[benlessard]

Could some1 explain me the rationale behing leading low from a doubleton ? Is it like an attitude lead vs suits ?

[MickyB]

I've played this a little recently, but I'm certainly not an expert on the method.

My understanding is -

If you lead low from doubleton, it becomes normal to play the middle card then the lowest from a three-card holding. Basically, you are showing count on lead (reverse count - low/hi = even, high/low = odd).

Unlike MUD, you can still do this from, say, Kxx.

Now, if partner leads the lowest spot out, he either has a doubleton or four cards to an honour - normally you will be able to tell which. This is an improvement over standard methods, where this card could also be from *three* to an honour, or possibly even three small cards.

[awm]

I have a different understanding of this method, which includes leading 3/5 from length.

The point is that against suits, there is no convenient lead from three small cards. If you lead low, partner will think you are leading from strength (Hxx for example) whereas if you lead high partner will think you are leading from doubleton. Leading middle (MUD) could easily be from a strong four card holding (Hxxx) or from a doubleton (xx); partner will not be able to tell until the second round of the suit which is often too late.

When you lead from three small, you have no particular interest in partner returning the suit when he gets in. When you lead from doubleton or from an honor, you usually do want partner to return the suit. For this reason there is some sense to playing attitude leads, the idea being that you can distinguish only two of the cases:

(1) Lead from three to an honor.
(2) Lead from doubleton.
(3) Lead from three small.

If partner has to be confused occasionally about this, it is better that he confuse (1) and (2) since in both cases you want the suit returned.

Thus it makes sense to lead high from three small (xxx) and low from doubleton (xx) or from an honor (Hxx).

I suspect that this method is more popular in Europe (esp. Poland) because many of the top European players seem to like making passive leads (i.e. from three small) whereas the American bias seems to be towards aggressive leads (from an honor). If you never lead from three small in an unbid suit (or almost never do) then you're better off leading high from doubleton to distinguish case (1) from (2). I know Mike Lawrence (to name one top American player who has written a lot of bridge books and thus made his style known to the masses) swears that leading from three small is awful and to be avoided at all costs.

[cherdano]

Adam, I think the popular lead style in Poland is 2/4, which includes the second-highest from three-card suits. I have never seen the style you are describing.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

It is part of 2nd/4th leads, if you play 3rd/5th
you play high from a double, if you play 2nd/4th
you play low.

As was already described 2nd/4th leads work
fairly well with length signals, where low-high
shows an even number.

And length signals, where low-high shows even,
work fairly well together with attidute signals,
where low is encouraging, in a suit contract you
would give the lowest card from two cards,
which would be positive and a lengths signal.

If I remember it correct, and follwoing the above
logic 3rd/5th would work best with together with
high low as a positive attidude signal and as showing
even length.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[paulg]

The method recalled by Adam, which I play, comes from 'Systems in Defence' by Lukasz Slawinski.

It is different from Polish 2/4 in the leads from three small (2/4 uses middle, down, up) and Hxx (2/4 leads HXx, we lead HxX).

I really like the method. Defensively we seem to know more that we did using standard leads. Of course declarer might know a little more too, but defending is harder than declaring and the information can be confusing when declarer sees a low card led.

Paul

[Cascade]

I've played 2nds and 4ths once for a three-day weekend.

From recollection it was a very workable style like 3rds and 5ths which I regularly play only different. You just needed to get used to the different inferences. Its worthwhile trying something like this just to stretch your brain from time to time even if you do not take on the method full time.

2nd meant low from a doubleton and middle from three.

[akhare]

cardsharp, on Jan 17 2008, 04:36 AM, said:

The method recalled by Adam, which I play, comes from 'Systems in Defence' by Lukasz Slawinski.

It is different from Polish 2/4 in the leads from three small (2/4 uses middle, down, up) and Hxx (2/4 leads HXx, we lead HxX).

I really like the method. Defensively we seem to know more that we did using standard leads. Of course declarer might know a little more too, but defending is harder than declaring and the information can be confusing when declarer sees a low card led.

Paul

We (DrTodd and foobar) play this method too and find it eminently playable.

Paul,

Can you please post a definitive version of what's lead from the following holdings:

XXXXXX
XXXXX
XXXX
XXX
XX

HXXXX
HXXX
HXX

TIA...

[paulg]

We play:

Xxxxxx then play lowest
Xxxxx then play second highest
Xxxx then play lowest
Xxx then play second highest
xX

HxxXxx
HxxxX
HxXx
HxX

Note that we lead 4th from honour sixth.

Paul

[benlessard]

Quote

Xxxxxx then play lowest
Xxxxx then play second highest
Xxxx then play lowest
Xxx then play second highest
xX

HxxXxx
HxxxX
HxXx
HxX

I understand that leading high to show negative attitude make sense, but the mix of 3/5 and 4th from 6 make no sense to me. applying 10-12 rules & giving count is impossible if you play 4th from 6 cards. (unless partner know its a 6 card suit)

Also leading top from 5 card holding interferred with 9-10 coded or top of inner sequences.

EX leading T from T9643, and T from KT98x. Also im far from convinced that continuing suit is good enough after a doubleton lead is a good thing.

[the hog]

The system Adam describes is in fact quite common in Poland. As cardsharp mentions, it is espoused by Slawinski. We have played it for some time and found it to be superior to standard methods. Mind you anything that eliminates MUD is better than standard methods.

