Leading from a suit without an honor

[ggwhiz]

My partner and I circle 2nd and 4th on the convention card.

From 3 small we circle all 3 with an arrow to "another suit". Low if partner bid it and it's unsupported.

 

It happens so rarely, you can falsecard a doubleton against a suit, lead attitude ie. low from a yarb that doesn't want a switch (so you only blow one suit) high from a hand that does... whatever you want.

 

Put me down for a new partner before you disagree on something relevant.

[Vampyr]

I agree that if you see the 4 and then the 5 one can't distinguish between Q54 and 754, but my partner is promoting her leads as a way to distinguish between these types of holdings.

 

I agree that if you see the 4 and then the 5 one can't distinguish between Q54 and 754, but my partner is promoting her leads as a way to distinguish between these types of holdings.

In both cases there may be other spot cards on view, or have been the opportunity to Smith Peter... obviously with any lead method you win some and you lose some.

 

Why don't you and your partner try one method for awhile and then switch to the other, and see whose method turns out to be more comfortable than the other's.

[jallerton]

I know many people will have their own views about this, but I don't think we can look at leads in isolation. We need to think of the whole carding system.

 

I agree. We need to know the rest of Elianna's leading agreements (including any differences between suit and NT contracts) before we can usefully answer the question.

[Bbradley62]

And so from, say, four small she thinks that you should lead the second highest.

This is standard in the UK. The second card played is not the smallest, but the original third highest.

This was also popular in the New York area in the 80s but fell out of favor in the 90s.

 

I also learned MUD as "standard" in the 80s, but it was regarded as "not advanced" by the 90s.

[Phil]

I won't play anything other than low from 3 vs suits unless I've supported. I switched briefly 15 years ago and played top of nothing, but was never comfortable with it. Count is just so much more valuable than attitude assuming you have the ability and the interest to work out the hand.

 

If you are lazy, or don't like to count or watch spots, then attitude is better since you see the lead and instantly surmise that if pard doesn't like the suit - I better switch.

[Bbradley62]

I won't play anything other than low from 3 vs suits unless I've supported. I switched briefly 15 years ago and played top of nothing, but was never comfortable with it. Count is just so much more valuable than attitude assuming you have the ability and the interest to work out the hand.

 

If you are lazy, or don't like to count or watch spots, then attitude is better since you see the lead and instantly surmise that if pard doesn't like the suit - I better switch.

But, MUD is giving count.

[gnasher]

This is standard in the UK.

Yes. I find it very hard to play anything else.

 

The second card played is not the smallest, but the original third highest.

Is it? I thought it was normal to give remaining count, so second then fourth from four, second then third from five, and second then first from three.

[awm]

Elianna and my lead agreements are as follows. Hopefully this is what she likes to play. Perhaps she can comment further on what this new partner plays.

 

Against notrump: Lead of T or 9 promises zero or two higher, J denies a higher honor. A asks for count or unblock, lead of Q without the jack asks for unblock (i.e KQT9x). Otherwise normally lead highest of touching honors. When leading an unbid suit, we lead 4th best from length if holding an honor or if we otherwise want the suit returned (i.e. five small with side entries might lead 4th). From three to an honor (very rare lead in an unbid suit) we would lead low. When leading from small cards in an unbid suit we normally lead the highest card. When leading a suit partner bid in the auction but we have not supported, we will lead 3rd (high from doubleton). When leading a suit partner bid and we raised, we lead attitude (high from small cards, 3rd from an honor).

 

Against suits: Lead of T or 9 promises zero or two higher, J denies a higher honor, but we don't lead from interior sequences often. A is the normal lead from AK (K from KQ) although we would reverse this to show doubleton AK. From length in a suit, we lead 3rd from even and low from odd. This includes weak holdings like three or more small cards. We lead high from doubleton. In a suit we have bid or raised (i.e. that we cannot have shortness in) we may lead high from small cards to show attitude.

[aguahombre]

I won't play anything other than low from 3 vs suits unless I've supported. I switched briefly 15 years ago and played top of nothing, but was never comfortable with it. Count is just so much more valuable than attitude assuming you have the ability and the interest to work out the hand.

 

If you are lazy, or don't like to count or watch spots, then attitude is better since you see the lead and instantly surmise that if pard doesn't like the suit - I better switch.

 

I believe a more mellow opinion of the opposite viewpoint would be in order. It could be said, from the other camp, that if one has the ability and the interest to work out the hand, the distribution is easier to work out quickly from the auction and the play; while the LOCATION of high-card strength held by the defense is assisted by attitude leads ---and that if you are too lazy to count distribution down via inferences, then maybe strict count leads and signals are better.

 

I still think it is simply a matter of choice, coupled with knowing your pard is on the same wavelengh. The fact that leading low from honor or doubleton vs suit (trick one, blind)--and that failure to lead lowest denies an honor and denies a doubleton--- might solve E's issues doesn't mean it is perfect or right; just that some people do it, and it seems to work for them.

[akhare]

While we are on the topic, about Slawinski leads?

