Lead Agreement from Three Small vs Suits

[MrAce]

I think leading small gives the count perfectly while pd will have no idea about honor. Leading the top perfectly tells about honor while it tells nothing about count and affects the pdship when leading from doubleton as well as some other holdings.

 

Leading the middle says nothing about the count and nothing about the honors, most of the time it tortures pd. Only advantage of leading middle is, you do not give specific info to declarer right away and strategically can try to switch gears and try to fool declarer. In top and bottom leads you cant do that once you lead.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

Leading the middle says nothing about the count and nothing about the honors, most of the time it tortures pd.

 

Well said.

[bluecalm]

Leading the middle says nothing about the count and nothing about the honors, most of the time it tortures pd.

 

Unless you lead from xx, then leading the middle from xxx/Hxx is decent choice although the count information isn't that good as in 3rd/high from xx case but on the other hand you won't confuse lead from Hxxx and xxx basically ever which I guess could happen with 3rd.

I agree with mgoetze it's either low from xx and high/middle from xxx or low from xxx and high from xx. Leading high from both xxx and xx seems bad to me and MUD is bad because you often can't afford the highest card, say from T8x or something.

 

Original question is about suit contracts. I can't imagine playing anything which doesn't solve xxx vs xx problem by 2nd trick. It's completely unplayable imo. I mean, we lead high from 98x or w/e that is, dummy has Qxx, partner has AKxxx and we are in the world of pain because not only he can never switch immediately knowing we can't have xx but he can't even switch after playing both of his honors. I mean:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=saqj76hk52da76c75&w=st98hat986d98c982&n=sk32hJ3dkqjt2cq43&e=s54hq74d543cakjt6&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=1sp2dp2sp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

The lead is 9c, after taking it W plays Ac and... do really some people play that he doesn't know what to do at trick 3 ? :)

[perko90]

I don't like MUD. If you have T8x/98x you sometimes don't want to play the highest 2nd round and I predict a lot of confusion as to 2 or 3 dilemma.

...

What am I missing here ?

Your example is a bit unfair. T8x and 98x are not MUD situations. The T is an honor for leading and the 98 is a sequence. So even with MUD agreed, the expected lead is T8x and 98x. The highest spots you can hold for a MUD lead are 976.

 

If you're already playing 3rd/low, low from xxx is normal and best. But if you're playing 4th best, MUD works fine. And actually, low from xxx doesn't make sense in a 4th best context.

[bluecalm]

the expected lead is T8x and 98x

 

This sucks in high from xx context as illustrated by my example (you don't know if partner had 98x or 9x).

If there is one thing I want from my leading agreements is to sort those xx vs xxx situations out, even if it's not immediate information, not knowing by trick 2 is disastrous.

[wclass___]

Top or middle. If single suit is odd (like 4432) then lead middle one. If even (like 1345) lead high.

[the_dude]

I also (systemically) lead low ... Question for those of you that do so too...

 

Do you still lead low from 982? How about 987? (again, specifically an unbid suit vs suit contract)

 

The reason I ask is this ... I've kibitzed some top folks who I was pretty sure led low from xxx turn around and lead the 9 from 98x. Of course I understand the promotional aspect ... but if your reasoning is that count is paramount .. then at what point do you start deviating from this?

[JLOGIC]

I lead low from 987. As you say, I am just leading my count, 987 is not a sequence of value to me. Obv T9x I start leading the ten. It is just a question of where you draw the line.

[Finch]

I lead low from 987 and 982. I think it may be a Norwegian/Scandanavian thing (maybe) to lead the 9 from 98... hands.

[Phil]

I lead low from 987 and 982. I think it may be a Norwegian/Scandanavian thing (maybe) to lead the 9 from 98... hands.

 

Is this the same bunch that leads the 9 from K98x and Q98x against suits - treating the 9-8 as a 'sequence'?

[blackshoe]

ROFLMAO! I just posted almost this exact same question in the "General Bridge" forum, the difference being that the opening leader's partner had bid the suit. B-)

[mgoetze]

ROFLMAO! I just posted almost this exact same question in the "General Bridge" forum, the difference being that the opening leader's partner had bid the suit. B-)

"Playing your preferred lead agreements" and "What is standard" are hardly the "exact same question". When this thread started I expected awm would eventually reveal why he would make such a strange poll but since he hasn't I would at this point say that your question was the more sensible one...

[Trinidad]

Yes, when people said 2/4th I used to get confused then I realized I should just listen to their accent to figure out what they meant.

That works when they're English or Polish. What does it mean if they're Swedish?

No problem. Swedes lead 3rd/5th.

 

;)

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

"Playing your preferred lead agreements" and "What is standard" are hardly the "exact same question".

I didn't say they were. I said "almost".

[mgoetze]

I didn't say they were. I said "almost".

I didn't say you did. I said "hardly".

[bluecalm]

Ok, so in 3/5 problem holdings are T9x and 98x depending if you choose to lead a 9 from the latter.

In 2/4 the only problem holding is JTx and higher (but again, it's a problem for 3/5 too).

So it seems that 2/4 is better in this respect (confusing 2 and 3 less often). On the other hand 3/5 is better in a sense that it gives faster information and sometimes you know the count by the first round of the suit.

