robot leads

[straube]

Looking for information on robot leads. I think the Granovetters have advocated them, but I haven't come across a writeup or book by them. Has anyone played them? How well do they work? Links or notes appreciated.

[JLOGIC]

Thought this was gonna be a thread about weird leads that gib makes :P

[MrAce]

Thought this was gonna be a thread about weird leads that gib makes :P

 

Me too, i was gonna say how difficult it makes for declarer if people just closed their eyes and pick a random card and lead, lol. Having no clue what the lead can be from is a major disadvantage imo.

[akhare]

Here's a cut and paste from PrecisionL's notes on the subject (in the Ultra Club document).

 

ROBOT OPENING LEADS

 

by Granovetter:

 

Advantages: Don't get upset, systemic. Helps partner place the cards for defense, partner can easily read

 

your lead, your % of success will increase, you will save brain energy for defense, you rarely give away the contract, you will usually defeat an aggressive contract by being stingy. Disadvantage

 

Your choice of leads (from best to worst) against suit contracts below 5-level:

 

A-K

K-Q [i don’t like this lead except at 5 or 6-level - LPL]

Q-J [QJ9(x) is better, but often gives away a trick – LPL]

J-T

any singleton (not trumps)

xxx(x)(x)

small trumps

H-x

Hxx (the smaller the honor the better) [Jxx(x) is poor - LPL]

xx [Hard for partner to read a singleton lead]

A-x [Gambling lead – LPL]

any other ace lead [usually a very poor lead - LPL]

[bluecalm]

I will be careful as I am not sure if the thing I saw under this name is really the thing you mean but... the idea to base your 1st lead solely on holding in suits is total disaster.

[PrecisionL]

I will be careful as I am not sure if the thing I saw under this name is really the thing you mean but... the idea to base your 1st lead solely on holding in suits is total disaster.

 

Did Matthew Granovetter have his tongue in his cheek when he wrote the article: Robot Opening Leads? I DON'T THINK SO.

 

Here is the preamble from BRIDGE ADDITIONS 96, Matthew Granovetter, 1995, pgs. 53 - 57:

 

"... There is a great deal to be said for making regimented opening leads. ... By regimented opening leads, I mean that your choice of leads is by a fixed preference system. For example, against suits, you first lead from an ace-king combination, otherwise you lead a singleton, otherwise you lead from a king-queen, otherwise from a queen-jack, and so forth. .... By always leading in a prescribed method, you help your partner with the entire defense. ... If your partner knows your style of leads, it will also increase his ability to defend well."

 

"Consistency = Success

 

The important thing here is consistency. By keep[ing] consistent in your style of leads - in fact, by leading like a robot - you can turn what otherwise was a blind choice with no implications to a meaningful card, a building block for the entire defense."

 

"Concrete Vs. Circumstantial Evidence

 

There are two clues to the best lead: your hand and the bidding. The cards in your hand are concrete evidence, whereas the bidding is circumstantial. Thus, when you are determining your opening lead, it stands to reason that you should give much more weight to the former than the latter. Most people do this the other way around, however. ..."

 

"In one of my early books, 'Murder at the Bridge Table,' I outlined the choices for opening leads (based solely on your hand) from the best to the worst. Here is a similar chart for review. [Chart similar to one in Ultra Club notes]

 

I do NOT follow these suggestions blindly, I don't always lead from AK or a singleton if I have one and I have found KQx and QJx leads to be poor at game contracts. I defend passively against 1NT contracts unless I have a 5-card suit.

 

What the chart in my system notes (or in Granovetter's book) accomplishes is that it a starting point for discussion of style of leads and defense.

[bluecalm]

I don't know what this article is saying tbh.

It seems like a lot of words, some random assertions, some contradictions, some faulty logic and no real point.

My understanding of it is "follow the lead chart but not really". Why all the talk about weight to the bidding/hand when making a choice and why give the chart anyway is a mystery to me.

 

Yes, you should discuss leads and make predictable choices. At the same time your choices should be efficient leads. How the chart and all that robot philosophy help with that is not explained nor implied.

 

Did Matthew Granovetter have his tongue in his cheek when he wrote the article: Robot Opening Leads? I DON'T THINK SO.

 

I don't think so either.

He is either clueless or tries to sell some idea of his which seems completely bogus. I don't know which. What I know is that using honor chart for leads will make you weak player in no-time unless this chart is 50 pages long with chapters for common bidding situations but then you don't need a chart in the first place.

