[straube]

Here are our agreements for opening leads against suits. What do folks think? My concern is knowing what a low spot card means. Is partner leading from xx or xxxx or Qxx. I'd love to know if there's a consensus at the top levels for 3/5 or 3/low or whatever. Are experts leading low from xx? Why or why not? Thanks.


We lead low from an even (2/4) numbers of cards (T and lower), 3rd best with an honor in the suit (Jack and higher) and 2nd best / top from all other odd sequences (and ragged 6-card suits).

Kx(X)xx
Qx(X)x
Kx(X)
(J)x
T(x)
Txx(X)
(T)9x, (9)87, T(X)x, 9(X)x, T(X)xxx, 9(X)xxx
(X)xx
(X)(x)xxx, (X)(x)xxxx

[awm]

I suspect it is better to lead the ten from Tx. There are a bunch of positions where this helps, for example:

North has J74, East has KQ95 and the 2 is lead. The four is played from dummy. Suppose East is fairly certain this is from doubleton. If it's from 32, 62, or 82 then east should insert the queen. If it's from T2, East should insert the nine. Since it's 3:1 against, East plays the queen and south wins the ace. Now the suit is blocked when West in fact held T2. While I expect you can construct these positions with most "low from doubleton" situations they are fairly common holding the ten and less so with a smaller high spot. Nonetheless it's an argument that high from doubleton is a better method.

I'd also be concerned that your spot card leads are extremely revealing once it's known whether you have an honor and that this is something declarer (holding most of the values) will more commonly know than partner. However, prior to this knowledge the leads seem somewhat ambiguous (for example you lead the 8 from both T82 and KT82, and even from 862 so partner will have a lot of trouble distinguishing these holdings).

My view is that there are two "good" approaches to spot card leads against suits, these being:

1. Primarily show attitude. This means leading low from doubleton, low from an honor, high from small cards.
2. Primarily show count. This means leading 3rd/low from length and high from doubleton.

Your style seems closer to the first, but with some murky situations because you seem to want to lead middle cards with great frequency (kxXx, tXx, etc).

[JLOGIC]

Agree strongly with Adam re T from Tx and this is what the top Poles that I have played against do (it is one question I always ask when playing Poles).

[akhare]

The carding agreements in the post aren't accurate as described.

• It's basically 3 and 5th from honor holdings against *suits*, not including the T.
  
• T//9 show 0/2 higher and low from doubletons
  
• Low from doubletons not including the T, so Tx would lead the T
  Low from interesting against NT

[straube]

akhare, on 2013-May-16, 12:12, said:

The carding agreements in the post aren't accurate as described.

• It's basically 3 and 5th from honor holdings against *suits*, not including the T.
  
• T//9 show 0/2 higher and low from doubletons
  
• Low from doubletons not including the T, so Tx would lead the T
  Low from interesting against NT

Hm. I pasted this directly from our notes. I think they were right and that we were counting a T as a spot card (leading low from Tx). This btw is consistent (counting the T as a spot card)with leading low from Txxx but 3rd from Jxxx. Happy to change them if it's not correct. I still am troubled leading fourth from say 9xxx. Why don't you post here what you think is our agreement so that we can get feedback for that.

[akhare]

straube, on 2013-May-16, 12:26, said:

Hm. I pasted this directly from our notes. I think they were right and that we were counting a T as a spot card (leading low from Tx). This btw is consistent (counting the T as a spot card)with leading low from Txxx but 3rd from Jxxx. Happy to change them if it's not correct. I still am troubled leading fourth from say 9xxx. Why don't you post here what you think is our agreement so that we can get feedback for that.

• It's basically 3 and 5th from honor holdings against *suits*, not including the T
  
• T/9 show 0/2 higher
  
• Low from doubletons not including the T, so Tx would lead the T
  
• Against suits, all other 3+ spot holdings usually lead the second highest. T(X)xx, 9(X)xx, x(X)x, x(X)xx, x(X)xxx etc. Occasional deviations are possible, but should be rare
  
• Low from interesting against NT

[straube]

akhare, on 2013-May-16, 12:48, said:

• It's basically 3 and 5th from honor holdings against *suits*, not including the T
  
• T/9 show 0/2 higher
  
• Low from doubletons not including the T, so Tx would lead the T
  
• Against suits, all other 3+ spot holdings usually lead the second highest. T(X)xx, 9(X)xx
  
• Low from interesting against NT

ok. I will change this. I certainly prefer 9(X)xx to 9xx(X). Sorry folks for the confusion. Still happy to receive input. Also wonder if low from xx is consistent with a (primarily) 3/5th strategy. awm seemed to suggest it wasn't.