This trade off looks like it favours 3/5 intuitively but I have no experience playing it so it's just a guess.

[gnasher]

Ok, so in 3/5 problem holdings are T9x and 98x depending if you choose to lead a 9 from the latter.

In 2/4 the only problem holding is JTx and higher (but again, it's a problem for 3/5 too).

So it seems that 2/4 is better in this respect (confusing 2 and 3 less often). On the other hand 3/5 is better in a sense that it gives faster information and sometimes you know the count by the first round of the suit.

This trade off looks like it favours 3/5 intuitively but I have no experience playing it so it's just a guess.

 

Isn't this completely symmetrical? In both methods you know the count after the second card. On the first card, if 982 is a problem for 3/5, 932 is a problem for 2/4.

[bluecalm]

Isn't this completely symmetrical? In both methods you know the count after the second card.

 

You don't know count by the 2nd round with 98x and T9x because it still could be 9x or Tx while in 2/4 you lead 8 and 9 respectively and then follow with low making it clear you still have the 9 or T.

[blackshoe]

"

" - Strother Martin, as The Captain, in Cool Hand Luke. :P

[gnasher]

You don't know count by the 2nd round with 98x and T9x because it still could be 9x or Tx while in 2/4 you lead 8 and 9 respectively and then follow with low making it clear you still have the 9 or T.

Playing 3/5, with 982 you lead the 2 and follow with a higher one, and partner knows what your length is. By trick two, you're in the same situation as the 2/4 players.

 

You could agree to lead the 2 from 1092 as well, with the same result. People usually agree to lead the 10 from 109x, but that's because they choose to prioritise information about the honour holding over information about count. However, they could if they chose, lead the 2 and then the 9, with exactly the same information conveyed by trick two. If they did this, they would be worse off than the Polish 2/4 players at trick one, but level with them by trick 2.

 

There is a corresponding gain for 3/5 players with 1032: they know the count at trick one, whereas 2/4 players don't. By trick 2, everyone is in the same position.

 

The 3/5 players gain because:

- They can more easily distinguish between two- and three-card suits at trick one

- With Hx partner knows what the honour is at trick one

- With Hx they may hold the lead to repeat a finesse through dummy.

The 3/5 players lose because:

- They can more easily distinguish between three- and four-card suits at trick one

- Leading high from Hx may cost a trick

- With a three-card holding, partner has more clue at trick one about what the highest one is.

 

When partner has bid the suit, leading high from Hx is usually a good thing rather than not. With three or four cards, you will often have raised anyway. Hence I think that even if you lead Polish 2/4 normally, you should switch to 3/5 in partner's unsupported suit.

 

I agree it's not clear which is best when partner hasn't bid the suit.

 

[Heavily edited]

Edited June 29, 2012 by gnasher

[bluecalm]

My point is that it' better to lead a high card from 98x and from T9x and you are paying significant prize for leading low from those configurations. In 2/4 you systematically lead high (well, 2nd one but the trick tacking effect is the same).

 

With Hx partner knows what the honour is at trick one

 

Low from xx is up to 9x, from Tx and higher we (polish people and others playing 2/4) lead a H.

Notice that T9x isn't problematic because we lead a 9 from that.

That, combined with above mentioned point, is why I referred to 98x and T9x as problem hands for 3/5 leads - you either don't give count information even by trick 2 or you have to make inferior play of leading low from those configurations.

 

They can more easily distinguish between three- and four-card suits at trick one

 

I think you mean 2/4 players. Yeah, that's true. I have little experience playing 3/5 so I completely forgot about 3 and 4 problem which is non-existent in 2/4 world.

 

Leading high from Hx may cost a trick

 

You keep mentioning Hx. We lead high from Hx, it's much much better to lead H in almost all situations regardless of the agreements. This play just takes more tricks on average. I really don't have any idea why you think anybody would lead low from Hx. The same goes for your last point.

[gnasher]

Sorry, I hadn't realise that you led high from Hx. There was no need to tell me twice, though.

 

In Poznan two years ago I must have read the leads section on about 50 Polish convention cards without ever noticing this.

 

What do you lead from 109 doubleton?

[bluecalm]

There was no need to tell me twice, though.

 

Yeah, sorry for that.

 

What do you lead from 109 doubleton?

 

A T, to distinguish it from T9x+.

The only configurations which are uncomfortable for "2/4" rule are HTx when sometimes people feel the need to lead low and T8xx+/T9xx+ when sometimes you face the dilemma of leading 2nd (standard) or 4th (might be good especially vs nt).

[mgoetze]

I like the rule that T is an honor vs NT and not an honor vs suits. Thus against NT, I lead

 

T9

T8xx

HTx

etc.

 

whereas against suits I lead

 

T9

T8xx

HTx

etc.

 

I can see why some might be tempted to lead HTx instead but it's not for me.

[dake50]

Consider.... xx

...... xxx :: AKJ10x

...... Qxx

My count lead from 3 is lowest. Partner wins A, returns J

to put declarer to an immediate guess. Known in NT contracts,

but may be testing win Q now against discard on Q later.

On other similar layouts top of nothing takes away these

put-to-a-guess.

I like count certainly shown on opening lead.

Top of xx? xxx? xxxx? xxxxx? Which?