[pigpenz]

Thought this was gonna be a thread about weird leads that gib makes :P

in your darkest dreams Justin :unsure:

same here

[WGF_Flame]

Robot leads as some other ideas by the Granoveters does not mean to be the best solution to the problem, but to be a good enough solution. for some reasons people think of these (the better example is the obvious shift signaling) as expert material were its actually trying to give a key for the intermediate pair that will give them good results most of the time. its all Kiss.

[bluecalm]

But robot leads are neither good enough nor good way to teach someone.

I mean.. it's like crippling beginners at the very start of their playing adventure. why not teach what is good instead:

-try to imagine how the hand looks and how the play will likely go

-think what's the best way to counter declarer's likely plan

-think what minimum assets are needed in partner hands to make your plan work

 

etc.

Beginners will make mistakes in that process and so be it, they will learn from such mistakes fast. First time a beginner leads a trump after 1S - 2D - 2S - 4S auction just to see his side suit winners dissapear on diamonds it will be valuable lesson.

Following the chart and "giving more weight to your hand than the bidding" is as counter productive and bad as you could get with bridge advice.

[WGF_Flame]

Its possible that this idea is not good even for beginners, i am not sure, since there are many cases that it will help them get the correct lead and more important get partner to understand what they lead, and also save energy (and time) for other issues of the game.

But the important part is that this staff is not what they (Granoveters) play or suggest as best way to play.

[dake50]

Astounding! Reasoning backwards.

No logic can convince me that I do not start

my thinking in defense with what cards are in

front of me.

Secondarily, does the auction suggest a

divergence from what I see?

Try to give me an opening lead plan for

every auction. 50 pages as someone said.

Conversely, some exceptions to a standard

for opening leads seems rational.

[bluecalm]

Ok, I see.

We have new expert forum for people to defend ideas like robot leads. Awesome !

 

Secondarily, does the auction suggest a

divergence from what I see?

 

This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game.

You will never see anyone good saying things like: "well, I would lead this and this but now let's see if bidding suggest otherwise". In fact if you were to defend such reasoning you will instantly be seen as someone not very good no matter where this reasoning leads you to in particular deal.

[gwnn]

Makes no sense. A singleton lead is very good, much better than QJ or JT (!!).

[bluecalm]

I just recalled one of the great books I've read when I started playing bridge. Excerpt:

 

"Among the traditions of teaching in bridge, none is less worthy than that which prescribes for opening leads an order of preference based upon the character of a player's holding in various suits (...) It is all quite ridiculous because every player of any experience and judgement knows that there are hundreds of times when these conventional preferences are no guide at all to the choice of the best lead (...) There is great scope for judgement in the choice of opening lead; to judge well, the player must attend to the bidding very carefully and in the light of this bidding and of his own holding must try to foresee what type of hand it is going to be"

 

from "Reese on Play".

[WGF_Flame]

Its not only a problem of not analyzing the bidding, but also not looking at the rest of your hand.

I'm sure everyone understand that leading from singlton is not such a good idea when you have QJ109 of trump.

Its also not a good idea when you are strong and partner is unlikely to have an entry.

Anyway i would say this idea is great if you wish to build a very simple robot.

[PrecisionL]

Reading further in Bridge Additions 96 (pgs. 104 - 114), New Age Opening Leads:

 

"The Interior 9

Lead the 9 from the following holdings [after choosing the suit to be led]:

J-9-8-x, Q-9-8-x, K-9-8-x, A-9-8-x [yuck]

"Ace asks Attitude, King asks Count

 

"Drop the Touching Honor

Lead the K from AKJT, Q from AKQT, Q from KQT9

"Come-on = Cash

 

"T or 9 shoes 0 or 2

Trash this convention - you never know when it is zero and when it's two in crucial situations

 

"T Promises, J denies

Modify it: T implies, but J does not deny

"Now you have the whole lead system against notrump (and you can play it against suits as well)."

[straube]

Well, how about robot leads for only low-information auctions? Like 1S-2S, 4S or 1N-2H, 2S-3N, 4S?

 

Btw, I think I remember the Granovetters preferencing AK before stiff before KQ etc against suit contracts.

[PrecisionL]

Well, how about robot leads for only low-information auctions? Like 1S-2S, 4S or 1N-2H, 2S-3N, 4S?

 

Btw, I think I remember the Granovetters preferencing AK before stiff before KQ etc against suit contracts.

 

You remember correctly, what was in our Ultra notes is not exactly in their 1996 book:

 

Your choice of leads (from best to worst) against suit contracts below the five level:

 

A-K

any singleton (not trumps)

K-Q

Q-J

J-T

7-x and lower doubletons

snall trumps

T-x

J-x

Q-xK-x

3 or more to an honor (the smaller the honor the better)

A-x

any other Ace lead

[dake50]

Ok, I see.

