Leads against Notrump

[barmar]

I just finished reading the new book "Winning Notrump Leads" by David Bird and Taf Anthias. They used double dummy analysis to determine the effectiveness of different opening leads against notrump contracts after various types of auctions. The results were very surprising, as the traditional "4th from longest and strongest" is rarely the best. After many types of auctions (especially 1NT-3NT), leading a major is strongly recommended, even if it's a short suit (you're hoping to hit partner's suit); in many other situations, passive leads are important to avoid giving away a trick on the lead. Leading low from KQxx is especially bad at matchpoints, since it may allow declarer to win a trick with a doubleton Jack (if this is the best suit to lead, they usually recommend leading the King); and leading away from AQxxx lets him win the King, whereas you'd rather get to partner's hand so he can lead up to it.

 

While I don't doubt their analysis, I wonder how effective it would be in practice. I'm not making the usual "double-dummy doesn't match single-dummy" point, although I suppose it's related. My question is whether partner will be able to figure out what you're doing. Most players have lead agreements -- leading a particular card usually shows something about that suit. If you lead a low card, partner is going to assume it's your long suit, and return it when he gets in. They touch on this only a couple of times in the book -- there are hands where the analysis recommends leading the middle card from QTx or Q9x, but the authors admit that partner may not be able to read this and the low card is better (it's usually close behind in the double dummy analysis).

 

But in most other cases, they just seem to assume that partner will figure out from his own hand what the right continuation is. This should work out OK if you led a short suit and hit partner's length -- he'll be ecstatic. But in cases where you're just making a passive lead, will partner be able to tell this? Would attitude leads help?

[akhare]

In our arguably limited trail, they seem to work pretty well. We do use attitude leads, which probably makes it easier to read the opening lead...

[zasanya]

With apologies to David Bird

Source: http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=1&t=56698

Improve Your Opening Leads (Part 2)

 

Originally published in the March & April 2009 issues of the ACBL Bridge Bulletin

......... There’s a story from the 1960s about an expert who published an article titled “Why third and fifth leads are better” in a major bridge magazine. It featured many examples of the problems with standard fourth-best leads and showed how they could be solved by leading third and fifth from length. The writer was regaled with praise from enlightened readers who said they had always known standard leads were inferior, and now they had proof.

 

The following month, the expert published another article titled “Why fourth-best leads are better”. It offered the same number of examples and equally compelling evidence that third and fifth leads were confusing and ineffective.

 

This story is probably a bridge “urban legend”, as the articles can’t be located, but it’s easy to understand how they could have been written. Many players will offer fervent arguments about the merits of their favorite lead conventions, but don’t believe anyone who claims one method is clearly superior to all others. Whatever leading scheme you choose, the only critical issues are that you and partner feel comfortable with it and have clear agreements about which card you’ll lead from all possible suit holdings.

[PhilKing]

lead conventions, but don’t believe anyone who claims one method is clearly superior to all others. Whatever leading scheme you choose, the only critical issues are that you and partner feel comfortable with it and have clear agreements about which card you’ll lead from all possible suit holdings.

 

It's not a book about leading systems. It's a book of lead problems with computer-simulated answers.

[FM75]

As long as partner is on the right page, he should be able to figure it out. He will have seen two hands by that time.

 

His thinking should be along the lines:

1. Declarer and dummy are expected to have X points based on the auction.
2. I have Y, so parter has roughly 40 - X - Y.
3. How many cards does declarer have in the majors?
4. Dummy and I have combined m,n,o, p in the 4 suits. - most NT leads will be in a major.
5. From the auction and what I see what are the most likely types of leads?
6. If partner's lead is a minor, why? (Usually it will be from a solid sequence and should be obvious - but rare)
7. If partner leads a major, why that suit, card?
8. If partner has all the points, defender does not have to do too much, other than possibly unblocking.

That said, it is a good question. Most of the time, you won't be using the rule of 11!

 

Have you decide to double all passed out 2NT openings in the balancing seat? :)

[barmar]

BTW, people who complain about GIB's strange leads, and the fact that it doesn't return your suit when it gets in, may notice that its leads are based on the same principles as in this book: dealing hands consistent with the auction, and performing DD analysis of the results of each lead. That's why it rarely leads away from tenaces, and its partner needs to switch to find the tenace.

 

However, it can't be as accurate as the analysis in the book. They dealt thousands of hands for each situation they wrote about. GIB has to come up with a play in a few seconds, so it can only analyze a few dozen.

[SteveMoe]

While I don't doubt their analysis, I wonder how effective it would be in practice.

 

Would attitude leads help?

 

In short my partners and I are more sensitive to biasing our leads to a(n Unbid) Major in the "No Major" NT auctions as in the book. Yes we do make attitude spot card leads, so 2 from Q92 but 9 from J92. Generally partner can figure out when I am trying to hit his/her long suit by their HCP Count and the auction context. You are right - I would not try this with an inexperienced partner unnecessarily.

[barmar]

I had another question about this.

 

If your partnership decides to try to make the kinds of leads suggested in this book, how does this affect full disclosure? What do you check off in the Leads Against NT section of the convention card? When declarer asks what kind of leads you make, what do you explain?

