2/4 and 3/5 Leads....

[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]

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]

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 :(

:P

[Finch]

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.

[Finch]

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.

 

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

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]

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.

[Cascade]

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.

The way we play them it is pretty simple.

 

We lead the third or fifth.

 

Card lead is capitalized:

 

xxX, xxXx, xxxxX, xxxxXx,

 

hxX, hxXx, hxxxX, hxxxXx

 

We also lead thirds from interior sequences

 

kjT(+), qt*9*(+) etc

[blackshoe]

The best description I've seen of 3 and 5 (more properly 3rd and lowest) leads is in Journalist Leads by Jeff Rubens and Lawrence Rosler (aka "The Journalist"). They go over not only how the leads work, but why one should play them. Note that in Journalist Leads, these leads are only used against suit contracts.

 

Basically, from an even number of cards in a long suit, you lead the 3rd highest. From an odd number of cards, you lead the lowest. A third highest lead from 3 or 4 is then ambiguous, but in general, on the "two card" principle (there will be a two card difference between leader's possible holdings in the suit) partner should be able to work out the count.

 

Leading from honor sequences is a different kettle of fish.

[Cascade]

In my experience ...

 

I usually play 3rd and 5th (really 1st, 3rd, 5th) throughout;

 

I frequently play 3rd and 5th vs suit and 4ths (really 1st e.g. *8*32, Kqj(+) 2nd e.g. 8*7*2, 3rd e.g. K83 and 4th) vs no trumps;

 

I sometimes play 4ths (as above) throughout;

 

I once for a long weekend have played real 2nd and 4ths throughout ...

 

I like 3rd and 5th vs suit and 4ths vs no trumps the best. The problem with 3rd and 5th versus no trumps is often you do not want to squander your 3rd from a four-card suit e.g. K1082. In fact so much so that we actually explain our leads as 3rd and 5th but occasionally 4ths versus no trumps.

 

2nd and 4th (real 2nd and 4th) feels very much like 3rd and 5th to me. Essentially they are count leads. There are different inferences but essentially in the same style e.g. if you get the lead of an 8 you know partner has led a singleton or he has exactly one (or three rarely) higher card. Both styles are essentially count leads.

 

I dislike the ambiguity from 4ths (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4ths). I can live with this ambiguity against no trumps where the attitude component can be useful but against a suit where an attacking lead is relatively more common from a three-card holding the ambiguity is too big a price to pay.

 

I haven't tried it but maybe 3rd/5th versus suits and real 2nd/4ths versus no trumps is playable.

 

Many players that play 3rd/5th lead 2nd and not 3rd from interior sequences.

[blackshoe]

"The Journalist" recommends attitude leads vs. NT. This works well, if you can remember you're playing it. (First time I played with a real expert, we agreed this, and I forgot it. After the third time, he gave up. :( )

[1eyedjack]

I think that when I first came across 3rd and 5th we butchered the standard methods a bit:

Lead bottom from any odd holding

Lead top of doubleton but otherwise 2nd top of a bad even holding

Lead 3rd from an even holding of 4+ cards headed by an honour (maybe 4th from a 6 card suit if third highest seemed active).

Thus, if you had an odd holding, partner knew the count if not the quality. If you had an even holding, partner had a good stab at knowing both quality and count.

It seemed to work OK for us, except for the irritation of playing an active 3rd highest from hxXx.

 

The main attraction for 3rd and 5th style in the first place seemed to be the horrible ambiguity of MUD leads from 3 low.

 

Hence our move now to:

Lead bottom from any even holding

Lead 4th from a good odd holding (of 5+, obviously)

Lead 2nd from a poor odd holding (of 5+)

leaving just hXx and Xxx as the "exceptions to the rule".

We are back to the same basic principle, then:

If you have an even holding, partner knows the count if not the quality. If you have an odd holding, partner had a good stab at knowing both quality and count.

That seems to work OK for us, and overcomes the irritation of MUD.

 

"Knows" is obviously an overstatement of confidence. There are of course bad hands for the system, and there always will be. It is just a case of minimising them.