Leads From 3 Small ?

[MGeorge]

It is easy for me to understand the logic of leading a low card in most situations such as from a sequence such as:

 

Q 7 3 - where leading the 3 may encourage a return the suit as well as leading the high card in a sequence such as:

 

J 10 9 as well as going High-Low - with a doubleton - such as with:

 

9 4 - leading the 9

 

(all assuming that this is the best suit to lead.)

 

It is Not clear to me why MUD - is "out-of-date" and why leading from a sequence such as:

 

9 7 3 - it is common to lead the 3. I can understand - if leads are 3rd or 5th highest that the leading of the low card may show an odd number of cards in the suit. At the same time - IF I had the 3 - lead as in the 9 7 3 sequence and I took the trick, I might well lead the suit back to my partner, often expecting that partner might have an honor in the suit.

 

What are the primary reasons to lead the Low card - from a 3 card sequence - regardless of the presence or lack thereof of an honor in the suit? Is it different in a NT vs. suit contract?

 

If one is to lead the low card - is this more sensible with 3rd/5th leads vs. 4th leads?

 

(No doubt this has been discussed previously - sorry about this.)

 

Thanks!

[cherdanno]

The problem with leading high from 973 against suit contracts is that partner may think you have a doubleton. The problem with leading low is that you cannot distinguish Q73 from 973, and not even 9753 from 973 if you are leading 4th best. Many people seem to have concluded it is best to focus on the count information against suit contracts, and lead 3/5.

 

Against NT, everyone seems to lead high from a suit they don't want returned, in that case there is no difference between 752 and 72.

 

From JT9 or QJx or KQx you always lead the highest honor, leading low is too likely to cost a trick (or to block the suit in case you are trying to hit partner's 5-card suit against NT).

[Phil]

Leading high from 3 isn't really inherently bad, if your partner expects it. There are many hands where you'd like to give attitude at T1. Part of the reason is that doubleton leads against suit contracts are seldom attractive, so you aren't deluding partner when he sees a 9 hit the table.

 

That being said, Arend is correct that low from 3 is the standard, since the count usually takes priority over attitude early on.

[kenrexford]

Here's a thought experiment that went a long way for me in grasping this.

 

If partner leads a suit, and you play standard count, you will play high from 8-2, low from 8-3-2, high-low from 8-7-3-2, and low from 8-7-5-3-2. Technically, in the 8-7-3-2, you'd play the 7, but let's assume 3-then-2 is OK. Notice that the card you play as an upside-down attitude signal is the eact card you'd lead if using 3rd/5th leads.

 

If you count was upside-down, however, you'd play 2 from 8-2, 8 from 8-3-2, 2 from 8-7-3-2, or 3 from 8-7-5-3-2 (then the deuce; technically something else, but 3-then-2 works). Maybe some pip difference, but whatever. Notice that the card you play to a lead when playing upside-down count is the same card that you lead with fourth-best leads, except for doubletons and three small.

 

The doubleton and three-small lead with fourth-best leads causes difficulty reading because the standard leads are inconsistent with fourth-best leading. Were you instead to lead top from three (U-M-D or U-D-M), and small from doubletons (which some do now), then the count on lead problem would be solved.

 

How about tossing in attitude? Attitude leads are generally upside-down (lead small means you like it, high pip not so much), meaning what you would play as an attitude signal were partner to lead the suit.

 

So, looks at the three-small situation. Playing fourth best leads, with count done right, you lead the high pip, which is consistent both with count and attitude. The "wrong" card is small from a doubleton, when that does not carry a positive attitude signal. So, the difficulty in using consistent count and a fourth-best scenario is in the doubleton lead.

 

With third-best leads, count is always right, but attitude gets messed up with the third-best from three small scenario.

 

So, here's my resolution of this thought experiment: (You may reach another)

 

1. A lead in a suit contract from a doubleton is MUCH more likely than from three small. Thus, I want to have the inconsistency in the rarer lead. Thus, I like 3rd/5th leads against suits, where count is pure but attitude is F'd up only with the rare three-small lead.

 

2. At notrump, however, leading a small doubleton for a ruff is not as critical as attitude. And, for that matter, a three-card lead is more likely. So, I want to have the attitude inconsistency in the doubleton, largely because I'll never care to show count with a three-small or two-small scenario. I just ain't getting a ruff. FOr this reason, I play fourth-best leads against notrump, with a tendnecy to have an attitude "feel" to my leads.

 

3. If I were to play fourth best leads against suits, I'd insist on small from doubletons. Technically, I think this is the easiest carding to read by a slight margin, but the margin is somewhat ilusory bedcause it overweights three-small leads, which are avoided like the plague at suit defense.

 

4. I see that people I respect do #1 and #2,which validates my assessment. If I ask them why, they usually have no clue other than either that this is what the "right" people do or that it just intuitively feels right. I think their gut and their sources are both right.

[the hog]

Look at Slawinki's system of leads.

[andy_h]

Very broad topic this, I suggest you get good agreements with your partner. The primary reason for leading x from xxx is to tell partner your length in the suit (count). Playing MUD partner will never know if your holding was from xx or xxx until the 2nd round has been played. And for me yes, it differs if we are in a suit contract or a NT contract.

I also have different agreements if we are switching in mid-game, and also if the switch was through declarer.