[akhare]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-16, 12:11, said:

Agree strongly with Adam re T from Tx and this is what the top Poles that I have played against do (it is one question I always ask when playing Poles).

Regarding Polish 2/4th leads, is leading second best from HXx the norm (say 8 from K85), or do they prefer to lead low from a three carding Hxx holding?

[JLOGIC]

Nope 2nd.

Obviously with something like Kx you cannot lead low. Presumably that is true with Qx also. So the question is just where to draw the line of Hx. With 2 small you still lead low but is the ten an important enough honor like Jx or is it more like 9x?

I think you gotta push the ten through but it is debatable, my view comes from zero experience playing 2/4th though, but I do have anecdotal evidence that most of the top Polish players I've played against cut it off at 9x for low.

Straubes leads seem to be more like Fantunes or something and are not Polish, I was more commenting that I think his cutoff should be 9x and Tx, not Tx and Jx for low vs top (which is what Adam said to begin with).

[akhare]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-16, 16:16, said:

Nope 2nd.

Obviously with something like Kx you cannot lead low. Presumably that is true with Qx also. So the question is just where to draw the line of Hx. With 2 small you still lead low but is the ten an important enough honor like Jx or is it more like 9x?

Right, drawing the line at 9x for low from doubletons makes sense when leading low from doubletons.

Fantunes lead second best from Hxx (in conjunction their "mixed" spot cards leads) as I recall, but that can't coexist with T/9 showing 0/2 higher.

[straube]

I think I'd be happy with 3rd and 5th from an honor and 2nd or sometimes top from a holding without an honor. This way we get the message whether partner has an honor or not and whether it pays to finesse dummy or not (using I guess the rule of 10 and 12?)

As far as what to lead from doubletons...well most folks seem to lead top when playing 3/5th but we want the ability to distinguish xxx from Qxx and I think this conflicts. The thing is we rarely are leading doubletons and when we do so it isn't typically because we're looking for a ruff. It's because it's a safe exit. So why not lead top from a doubleton and partner just won't know if it's 973 or 97. We could have a rule that says lead the 9 and then play the 7 (not the 3)next if pd turns up with the AK. It will give him pause some of the time.

Now we could have separate rules for leading partner's suit (lead top from a doubleton)or leading from a suit not mentioned when partner has presumed strength (opened a strong NT or strong club) and then lead low from a doubleton.

[akhare]

straube, on 2013-May-16, 17:05, said:

...well most folks seem to lead top when playing 3/5th

As I understand it, 3/5th leads emphasize length over everything else and I would be really surprised if deviating from that was the norm.

As Adam noted, it comes down to a question of whether the spot card lead style emphasizes attitude or length. To that end, leading low from doubletons is compatible with the former style.

[straube]

What I'm getting at is that the theory that of leading low from both doubletons and honors is that one is encouraging the return of the suit. If so, I think there's a couple of problems with that. There's the immediate problem (sometimes) of partner deciding whether to insert an intermediate card (T or J say) as opposed to taking his ace. Then there's the problem of partner gaining the lead again and returning the suit hoping to find an honor and instead finding a spot card.

3/5th from an honor solves both length and attitude problems at the same time if partner can read which one (3rd vs 5th) and not be confused with a doubleton.

Anyway, we alert "We lead low from doubletons" all the time and I'm not sure if I've ever lead low from a doubleton. Possible. I've lead high from a doubleton plenty of times when it's pd's (your) suit.

Curious what Justin and awm lead.