 

Maybe if they become popular, players will start calling them something like "Bird-Anthias" leads. That's kind of long, so maybe we can call them B-A leads. Or we could use the book title, and call them "Winning Leads".

 

It kind of reminds me of some of the arguments we've had in the IBLF regarding people who describe their defensive signals as "tell partner what we think he needs to know" -- sometimes this is count, sometimes attitude, sometimes suit preference. There are few concrete rules that you can explain to the opponents, although there may be a few defaults (e.g. "usually attitude, but when dummy has a singleton in the led suit we give uually suit pref for a switch").

[SteveMoe]

I had another question about this.

 

If your partnership decides to try to make the kinds of leads suggested in this book, how does this affect full disclosure? What do you check off in the Leads Against NT section of the convention card? When declarer asks what kind of leads you make, what do you explain?

 

Maybe if they become popular, players will start calling them something like "Bird-Anthias" leads. That's kind of long, so maybe we can call them B-A leads. Or we could use the book title, and call them "Winning Leads".

 

It kind of reminds me of some of the arguments we've had in the IBLF regarding people who describe their defensive signals as "tell partner what we think he needs to know" -- sometimes this is count, sometimes attitude, sometimes suit preference. There are few concrete rules that you can explain to the opponents, although there may be a few defaults (e.g. "usually attitude, but when dummy has a singleton in the led suit we give uually suit pref for a switch").

 

Anthias-Bird speak to choice of suit, not a type of lead.

What card to lead once the suit is chosen is on the convention card.

I am quite sure we don't have to lead 4th from longest and strongest simply because we have a long suit.

It has been expert practice to lead to partner's assumed "5-card suit" when defending 1N-3N (say) holding Qxxxx xxx xxx xx, a weak hand with no side entries. It's more likely a ♥ will set up winners partner has entries to cash.

[barmar]

Anthias-Bird speak to choice of suit, not a type of lead.

There's also lots of material about the card to lead from the suit. If you're leading from KQxxx, the standard lead is 4th best, they recommend leading an honor, especially against matchpoints (to prevent the overtrick when declarer and dummy have Ace and Jack). With Axxxxx or AKxxxx they recommend leading the honor.

 

Many of the low leads are from 3 to Jack. In general, they seem to have found that 4th from longest and strongest is often not the best lead, so when you lead a low card it's not usually 4th best.

[kenberg]

A pretty good player, long deceased, often avoided leading from four cards against an auction such as 1NT-3NT. I'll say this, it was less successful for him once I realized that this was his style. We make plans based on the opening lead, and we often assume it is from four (or more). After I caught on, I scrapped that assumption. This of course has no bearing on the DD analysis but it probably gives the method a little boost beyond what the DD says.

 

It seems that if a pair decided that they would virtually never lead from four, they should inform their opponents. Third hand then knows something about how to read the lead, it may be from three, it may be from five, but not from, or rarely from, four. Declarer should be told this, I would think. However, although I have not yet read the book I doubt I would want to buy into something so extreme. I imagine just about everyone sometimes picks a passive lead over fourth best, and perhaps the book can be seen as advising that this be done more often. Bridge is full of such judgment calls, and I am fine with simply leaving it at that.

 

Anyway, sounds like a book I would like to read.

[SteveMoe]

There's also lots of material about the card to lead from the suit. If you're leading from KQxxx, the standard lead is 4th best, they recommend leading an honor, especially against matchpoints (to prevent the overtrick when declarer and dummy have Ace and Jack). With Axxxxx or AKxxxx they recommend leading the honor.

 

Many of the low leads are from 3 to Jack. In general, they seem to have found that 4th from longest and strongest is often not the best lead, so when you lead a low card it's not usually 4th best.

They do indeed recommend leading a high honor when holding HHxxx or HJx or even Hxx (depending on other cards in hand). I believe the right lead from Hxxxx would depend on whether we hold side entries. I do not see this as much of a departure from lead disclosure requirements - but perhaps a departure from lead tendencies we have all become comfortable with.

I am uncertain that choosing to lead high from KQxxx is wrong or misleading given the vague way that leads are currently disclosed (fair warning I know ACBL only).

I am also pretty sure that leading small from Hxx or Jxx is not considered misleading when playing 4th best. Again the emphasis is on choosing a major when opponents have a NT auction that biases against holding many major cards.

I suggest that choice lies within the parameters of disclosure as currently required.

 

I will suggest that the authors did not suggest a systemic approach, just some empirical findings and a new thought process. I do not think thought processes are legislated are they?

 

I hope we don't have to disclose all the bridge books we've read... :blink:

[PhilKing]

I hope we don't have to disclose all the bridge books we've read... :blink:

 

50 Shades of Trey.

[Zelandakh]

Maybe if they become popular, players will start calling them something like "Bird-Anthias" leads. That's kind of long, so maybe we can call them B-A leads. Or we could use the book title, and call them "Winning Leads".

I would think logical and catchy would be Anthias Bird Canape, ie ABC Leads.

 

It would seem correct to write soemthing along the lines of "Leads against NT often passive or from short suits" in one or other General Information section on the CC. To me this is little different from opening "weaker minor" undisclosed or from responding 2m in the weaker minor when planning to jump to 3NT on the second round, something which a leading German bridge-trip organiser is well known for but still manages to get away with.