[gnasher]

A lead in a suit contract from a doubleton is MUCH more likely than from three small.

Is this true? It's certainly not for me - I probably lead a doubleton in a suit that partner hasn't bid about once a year.

[awm]

Seems to me that leading from doubleton is almost always better than leading from three small against a suit contract. If a passive lead is right, then either of the two is likely to be equally good. But occasionally the doubleton lead can also win you the third round ruff.

 

Obviously people who love leading away from honors will rarely make either of the two leads (and people who like passive leads will make them both fairly frequently) but it seems weird to argue that leading from three small is more frequent than from two small...

[Codo]

I am with Andy, I lead from three low much more often then from two.

 

But I do it more then once a year...

 

 

98 % of all bridge players use a count specific lead at their first turn. So, from 3 low, you lead the second highest. when you play 2.4. or the third highest when you play 3/5 or 3/low. Easy and no way and no need for MUD.

 

When you play 2/4. you need to agree what to play at your second turn.

Common is it to lead the lowest then, to confirm an odd number of cards.

 

But many things are playable as long as you and your partner are on the same wavelength.

[mich-b]

We still lead the middle card from 3 low, because this is consistent with leading 2/4 (second best from weak suit).

 

This lead is often difficult to read in trick1 , but it clarifies itself very well on the 2nd round.

 

A useful advantage of leading the middle card rather than the low one, is that on the 2nd round of the suit , if you decide that the layout of this suit is more important to declarer than to partner, you can play your lowest card , pretending to have a doubleton. This ploy has been very useful for me.

 

Still , I am not implying that "middle" is the best way to go, I could be easily convinced otherwise.

[wclass___]

I generally play attitude-prism combined leads

xX; HxX

Xxx shows that ''single'' suit is even, on next round trying to specify which.

xXx -(MUD) shows that other suits are even

 

It is complex, but helps quite often(if you think logical)

[gnasher]

Seems to me that leading from doubleton is almost always better than leading from three small against a suit contract. If a passive lead is right, then either of the two is likely to be equally good.

I don't think this is true. The more length you have in a suit, the less likely you are to set up tricks for declarer. For example:

[hv=n=skxx&w=sxx&e=sq10xx&s=saj9x]399|300|The lead gives declarer a trick he probably wouldn't otherwise have made[/hv]

[hv=n=skxx&w=sxx&e=sq10xx&s=saj9x]399|300|The lead gives declarer a trick he probably wouldn't otherwise have made[/hv]

[hv=n=skxx&w=sxx&e=sq10xx&s=saj9x]399|300|The lead gives declarer a trick he probably wouldn't otherwise have made[/hv]

Edit: another advantage of rarely leading from a doubleton is that partner always gets it right when you lead a singleton.

Edited May 6, 2009 by gnasher

[benlessard]

Leading from 3 low is just too rare. When you do it its because your looking for a safe lead and have all the reamining values in your hand wich mean dont expect partner to take the hand too often. If you feel partner got some values dont lead from 3 low.

 

Ps leading a doubleton is much more frequent than leading form 3 low (both in suit or in NT) its not close at all.

[wclass___]

http://members.cox.net/4evanb/defense/appnd1.htm

 

Side suit leads

xx - 787 times ===> 55,93%

xxx - 722 times ===> 53,41%

 

Raw data.

[peachy]

Seems to me that leading from doubleton is almost always better than leading from three small against a suit contract. If a passive lead is right, then either of the two is likely to be equally good. But occasionally the doubleton lead can also win you the third round ruff.

 

Obviously people who love leading away from honors will rarely make either of the two leads (and people who like passive leads will make them both fairly frequently) but it seems weird to argue that leading from three small is more frequent than from two small...

I think leading from three small is so bad that I generally don't do it at all except on rare occasions when all other leads are worse. I am not sure but I think it was Mike Lawrence in one of his books who said [apologies if I got the source wrong] the following:

 

Leading from three small has the same effect on your defense as a sleeping pill has on your attention span.

[PrecisionL]

And there is the lead called; "Sometimes MUD." by Peter Oakley.

 

"Holding something like 963 or 982, MUD differentiates between showing partner three cards and showing a doubleton. That is, the nine followed by the six or eight (the traditional top-of-nothing lead) could be mistaken for only two cards in the suit, particularly when declarer concealed the missing small rag.

 

All well and good. But what about the lead from 842 or 932? This middle card could now be misinterpreted as a lead away from an honor and cost the partnership a tempo or even a trick.

 

Surely the nine is preferable, even when leading a suit bid by partner? On the second round, partner will be aware the two has not appeared, and although declarer may be withholding it the likelihood is that it is still in his partner’s hand.

 

Doesn’t this play seem less likely to be costly to a thinking pair?"

 

[Peter recommends the 8/9 (top of nothing) as the lead of the 4 or the three looks like low form an honor.]

 

Reference: The Diamond Major, 2000, Peter Oakley.

 

http://www.bridgeclublive.com/Include/Diamond.htm

[kenrexford]

BTW, a lead from three small can also be improved upon, if you play MUD, by varying based upon known conditions.

 

If partner already knows that you have 3+ in the suit, then high works as well as anything.

 

Flip-side is that if partner knows that you cannot have four, small works.

 

That might be a giant "duh," but I have been amazed by how many people don't recognize this fact and just lead MUD always.