[brianshark]

My leads:

xX
xXx
xXxx(+)
hXx
hxxX(+)

Btw, I'm not exactly sure what I should be playing 2nd after I lead 2nd highest from bad suits. Any suggestions? (UDCA signals)

[joshs]

One other lead combination I have seen is low from a (lowish) doubleton with Rusinow honor leads.

The main problem with rusinow is that when partner leads the 9,T,J,Q you sometimes don't know if he has a doubleton (or a higher honor) and this can cause a big problem. Out of the blue Qx and Jx leads are fairly rare, but Tx and 9x are relatively common. The idea is to lead low from Tx and below (and occasionally even from Jx or Qx, although that risks a blockage).

[gwnn]

brianshark, on Jan 18 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

My leads:

xX
xXx
xXxx(+)
hXx
hxxX(+)

Btw, I'm not exactly sure what I should be playing 2nd after I lead 2nd highest from bad suits. Any suggestions? (UDCA signals)

http://forums.bridge...showtopic=17957

current count

[bhall]

On their supplementary sheet #2, Fantunes describe their version of Slavinsky:

"When we have one or more honors we lead in direct counting: small with an odd number of cards, high with an even number of cards (meaning highest spare spot). When we have no honor, we lead in reverse counting: small with an even number of cards, high with an odd number. For this purpose, 10 is generally not considered an honor. Exceptions are logical:
1062 = 6; 10962 = 10 vs suit, 2 vs NT. 10654=4, H98x(+)=9, KJ92=2.

COUNT: In pd's suit only, we lead signaling count: LOW with ODD, HIGH with Even. With 10x through Ax, we lead high."

[awm]

The_Hog, on Jan 18 2008, 05:32 AM, said:

The system Adam describes is in fact quite common in Poland. As cardsharp mentions, it is espoused by Slawinski. We have played it for some time and found it to be superior to standard methods. Mind you anything that eliminates MUD is better than standard methods.

While I have nothing against Slawinski leads, I should mention that MUD is not a part of standard methods. As far as I know, standard leads include Hxx and xxx. Obviously there's some ambiguity as to whether the low card is from three small or from honor-third or from a four-card suit. But it's not MUD.

[MickyB]

MUD is certainly standard in the UK - in fact, it is probably played here by 95% of players below the top echelons. I find low from doubleton, MDU from three to be much superior in dealing with leads from xxx.

While we're here, what's the standard lead from Hx and Hhx (e.g. KJx) in this style? I'd guess it's top of Hx (if so, what about Tx?) and normally small from KJx, is that right?

[paulg]

MickyB, on Jan 18 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

While we're here, what's the standard lead from Hx and Hhx (e.g. KJx) in this style? I'd guess it's top of Hx (if so, what about Tx?) and normally small from KJx, is that right?

Yes, that's right.

Against notrump you would lead high from 10x or 9x. Against a suit you would lead small from 9x and opinions vary about 10x (we lead small).

[paulg]

bhall, on Jan 18 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

On their supplementary sheet #2, Fantunes describe their version of Slavinsky:

"When we have one or more honors we lead in direct counting: small with an odd number of cards, high with an even number of cards (meaning highest spare spot). When we have no honor, we lead in reverse counting: small with an even number of cards, high with an odd number. For this purpose, 10 is generally not considered an honor. Exceptions are logical:
1062 = 6; 10962 = 10 vs suit, 2 vs NT. 10654=4, H98x(+)=9, KJ92=2.

COUNT: In pd's suit only, we lead signaling count: LOW with ODD, HIGH with Even. With 10x through Ax, we lead high."

This version is mentioned in Slawinski's book as something that would be interesting to see how it works.

It is interesting that they can cope with leading the 8 from both K862 and 862, but it clearly works for them.

p

[kenrexford]

I tried this lead approach for a while and found it successful, but most folks are hesitant. But, I'll explain my reasoning, and it may help understand why.

If you play fourth best leads (trhe same cannot be said about 3rd-5th), then you might as well look at the lead as giving upside-down count and attitude on opening lead. In other words, a small lead (or switch) is like an upside-down attitude signal and a high pip lead (top or second from trash) is like a high-pip attitude negative signal. A fourth best lead will end up being low-high for even (upside-down) and a fourth-best then fifth-best will be high-low for odd.

Assuming upside-down count and attitude leads, then the doubleton, to be consistent, should be low-high. Further, the three-card holding would be high-low.

The consistency makes the style more readable. Inconsistency messes with the math in negative ways. I actually plotted out all possible pips and leads from those pips and found that you still always have ambiguities but that a definite read occurred most often with fourth-best leads and low from a doubleton. Second best was 3rd-5th with high from a doubleton. Worst was fourth-best with high from a doubleton. Each had times when it prevailed over the other two, or where two prevailed over the third, but 4th+low from doubleton prevailed most.

I now use 3rd-5th because it is the second best (very close) and because the high-from-doubleton is internally consistent, and because 4th+low is too weird for most people. But, I think 4th+low is technically superior, from my study.

The "readability" factor results from consistency in dividing all odds in one column and all evens in the other. You can more easily read cards if the card has possible counts separated by two's (2/4/6/8 or 1/3/5/7) than you can if other options are possible (2/3/4/6/8 or 2/3/5/7, for instance). As you may see, the stiff is always the whammy. But, reading a stiff was easier when playing low from a doubleton, amazingly.