 

Basically, not leading a sequence, lead right side up with an honour or upside down without an honour. This roughly translates into 3rd and 5th with an honour and 2/4th without...

 

Details here..

[mtvesuvius]

There are 3 (maybe 4) honours in a suit. There are 52 cards in the deck (26 missing, on average 6 or 7 which are relevant to the suit being led). Which do you think it is easier to work out? High card placement or distribution around the table?

[barmar]

Thank you very much for this comment. She claims to be a big follower of Lawrence (at least on bidding).

 

I don't really believe in appeals to authority as arguments, but she does, and as we disagree on authorities usually, this may be very useful.

Unfortunately for you, he doesn't express a strong opinion between low and top of nothing, IIRC.

[gnasher]

There are 3 (maybe 4) honours in a suit. There are 52 cards in the deck (26 missing, on average 6 or 7 which are relevant to the suit being led). Which do you think it is easier to work out? High card placement or distribution around the table?

 

That argument ignores some rather important considerations:

- It doesn't take account of what we already know. At the start of the hand, you tend to know more about the distribution than about the high card location. Most auctions say more about declarer's and overall high-card strength, than about the location of specific high cards.

- It doesn't consider the value of a particular piece of information. It may be more useful to know the location of declarer's high cards than his shape.

 

Another way to look at this: by the same argument, your signals and discards should all be count rather than attitude. Do you do that too?

[Mbodell]

While we are on the topic, about Slawinski leads?

 

Basically, not leading a sequence, lead right side up with an honour or upside down without an honour. This roughly translates into 3rd and 5th with an honour and 2/4th without...

 

Details here..

 

That was my thought too. Rob Forster posted them online along with the accompanying study that analyzes all of these lead systems from an information theory point of view. The high level summary is (capital red is first card, bold green is second):

 

from "honors" (generally J+, but sometimes J-fifth or Q-sixth in a suit might be treated as all small and Txxx in NT might be Hxxx):

HxX

HxXx

HxxxX

HxxXxx

 

from all small cards:

xX

Xxx

Xxxx

Xxxxx

xXxxxx

 

except, if the top small card could be a working card (I.e., is too high of a spot card to waste like T73, 9643):

xXx

xXxx

xXxxx

 

They also have interesting choices when the led suit is headed by an honor sequence (card to lead is in red, capital H is start of a sequence and h is interior sequence so Hhh is like KJT):

 

HH - except if that is doubleton in a suit when the lower is led.

HHh

HHH - either can be led, depends if you want to emphasize the higher 2 honors (lead top) or the presence of all 3 (lead middle)

Hhh

 

Then from two card suits Hx you lead high except in suit contracts with Tx and 9x you lead the x.

 

I haven't played this system, but if you guys can't agree who has the "better" lead structure maybe a compromise where you try out a third way that isn't what either of you are used to might be best. That's how I started playing a strong club relay system with one partner. We couldn't decide between SA or 2/1 so we compromised into a strong club system.

[gwnn]

Ha! When Elianna said non-US, I automatically assumed European! I suppose it's the sister effect to what lead to 'American' being synonymous to US citizen.

[Hanoi5]

Ha! When Elianna said non-US, I automatically assumed European! I suppose it's the sister effect to what lead to 'American' being synonymous to US citizen.

 

I don't think it's the same.

 

And in what language is effect femenine? In Spanish it's masculine, in Emgllish it has no genre...

[phil_20686]

I think in general people put too much emphasis on what card to lead, and not enough on working out what kind of lead is right in the auction. Leading from xxx is very passive, whereas xx is very aggressive. One can often work out whether partner will be leading aggressively or defensively based on the auction. It was a good trick I learned when selecting leads to select the suits preferentially based on the auction, and then have a look at the cards in your hand to see if that changes anything. Trying to work out what partner has lead from is much easier if you try to imagine what you would be attempting to achieve vs a given auction.

[gnasher]

I don't think it's the same.

 

And in what language is effect femenine? In Spanish it's masculine, in Emgllish it has no genre...

 

I think gwnn's usage was gramatically correct. He used "sister" as an adjective, meaning that it's closely related or of the same group. It's comparable to phrases like "sister company" or "sister town".

[gwnn]

I don't think it's the same.

 

And in what language is effect femenine? In Spanish it's masculine, in Emgllish it has no genre...

The technical term in English is "gender".

[Elianna]

I agree. We need to know the rest of Elianna's leading agreements (including any differences between suit and NT contracts) before we can usefully answer the question.

 

Adam already posted his and my carding agreements. These are the agreements that my other partner wishes (to the best of my understanding):

 

Vs both suit and no trump:

 

lead fourth best from an honor.

 

lead second best from length without an honor. (In NT, lead top of a four or five card suit without an honor.) She won't tell me what you're supposed to play after you play the second best.

 

lead top of doubleton

 

lead top of a sequence.

 

lead the T from KT9 and from KJT

 

And A asks for attitude, K asks for count vs. both NT and suit.

 

Carding otherwise is UDCA, first discard is attitude. And I taught her reverse smith vs. NT, but she's still missing it sometimes.

