4th best vs NT

[firmit]

I use standard leads - 3rd and 5th vs suit contracts.

But can somebody explain why 4th best is superior vs NT? Or is it?

[Guest Jlall]

The general thinking is leading 3/5th vs NT causes you to waste too many important spot cards (ie KJ92 you cannot lead the 9, KQ82 you cannot lead the 8, etc etc). I would rather play any of the more popular lead conventions than 3/5th vs NT.

[Finch]

Justin's point is aboslutely right, but it's not the only reason.

 

3rd/5th is a strongly count-based system of leading, with little attitude information. The implicit assumption behind it is that attitude in the suit led is known (from a combination of partnership leading style and the auction) and that it is vital to give the count in the suit to know whether it is worth attacking or not (when declarer ducks once, do you continue or switch?). Playing 3rd/5th you lead the same card from 5432 as from KJ32.

 

Against NT contracts, attitude information is much more important. For one thing, passive leads are rather more common, and for another it can be vital for partner to know very early on whether you have led from honour(s) or not. Count is often less important - particularly count on the first round. So from four low you led second (or top, depending on your partnership style) and partner knows you have no honour. What's more, count is sometimes more important to declarer than to the defence.

 

If you played 3/5 from length to an honour, top without an honour, I wouldn't mind it so much. But then you get the 'expensive pip' problem that Justin mentioned.

 

Some people (including my partnership) take this further and play attitude leads against NT. This is merely an extension of the above principle. Attitude leads aren't actually that popular, but I think they are great (in particular, every time I see some hand written up where declarer 'knows' a suit is 4-4 from the opening 4th highest lead and plays accordingly).

[ArcLight]

>I use standard leads - 3rd and 5th vs suit contracts.

 

 

I would be very careful what I call"standard".

3/5 is not standard against suit contracts all over the world.

I would clearly list out 3/5 to make sure

 

 

Based on books I've read from the UK, I get the impression that its common there to lead the 2nd highest from a weak 4 card holding (ex 7 from 8 7 5 3)

Is this used in expert circles anywhere?

[SoTired]

Based on books I've read from the UK, I get the impression that its common there to lead the 2nd highest from a weak 4 card holding (ex 7 from 8 7 5 3)

Is this used in expert circles anywhere?

I think 2nd from 4+ small cards vs NT is becoming more popular. So that many play 3/5 vs suits and 2/4 vs NT is increasingly popular.

 

Attitude leads are similarly becoming more popular.

 

2nd best is useful, because you may not want to lead top-of-nothing from 4. The top card may be valuable (esp if it is a 9 or 10). So a consistent 2nd from 4+ seems appropriate.

[Guest Jlall]

Based on books I've read from the UK, I get the impression that its common there to lead the 2nd highest from a weak 4 card holding (ex 7 from 8 7 5 3)

Is this used in expert circles anywhere?

this is very common in USA too.

[jdonn]

Based on books I've read from the UK, I get the impression that its common there to lead the 2nd  highest from a weak 4 card holding  (ex 7 from 8 7 5 3)

Is this used in expert circles anywhere?

this is very common in USA too.

It's another good reason not to use 3/5 vs notrump. It might be very hard to read your holding if you lead 2nd from bad holdings and 3rd from good holdings.

[whereagles]

I prefer top-of-nothing to 2nd best from a bad holding... makes it more readable and count isn't that important in NT anyway.

[Hanoi5]

count isn't that important in NT anyway.

 

Oh, reaaaaaaally?

[SoTired]

The trouble with top-of-nothing from 4 cards headed by the 9 is that it may cost you a trick.

 

For example:

J3

9652 KQ7

AT84

Lead 9 gives declarer 3 tricks in the suit. Lead 6 and declarer only gets 2 tricks.

[whereagles]

well.. you don't lead the 9 from 9xxx or 9xx, of course. Then you lead the 2nd highest.

[SoTired]

well.. you don't lead the 9 from 9xxx or 9xx, of course. Then you lead the 2nd highest.

he he... from 9xx, it is ok to lead the 9 because that is unlikely to cost a trick. it is only 9xxx that may be a problem.

