[easy]

I don't know for how long but many european experts are leading low from 2nd & 4th. ie. from 82 the 2 is lead. I guess that also holds true for Q2.
I'd be interested in hearing the reasoning behind that style.(my 1 guess would be to preserve ones doubleton honor) and does this lead convention remain true when leading partners suit? How does one's partner know whether you're leading from
Q2 , Q52,  or Q542. When analyzing partners opening lead must you really use the rules of, 11,12, & 13.

[hrothgar]

Quote

I don't know for how long but many european experts are leading low from 2nd & 4th. ie. from 82 the 2 is lead. I guess that also holds true for Q2.
I'd be interested in hearing the reasoning behind that style.(my 1 guess would be to preserve ones doubleton honor) and does this lead convention remain true when leading partners suit? How does one's partner know whether you're leading from
Q2 , Q52,  or Q542. When analyzing partners opening lead must you really use the rules of, 11,12, & 13.

I have been playing this style for about 4 years now in a couple of my regular partnerships.

We lead low from xx and xxxx
and lead high from xxx

When we lead from Hx, we lead the honor, like normal people.

[For what its worth, I heard this lead style referred to as Polish leads]

As to reasoning, our primary motivation was simply that it seems to make the lead style more consistant with UDCA carding.

I'm sure that someone can provide a much better analysis.  Defensive carding was never my strong suit.

[inquiry]

Quote

I don't know for how long but many european experts are leading low from 2nd & 4th. ie. from 82 the 2 is lead. I guess that also holds true for Q2.
I'd be interested in hearing the reasoning behind that style.(my 1 guess would be to preserve ones doubleton honor) and does this lead convention remain true when leading partners suit? How does one's partner know whether you're leading from
Q2 , Q52,  or Q542. When analyzing partners opening lead must you really use the rules of, 11,12, & 13.

I like 2/4 leads for a number of reasons. First, with four (or more) you can choose to lead either card depending upon your stregnth as a kind of "low encourage-high discourage" type of lead. So with, say HT842 you have a choice. I would lead lead the 8 to suggest I am weak in this suit. While from higher honors, you can lead low. This way your partner gets both count and stregnth information.

Second, I play some conventional leads, like Jack denies a higher honor, Ten promises an internal sequence (something like QT9.. KT9... KJT... AJT... etc. So I use a lead of the 9 as promising the TEN. So not playing second best, I am stuck if I want to lead from 93 doubleton.

I have heard complaints about 2/4 that you can't tell if partner has 2 or 1. Well if partner leads the highest missing spot... it is a singleton (just like if partner is short and leads the 2 using normal signals). So these cancel out.

Finally, in my response to  your 3/5 thread, I said I give remaining count. This means I would return 2/4 best from remaining junk after I win the ACE in your example. So from A742... i win the  ACE... left with 742, I return the 4. Partner can probably work out at this time that I have the 2 remaining as well as a card higher than the 7. If I return the 2, he has a full count (I am A2 of Ax2 originally).

Finally, as to your question what to lead from Qx. Systemically the lead would be the x. However, if partner bid this suit I would often lead the Queen. The reason being to unblock the suit. Some exceptions are if I am very weak and partner rates to be reasonably stong. If logic in this situation dictates that I may need to get end late in the hand, I save the Queen as a possible entry to my hand and lead small.

I think any opening lead style works if you and your partner agree. What convinced me to change was I rather lead the seven from 874 than the 4 or the 8. And when I play the 4 on the next round, partner is fully clued in. Second, after trying to win a trick, I like the second best returns as they are easier to read (IMHO) and solve your 3/5 problem you talked about in your other thread. Finally, I like the attitude part of the signals associated with choosing between the 2nd and 4th best when holding legnth.

[pkl]

Leading low from two cards has to do with your defensive carding style. The purpose being to give your partner an easy count.
In the old days, leading the highest card from both xx and xxx gave cause to lots of confusion, and determining your partners lenghth was not easy. MUD was one solution, but playing the low card from an even number is simpler and not so easily made obscure by declarer.
There are other solutions - such as 3./5. highest where you lead Xx, xxX, xxXx, xxxxX and I like that scheme too. However in the opening lead the technically correct lead from A/K/Q or J doubleton is always the honour-card.

Kind regards
Peter

[Rado]

2nd/4th leads were invented and applied first in Poland some 30 or more years ago. The main profit is to comply with reversed carding (UDCA) and not to change your style when returning the remaining count - always to signal the original count. When doubleton Hounour the lead is Honour not small: Q2 lead 2, 102, lead 10, 92  lead 2. When 4 or 5  smalls might be lead 2nd or 4th we at Bulgaria prefer always 4th in order to get the total distribution of the hand much earlier. Polish experts usually lead 2nd from 4 smalls which also have merit.

[JRG]

I had a friend, Paul "The Whale" Heitner, who was a true expert (won the Life Masters Pairs with John Lowenthal). In the few years before he died, he played with Richard Colker. I seem to remember (but not positive), that they led 3rd & 5th vs suits & 4th best vs NT. They played UDCA. Paul was one of the founders of The Journal magazine that was absorbed by Bridge World. He was part of the group that published articles on what became known, for obvious reasons, as "Journalist Leads".

What I do remember very well, from kibitzing them (Paul H. & John L.) in tournament play was their announcement, "We lead small from two small, on opening lead and when leading through declarer".

Something more for you to analyze. Maybe someone wants to write an e-mail to Rich and ask him the reasons?

[pkl]

Quote

I had a friend, Paul "The Whale" Heitner, who was a true expert (won the Life Masters Pairs with John Lowenthal). In the few years before he died, he played with Richard Colker. I seem to remember (but not positive), that they led 3rd & 5th vs suits & 4th best vs NT. They played UDCA. Paul was one of the founders of The Journal magazine that was absorbed by Bridge World. He was part of the group that published articles on what became known, for obvious reasons, as "Journalist Leads".

3./5. against suit contracts - often with. 2./4. through declarer has become quite common among top pairs in Denmark as well.  3./5. often gives third hand an advantage when you have an option of finessing against dummy. I am not sure, however, why they prefer 4th highest against no trump.

Kind regards
Peter

[cherdano]

pkl, on 2003-April-21, 01:05, said:

3./5. against suit contracts - often with. 2./4. through declarer has become quite common among top pairs in Denmark as well.  3./5. often gives third hand an advantage when you have an option of finessing against dummy. I am not sure, however, why they prefer 4th highest against no trump.

Kind regards
Peter

Against NT, you want to keep your 3rd highest spot when you lead from a four-card suit.
(Also, I had to beat Phil's necro record.)

[MrAce]

cherdano, on 2018-April-22, 16:44, said:

(Also, I had to beat Phil's necro record.)