 

----------------------

 

For the last time we played, she refused to lead low from length without an honor vs suit, so I decided that the only way to make sense of this for me is to basically do attitude leads, and lead top of a suit without an honor, low from one with, and low from doubleton (vs suit, high from doubleton vs. NT).

 

We never discussed our sequence leads (no time, no energy), so who knows what we played.

[jallerton]

In that case, with your "other" partner you are playing something close to what is referred to in the U.K. as "2nd and 4th" (your honour leads are different than standard U.K., but that doesn't make any difference). Middle-Up-Down is the best option from xxx to be consistent with your other agreements. It is true that if you play 6 then 8, partner may not be able to tell the difference between H86 and 862 but there is a similar ambiguity if leading the 2 from 972.

 

With Adam, your leading system against suits (3rd and low) is count based, so it makes sense then to lead the lowest from xxx.

 

No leading system is perfect of course, for the simple reason that there are more messages you may wish to convey that there are sequences in which you can play the cards.

[Elianna]

In that case, with your "other" partner you are playing something close to what is referred to in the U.K. as "2nd and 4th" (your honour leads are different than standard U.K., but that doesn't make any difference). Middle-Up-Down is the best option from xxx to be consistent with your other agreements. It is true that if you play 6 then 8, partner may not be able to tell the difference between H86 and 862 but there is a similar ambiguity if leading the 2 from 972.

 

With Adam, your leading system against suits (3rd and low) is count based, so it makes sense then to lead the lowest from xxx.

 

No leading system is perfect of course, for the simple reason that there are more messages you may wish to convey that there are sequences in which you can play the cards.

 

But she says that she wants to play this solely for the reason of telling the difference between H86 and 862! This is the part that I don't get.

[awm]

It seems to me that there are three reasonable styles of leads. Basically we want to convey information about count (even or odd) and about attitude. So we have:

 

(1) Opening lead primarily about count. This is the popular US style and is what Elianna and I play. We use 3/5 leads against suits so would lead low from three small. Since this lead style doesn't give much attitude information, our later signals usually emphasize attitude and/or suit preference.

 

(2) Opening lead primarily about attitude. This seems to be the Polish style, where leading low indicates you want the suit returned. So you'd lead low from doubleton or from an honor, and highest affordable from a bunch of small cards. Presumably one might want to play count signals later in the hand after this sort of lead.

 

(3) Opening lead sends a mixed signal. This is the Slawinski style, where a lead might show either even length to an honor or odd length without an honor (or vice versa). This has the advantage that sometimes you can figure out one of honor holding or length from the bidding or play to trick one, and now you have both pieces of information. Of course, there are also probably situations where Slawinksi leads are confusing because you don't have solid information about either option.

 

Anyway, all of these make sense to me. Elianna and I usually play (1); it seems like with her new partner she has transitioned to play (2). What I don't get is how MUD fits into any of these standards. Leading middle cards basically causes confusion (could be top of doubleton, could be lowest from an honor, could be middle from three small) and even after the second play in the suit there is still ambiguity. Wouldn't it be better to lead highest affordable (risking only that partner thinks you have doubleton)? Or to lead low from doubleton and high from three small like the Polish style? In the USA, MUD is basically universally panned by experts; I have seen and heard many comments about how awful it is and how one shouldn't play it. Is the expert consensus different abroad?

[gnasher]

In the USA, MUD is basically universally panned by experts; I have seen and heard many comments about how awful it is and how one shouldn't play it. Is the expert consensus different abroad?

I've always understood that only the British and Irish think it a good idea, and everyone else thinks we're barking mad. It seems to go right to the top:

 

http://bridgefiles.net/pdf/hackett-hackett.pdf

 

http://www.bridgegreatbritain.org/homeinternationals/2007/hanlon-mcgann.pdf

 

http://www.bridgegreatbritain.org/homeinternationals/2010/ccards/kurbalija-rees.pdf

 

http://www.bridgegreatbritain.org/homeinternationals/2006/anderson-greenwood.pdf

 

(That's one pair each from England, Ireland, Wales and Northern Ireland.)

[Elianna]

I've always understood that only the British and Irish think it a good idea, and everyone else thinks we're barking mad. It seems to go right to the top:

 

http://bridgefiles.net/pdf/hackett-hackett.pdf

 

http://www.bridgegreatbritain.org/homeinternationals/2007/hanlon-mcgann.pdf

 

http://www.bridgegreatbritain.org/homeinternationals/2010/ccards/kurbalija-rees.pdf

 

http://www.bridgegreatbritain.org/homeinternationals/2006/anderson-greenwood.pdf

 

(That's one pair each from England, Ireland, Wales and Northern Ireland.)

 

According to my friend, the Israeli experts like it too. That's partially why I started the thread, to find out if that was actually true.

 

ETA: But you've reminded me that I can find WBF cards online, and it seems that they DO play her carding (not the Polish style, though, that I made her play). But they don't do her A=ALWAYS attitude, K=ALWAYS count.