 

So you lead sometimes top, sometimes 2nd best, sometimes from 3, sometimes from 4 and sometimes from 5... Not much chance partner is EVER going to know whether to continue your suit or not.

[skjaeran]

I'm leading (1st)2nd/4th currently vs NT. I used attitude leads some ten years ago (vs suit contracts too in fact!) with success. And I've used 3rd/5th. All styles have their ups and downs.

 

There's one spesific scenario where 3rd/5th is superior to other leads - when your partner lead a low card, dummy and you have no honor card and you can see that declarer has a doubleton. Then you play your lowest card and lets partner in on this secret. If he lead from AJxxx (for example) he knows that laying down the ace if he regains the lead will drop declarers last honour. Other leads doesn't give you the information needed to pull this trick (of course you can guess).

[whereagles]

So you lead sometimes top, sometimes 2nd best, sometimes from 3, sometimes from 4 and sometimes from 5... Not much chance partner is EVER going to know whether to continue your suit or not.

What are you talking about? It's very simple :(

 

4th best with interest in the suit.

1st without interest, sometimes 2nd if 1st is the 9.

 

Since 4th best is usually a low card, pard will know most of the time whether to return suit or switch.

[ArtK78]

I saw a great one the other night in a BBO ACBL pair game.

 

My partner is declaring a 3NT contract with a club holding of 986x in hand facing AJx in the dummy. He gets the lead of the club 10! So, he covers with the J, and the Q wins on his right. RHO continues with the ♣K, thinking his partner led from T9(8xxx). The lead of the 10 was from 107xx.

 

Talk about top of nothing!

[blackshoe]

I just recently reread Journalist Leads by, IIRC, Rubens and Rostler. They make pretty much the argument Frances does here for attitude leads instead of 3 and 5th (actually, 3rd and lowest) which they do recommend against suits.

 

Heh. The one time I tried to play attitude leads, with an expert partner who suggested it, I kept forgetting and leading fourth highest. After a time or two, he just assumed I was leading that way. :(

[whereagles]

'Journalist leads' is an excellent book, though some parts of it are very badly written. Recommended to read those only with an aspirine tube next to you :)

 

The book is somewhat old but most of the stuff is still modern. The odd leads system, for instance, is what most play today vs suit contracts. The NT attitude leads and Rusinow turned up not to be so important as Rubens thought.

[jvage]

Almost all posters seems to believe 4. best is clearly superior. I don't think this is so clear, and believe there are some arguments in favour of 3/5 leads not mentioned. After all, all the current Bermuda Bowl winners play 3/5 (one pair, Brogeland-Sælensminde do however play 4. best leads in suits not bid by partner against NT), so it can hardly be terrible :P

 

Justin mentions a legitimate problem, that the lead of the 9 from suits like KJ92 will often cost a trick (at least against NT). I think almost all good "3/5 leaders" would normally lead the 2 from this holding, giving false count. From discussions with strong players here in Norway, I think most would lead small even from KJ82, but the 7 would probably be most common from KJ72. But here we are talking about an infrequent exception from the standard leads (and partner will take the 2 as 3/5).

 

The reason I personally dislike attitude leads (including 2/4) is that I find them much easier to play against as declarer. Others may have different experiences, but having played with and against both I prefer 3/5. I think count is generally more helpful for defenders than declarer while attitude often helps declarer more than partner (even more so if you know partners lead-tendencies and use some form of Smith Echo). I could post some examples, but it will be just as easy to find counterexamples, what matters is frequencies.

 

John

[kenberg]

Like many others, I like 3/5 against suits, 4th against NT. One reason that hasn't been mentioned, at least explicitly, is frequency of use. Of course you sometimes lead from, say, Qxx against NT but really it's not anyone's prime choice against, say, 1N-3N. Against 1H-2H-4H, such a lead may seem more attractive. So I would say third hand more often, defending against a suit contract, needs help in deciding whether the lead is from 3 or from 4.