[akhare]

straube, on 2013-May-16, 18:09, said:

What I'm getting at is that the theory that of leading low from both doubletons and honors is that one is encouraging the return of the suit.
...
3/5th from an honor solves both length and attitude problems at the same time if partner can read which one (3rd vs 5th) and not be confused with a doubleton.
..
Anyway, we alert "We lead low from doubletons" all the time and I'm not sure if I've ever lead low from a doubleton. Possible. I've lead high from a doubleton plenty of times when it's pd's (your) suit.

It just substitutes one problem with another. One can argue that a lead that unambiguously encourages the return of the suit (attitude) is better than a mixed leading style.

There have been endless debates on the topic including http://www.bridgebas...%22mud+leads%22, but I don't think that anyone has made any winning argument one way or other.

In the absence of empirical evidence of the superiority of one method over another, I would say that a method that's an established Polish standard (2/4th), can't be awful.

[MickyB]

I like count-based leads vs suits, but I'm not sure 3rd from even is the best way to do it. Compared with high from even the main difference is when leading from four-card holdings. Clearly leading top or second from four makes it easier to read as an even number. I think this is more useful than leading third, which will often leave partner clueless about the location of the low pip.

A variation on 3rd+low that I've seen is - low from odd, third from even with an honour, top from even without an honour. Seems sensible but I've not tried it, and have no plans to as I am happy with 'odd/even count' and 'odd/even fantunes-style' which I play in my two main partnerships.

[MickyB]

If you are keen to know more about this, Systems in Defence is worth reading, however it is pretty heavy stuff and the statistical analysis is flawed.

http://www.ugcs.calt...ment/slawinski/

[akhare]

MickyB, on 2013-May-16, 19:12, said:

I like count-based leads vs suits, but I'm not sure 3rd from even is the best way to do it. Compared with high from even the main difference is when leading from four-card holdings. Clearly leading top or second from four makes it easier to read as an even number. I think this is more useful than leading third, which will often leave partner clueless about the location of the low pip.

A variation on 3rd+low that I've seen is - low from odd, third from even with an honour, top from even without an honour. Seems sensible but I've not tried it, and have no plans to as I am happy with 'odd/even count' and 'odd/even fantunes-style' which I play in my two main partnerships.

Can you give specific examples of both styles (odd/even count and F-N) as you play it?

What would you lead from:

XXXXX
XXXX
XXX
HXXXX
HXXX
HXX

[MickyB]

Odd/even count: Odd from odd, even from even. Lowest correct card led. If we have no cards of the correct parity, we lead the highest pip.

Odd/even Fantunes: Odd = odd without an honour or even with an honour. Even shows the opposite. Otherwise as above.

[JLOGIC]

straube, on 2013-May-16, 18:09, said:

Curious what Justin and awm lead.

I am pretty boring, I lead 3/5th vs suits and 4th vs NT (2nd from 4 small top from 3 small if I can afford vs NT). I have been told that Polish style 2/4 is better than 3/5th but I have no clue, honestly 3/5th vs suits and 4th vs NT is what I've played since I started playing bridge so that's what I play (and it's also the most familiar to american partners).

If I had my choice to go back and do it all again I'd probably play Polish leads vs suits and attitude leads vs NT. I am actually trying to switch to attitude leads vs NT with some partners, they just seem so good to not give away info to declarer about the count. If you think about how you play a lot of hands in 3N or w/e your main inferences and clues are from the lead. It will be a learning curve though.

I don't think I'll ever switch to Polish vs suits though, I have no partners who want to or have ever played it and it seems like it would be a hard process to learn for very little gain (if they're better, I'm sure it's similar to the amount that udca is better than std, which is basically nothing).

Fantunes type leads are way above my pay grade

On the other hand, I always played standard honor leads and while it was a difficult process to get Rusinow opening leads down I am super happy that I did so and think they are really superior, especially vs NT. So you never know. A big part in switching to Rusinow for me was that a lot of US experts did so I had a lot of partners who wanted to do so. If that happened with Polish or Fantunes leads I would probably do so.

[akhare]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-16, 20:08, said:

On the other hand, I always played standard honor leads and while it was a difficult process to get Rusinow opening leads down I am super happy that I did so and think they are really superior, especially vs NT. So you never know.

Can you elaborate on why Rusinow leads are better at NT? Do you play them all the way down to leading the T from JT?