[Rossoneri]

To cut the long story short, I'm playing in a local tournament next month and all my other teammates play 3/5 leads whereas I only know 2/4.

Learning is not a problem, in fact I'm happy to learn more. However, what I am interested to ask is, what are the main advantages/disadvantages of the 2 leading styles?

[skjaeran]

In my experience there's two factors in favour of 3rd/5th leads:
1) Generally easier to read (the opening leaders length in the suit)
2) Less prone to force you to lead a card you really can't afford

[benlessard]

If you play in a strong field i suggest attitude lead vs Nt. Giving the count of the suit lead is likely to help declarer as much (or close) than partner so in that view attitude is probably better.

[gnasher]

I think that what matters most is what you're used to. It's rare for the leading method to make a difference, and the benefits of each tend to balance out anyway.

I agree with Ben that attitude leads are better against notrumps, but they also require more discussion and practice as a partnership.

[benlessard]

Quote

but they also require more discussion and practice as a partnership.

Maybe it take more judgment but its so simple that you can teach it to complete beginners.

[ArcLight]

gnasher, on Jul 23 2008, 04:57 AM, said:

I think that what matters most is what you're used to. It's rare for the leading method to make a difference, and the benefits of each tend to balance out anyway.

I agree 100%.


I once asked Eric Kokish a related question and he said "Use what you are comfortable and familiar with".


The way I view it is I lose a lot though less than world class play. When Fred and Justin * start fearing me, I will worry more about switching to better methods.


* = If I left anyone out, it was a deliberate slight to provoke a flame war

[FrancesHinden]

benlessard, on Jul 23 2008, 11:11 AM, said:

Quote

but they also require more discussion and practice as a partnership.

Maybe it take more judgment but its so simple that you can teach it to complete beginners.

Attitude leads are noticeably harder to play than 'standard' (I have a lot of experience playing both and prefer attitude leads against NT).

There are quite a few things that need discussion, and they are not 'so simple', not least because the card you lead in from one suit may depend on the rest of your hand.

[FrancesHinden]

Rossoneri, on Jul 23 2008, 05:00 AM, said:

To cut the long story short, I'm playing in a local tournament next month and all my other teammates play 3/5 leads whereas I only know 2/4.

Learning is not a problem, in fact I'm happy to learn more. However, what I am interested to ask is, what are the main advantages/disadvantages of the 2 leading styles?

This is not the first time this question has been asked here (am I getting too old?)

Anyway the quick summary is:

- Very few people play 3/5 against NT contracts, either 2/4th, or attitude, or some more obscure methods tend to be used.

Against suits:
- If you play a fairly aggressive leading style then 3/5 tends to give partner more information about the suit layout and length more quickly
- If you like a more passive style, 2/4 often works better as it has an element of attitude about it - you lead low from a an honour holding and 2nd highest without.

But it does take some practice to get used to any new leading style.

Quote

I think that what matters most is what you're used to. It's rare for the leading method to make a difference, and the benefits of each tend to balance out anyway.

This is true, to the extent that it's true about virtually all partnership agreements. But I would give up quite a few conventional system agreements before I changed back to 2/4 leads against suits, I do think 3/5 is clearly better.

(I haven't tried some of the fancier leading systems, they may be even better)

[Rossoneri]

Oh yes, my other question that I wanted to ask: Why 2/4 at NT and not 3/5?

(Pinochio actually gave me an answer to that, but I was not satisfied.)

And now a question from some of the responses (might be stupid): What are attitude leads? =X

[Cascade]

Are you really playing 2nd/4th? I mean do you lead the 8 from K83?

[matmat]

Cascade, on Jul 23 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

Are you really playing 2nd/4th? I mean do you lead the 8 from K83?

playing 2/4 I think the 3 is led, on the grounds that it is the 4th card in a suit to an honor?

[Rossoneri]

You lead the 3...

[andy_h]

Rossoneri, on Jul 24 2008, 11:36 AM, said:

You lead the 3...

don't hold your breath on it depending which country you're in, some would really lead 2nd/4ths and that includes the 8 from K83 and 98 (2nd from a doubleton) Eg. the polish

[1eyedjack]

skaeran, on Jul 23 2008, 05:58 AM, said:

In my experience there's two factors in favour of 3rd/5th leads:
1) <snip>
2) Less prone to force you to lead a card you really can't afford

Not sure about that. I moved back to 2/4 from 3/5 because too often the 3rd card from Hxxx was an active card. And yes, I sometimes lead from that holding v suit.

Cascade, on Jul 23 2008, 11:52 PM, said:

Are you really playing 2nd/4th?  I mean do you lead the 8 from K83?

Yup, eminently playable. Lead top from Xxx and bottom from xX. Fits in nicely with 2/4 leads. Non-standard, certainly, but a growing trend. Downside is that with a doubleton you might want to lead the higher one for unblocking purposes. Guess nothing is perfect.

[EricK]

Whether 2/4 or 3/5 is better seems a question which could be answered by computer. Just set a reasonably good bridge program to play a 10,000 deal bridge match against itself, with the only difference being the lead style and see how many IMPS/board one gains over the other.

I don't think most people are able to accurately form such judgements themselves just from their own experience. Firstly they probably don't play enough boards with each method to form a stastically significant sample and secondly, unless they meticulously record each result and analyse them disinterestedly, they will be beset with confirmation bias, disconfirmation bias and all the other mental biases which afflict us.

[Cascade]

matmat, on Jul 24 2008, 12:41 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 23 2008, 05:52 PM, said:

Are you really playing 2nd/4th?  I mean do you lead the 8 from K83?

playing 2/4 I think the 3 is led, on the grounds that it is the 4th card in a suit to an honor?

The way i learnt to count the 3 looks suspiciously like a third not a second or fourth to me.

[gnasher]

As I understand it, there are two very different methods, both of which are referred to as "2nd and 4th" in the areas where they are popular:

- Second from three or more small cards; fourth from an honour; top of doubleton; low from Hxx. This is what an Englishman would mean by "2nd and 4th", and what Frances was talking about when she said that they contained an element of attitude.

- Second from two or three cards; fourth from four or more cards. This is what it means if you write "2nd and 4th" on a WBF convention card.

It seems rather pointless to quibble about whether the first method is descriptively named or not. Equally I could object to the term "Namyats" because it's not reverse Stayman, or "Unusual vs Unusual" because there's nothing unusual about it and it doesn't show a two-suiter.

[brianshark]

I like the polish style which always leads 2nd or 4th except Hx and Hhx.

[catatonic]

what you play in a tried and tested partnership is what suits you .... as someone commented it tends to balance out anyway

but I always teach beginners to start with is :-

top of doubleton
MUD from 3 or 4 small [ with 4 the card that looks most like middle eg from 9832 the 8 not the 3 ]]
low from Hxx
4th from the rest , Txxx and up
fits in with high encourage , low discourage [ because it is the opposite !! ]

and in my view this is best with untried partnerships ; perfect it ain't , but what is ? it just seems to lead to the least confusion this way

if you tell me that is called 2nd and 4th ...I believe you

[effervesce]

I'd like to give 3rds/5ths a try but I've never been able to find much on it. Can someone give me a brief summary of how 3rds/5ths leads? From xxx, xxxx, xxxxxx etc, Hxx, Hxxx, Hxxxx, Hxxxxx.