 

The other day partner was playing 4D (ten card fit, competitive auction). Defenders hold the aces of diamonds and spades, and they can develop exactly one winner in each of the other suits. A heart is led, taken by dummy's ace, a diamond is led, defender must rise, cash exactly one heart (the next gets ruffed in hand) then switch to clubs before declarer can establish a long spade for a pitch. The exact heart length of opening leader is essential. Had the contract been NT, more often than not the correct defense will be to return partner's heart suit and keep playing on his heart suit. Not always, of course, but I think that the balance lies with 3/5 for suits, 4th for NT.

[ArtK78]

The NT attitude leads and Rusinow turned up not to be so important as Rubens thought.

This is an interesting comment.

 

I have played Rusinow leads against suit contracts for many years. I am still in a very small minority of players in this regard. I find them superior to standard leads. Some players that I know play Rusinow leads against no trump contracts. I am not convinced of the superiority of Rusinow leads against no trump contracts, but I don't have enough experience with them to judge that as yet.

 

Attitude leads have a fairly strong following. Personally, I have returned to 4th best leads rather than pure attitude leads against no trump as I found that attitude leads create almost as many problems as they solve. 4th best leads act as attitude leads in that one does not lead 4th best from a suit that one does not want returned. 4th best leads have the advantage of clueing partner in on the distribution of the suit around the table.

[whereagles]

Rubens original argument for Rusinow leads (vs suit contracts) was that it's important to distinguish an unsupported ace lead (leads the A) from a AK holding (leads the K). But then people realized unsupported ace leads are so rare that the issue seldom arises, so the argument for Rusinow faded.

[Finch]

In one partnership I play a slightly odd system of leads against NT that I think my partner got from Rubens book, I don't know - he called them 'modified blue club honour leads'. I like most of them:

 

- Ace asks for attitude, often a punt from AKxx or AKx (may be AKxxx with an outside entry)

 

- King asks for unblock or count

 

- Queen asks for attitude and is usually a strong holding, inviting partner to unblock with the king, Jack or 10 (though not with the ace)

 

- Jack is from J10(9/8) or from a weak QJ holding (e.g. QJx(x)), partner not invited to unblock. This allows you to lead an honour from QJxx(x) into a strong NT/2NT opening on your right without partner wasting honours

 

- 10 is strong, from an interior sequence (AJ10, A109 etc). This is actually the bit I am most dubious about the merits of, but we continue playing that way.

 

- 9 promises the 10 (or shortage)

 

- lower cards attitude (as in Rubens' book).

 

The case for attitude vs 4th (or some other count) leads is definitely unproven either way. I've had some gains from attitude leads, usually from declarer not knowing the count, and some losses from partner not knowing the count. As I play 4th highest in my other regular partnership I've had a lot of years of experience with both and I am marginally in favour of attitude leads but not so much I'm trying to persuade the other partner to chance.

[jvage]

Here is a simple illustration of the point I made in the above post. Probably the simplest example is in a suit-contract where you need 2 tricks and no losers (or you may have an alternative source of tricks, but need to decide at trick one) from this unbid side-suit:

AQJx

x

 

If LHO leads the 2 everyone would play this correctly if the lead was attitude, while it may be a 50/50 choice if the lead is 3/5.

 

The "opposite" problem is less frequent, where partner leads the 2 (could be from both xx2 or QT2), Dummy holds a singleton and you have to decide wether to insert the K from Kxxxx. You will often have some hints from the bidding and Dummy, both to declarers holding, what holding partner is more likely to lead from and if the first (or the second or third) discard declarer will get from the suit will be critical.

 

John

[ArtK78]

Rubens original argument for Rusinow leads (vs suit contracts) was that it's important to distinguish an unsupported ace lead (leads the A) from a AK holding (leads the K). But then people realized unsupported ace leads are so rare that the issue seldom arises, so the argument for Rusinow faded.

I find this to be absurd on its face. Unsupported Ace leads are not that rare. And, even if they were, it still pays to be able to differentiate between an unsupported Ace lead and a lead from AK.

 

Rusinow leads allows you to do this at essentially no cost.

[whereagles]

1. Unsupported Ace leads are not that rare. And, even if they were, it still pays to be able to differentiate between an unsupported Ace lead and a lead from AK.

 

2. Rusinow leads allows you to do this at essentially no cost.

1. When was the last time you made one? I can't remember.

 

2. There are costs to Rusinow. They're discussed in the book.