valuable, hence 2/4 are slightly better,
because the ruffing is not an issue defending
a NT contract.

=> Some players play 3/5 vs. suit and 2/4
vs. NT, some say, it is simpler to play one
system.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Stephen Tu]

It's not really 3/5 vs. 2/4; plenty of people lead 4th best from 5 cd and longer suits, while still leading low from 3 small. There's no requirement to switch to MUD from 3 if playing 4th best, thankfully.

To me, the main benefit of 3rd/5th is being able to distinguish 4 cd suits from 5 cd suits. Leading the 4th best from both 4 & 5, it is often hard to tell which it is until partner plays the 2nd card. On certain deals, it is important to know whether or not to continue a suit at trick 2, rather than at trick 3. 3rd/5th is better in determining the length right away. Also, on the 2nd card played, if opening leader has a choice of plays not needing to play a card for trick taking purposes, if you lead 5th best from 5 you can make a suit preference signal on the second round. Leading 4th, you are usually constrained to play the lowest card so partner knows you have 5.

The main drawback of 3rd/5th is that from 4 cd holdings, the 3rd spot might blow a late round trick. This is why most play it vs. suits only; if at NT one is avoiding the lead because of the potentially valuable spot, then the length inference isn't as dependable. Also it's not as necessary; at suits the relevant issue here is *declarer* ruffing in (when you wanted to switch before that), not so much the defense getting ruffs.

What to lead from 3 small to me is a somewhat separate issue, though MUD isn't very compatible with 3rd/(5th/low).

[FrancesHinden]

3/5 leads (or more accurately, 3rd from even, lowest from odd, top of a doubleton) are most commonly only played against suit contracts. Compared to the traditional way of playing 4th highest (top or second from bad suits), they are strictly length-based, with no honour information included - you lead the 3 from 543 and from KJ3. The advantages and disadvantages accrue from the emphasis on distributional rather than attitude information.

I would say that, taking the expert community as a whole, you will find more people playing 3/5 than playing 4th highest although a number of world class players do still play 4th. You will also find a range of other leading methods, particularly from the continential Europeans.

Advantages
It is easier for partner to read your length in the suit led: you lead the 3rd highest from 4 and the 5th highest from five, so there is a "two-card" difference between cards led; similarly you lead the 3 from K732 but the 2 from K32 whereas playing 4th highest you lead the 2 in both cases. Even after the second round of the suit partner may not know whether you started with 3 or 4 in standard methods. This is important not just in immediate cash-out situations but in deducing declarer's distribution.

It is often easier for partner to read your honour distribution because the pip led can give a great deal of information. Say dummy has Q1053 and you hold J82 and partner leads the 7. Either that's a doubleton, or it must be from K97(4) and you will play low at trick 2 (unless declarer puts the 10 in). If partner led the 4, you don't know if it is from K974 (play the 8) or from K764 (play the Jack to stop declarer making a quick second trick from A9). [p.s. I've made this example up quickly. If you want to pick holes in it, there are plenty of other possible examples.]

Disadvantages
There is no attitude information from the lead. If you like leading from 3 low or 4 low against suit contracts, partner can be left with a complete guess whether to play his honour in third seat or not. Say dummy has a singleton, you hold K9xx, and partner leads the 2. If that's from Q10732 you look a bit silly playing low; if it's from 87xxx (or even worse 872) you look silly playing the King. For this reason, 3/5 (or any other strictly distributional lead) works best if you tend to make aggressive leads and shy away from 3-low or 4-low suits. If you are a fan of passive leads, and holding KJxx xxx in the two unbid suits would opt for the 3 low suit, then you don't want to play 3/5 leads.

The 3rd pip from a 4-card suit can be too expensive a card to lead. In my experience, this disadvantage actually comes up extremely rarely and I wouldn't bother about it.

The other disadvantage is the same as the advantage above: it can be easier for declarer to read the honour distribution at trick one in exactly the same way as it helps partner.

NT Contracts
3/5 is rarely played against NT contracts for two reasons. First, the 3rd round of the suit is often important and leading a highish pip costs a trick more often. Secondly, attitude in the suit led is much more important. Passive leads from 4 low against NT contracts are much more common than against suit contracts, and it becomes correspondingly more important that partner know quickly how serious you are about the suit you have led.

The question of leads against NT contracts in particular is a complex and difficult one. If you are keen, then Jeff Rubens' book (Journalist Leads by Lawrence Rosler and Jeff Rubens) covers the theory in a lot of detail, although it's quite an advanced book. You can learn a lot from it without having to adapt all their detailed suggestions on honour leads.

[whereagles]

Ruben's book is quite unreadable but the stuff there extremely good. He draws a series of conclusions there, e.g.

1. odd leads are superior to 4th best vs suit contracts
2. attitude leads/shifts are preferrable vs NT
3. Rusinow leads are advisable vs suit

I don't agree to 2 and 3, but I sure agree to 1.

[kenberg]

I hesitate to add, since I think Frances' reply covered the ground well. But...

Against NT, partners seldom lead from Q72. Therefore, when partner leads the 2 against NT it is pretty safe to assume he holds 4.

Against a suit contract a lead from Q72 is common, as is a lead from Q752. Playing fourth best, the 2 is led in each case since you can't lead the fourth best if you don't have the fourth. Playing 3/5 leads, the 2 is led from the first, the 5 from the second. This often, not always, helps.

Eddie Kantar, among others, rails against this on the grounds that the 7 from Q972 may blow a trick that the 2 wouldn't. He has a point. There's no free lunch.

[whereagles]

Q972 can blow a trick in NT, but in a suit contract the likelyhood is way lower. I've had that (blowing a trick) happening in NT but never in a suit contract.

[mike777]

I play attitude leads against nt, lowspot=I like the suit. Of course I am assuming an unbid suit or a suit I have bid. High spot or confusing spot=often lead from nothing.