We have new expert forum for people to defend ideas like robot leads. Awesome !

This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game.

You will never see anyone good saying things like: "well, I would lead this and this but now let's see if bidding suggest otherwise". In fact if you were to defend such reasoning you will instantly be seen as someone not very good no matter where this reasoning leads you to in particular deal.

 

***

So you won't lead K from KQJ1098 against 3NT?

That's a preferred lead, high on any list of leads.

I defend that reasoning. Don't impute a red-herring

just for your inability to rationally discuss this topic.

[straube]

Ok, I see.

We have new expert forum for people to defend ideas like robot leads. Awesome !

 

 

 

This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game.

You will never see anyone good saying things like: "well, I would lead this and this but now let's see if bidding suggest otherwise". In fact if you were to defend such reasoning you will instantly be seen as someone not very good no matter where this reasoning leads you to in particular deal.

 

This is an insulting post. I asked for information about robot leads because I don't know much about them and thought they might help us to defend. I understand about listening to the auction etc, but agreements about leads might conceivably help us to know whether partner might be denying a stiff, etc, by his choice of lead. I posted this to the expert forum because I thought that expert players would be most knowledgeable about this. More than likely, the Granovetters should be considered experts and they've advanced this idea of robot leads. I was doubtful in the past about the Granovetter's Obvious Shift idea as well, but I learned then that this idea has a following and it's helped (I think) our partnership. I'm welcoming of criticism of robot leads and perhaps they are altogether bad, but I'd appreciate some leeway as to which forum I elect to post.

[bluecalm]

My reply was to dake50 for his trollish post, not to you.

 

More than likely, the Granovetters should be considered experts and they've advanced this idea of robot leads

 

Again, I honestly don't know what could motivate them to advance this idea (and with such intellectually dishonest argumentation too as quoted by PrecisionL). If someone come to this forum and propose something similar they would be ridiculed in no time. Granovetters deserve the same and even more so as they writing could be taken seriously by some naive souls and thus do some damage.

[awm]

The following points would seem to hold:

 

1. There are a lot of common auctions like 1NT-3NT or 1♠-2♠-4♠ that don't seem to demand any particular lead.

2. A lot of effort/energy/time can be spent on opening lead, even though the results are highly random.

3. There could be some advantages to inferences about the rest of the hand/defense based on opening lead.

4. Gaining these inferences and saving the effort/energy/time might be worth making slightly inferior leads.

 

It seems like one could agree to play something like robot leads on a certain style of auctions, for example auctions where our side has made no call but pass and opponents have not named a suit naturally other than their final strain. This would not necessarily be a bad agreement. Even the Granovetters aren't recommending this lead style in all auctions (I don't think any expert would) but using such a system sometimes doesn't seem ridiculous.

[bluecalm]

It seems like one could agree to play something like robot leads on a certain style of auctions, for example auctions where our side has made no call but pass and opponents have not named a suit naturally other than their final strain. This would not necessarily be a bad agreement.

 

Still sucks.

As the simplest example lead from xx is usually very attractive against 4M if your hand is weak and much less attractive if you hold majority of defensive assets.

You will make mistakes like that all the time if you follow the chart. Seriously, can we just agree the idea is ridiculous and forget about it ?

[dake50]

This is an insulting post. I asked for information about robot leads because I don't know much about them and thought they might help us to defend. I understand about listening to the auction etc, but agreements about leads might conceivably help us to know whether partner might be denying a stiff, etc, by his choice of lead. I posted this to the expert forum because I thought that expert players would be most knowledgeable about this. More than likely, the Granovetters should be considered experts and they've advanced this idea of robot leads. I was doubtful in the past about the Granovetter's Obvious Shift idea as well, but I learned then that this idea has a following and it's helped (I think) our partnership. I'm welcoming of criticism of robot leads and perhaps they are altogether bad, but I'd appreciate some leeway as to which forum I elect to post.

 

*** Absolutely insulting to any reasoning mind were the comments I called out.

Discuss why's and wherefore's but don't get into grade school quarreling.

I'm glad you have the observational powers to recognize quarreling when it's so obvious.

You even express the reason to discuss, not quarrel.

Thanks for recognizing "This only shows you have no clue how good players think about this game.

You will never see anyone good saying things like..." was NO ATTEMPT TO DISCUSS - JUST QUARRELLING.