Opening lead system

[phoenix214]

Hello, i do not know which is the appropriate forum, so i guess this might be the one, anyhow. Can anyone suggest a good opening lead system. For me, i willing to learn anything, simple or complex. At the moment im playing "Moscow style" with my pard and most people i play. Which would 2nd/4th, hi from xx, Direct from honor sequences.

Well but this week our bridge group was suggested to switch to 3/5th, because it improves our game.

I have been looking into Slavinsky lead systems as well. But for me i don't know which is better to learn - slavinsky or 3rd/5th, although what i looked up with the modern 3rd/5th looked quite similar.

[glen]

Slavinsky is quite different than 3/5. Stay with what your group plays, if they switch from "Moscow style" to 3/5, you should too. Best imo is something like:

 

http://www.ecatsbridge.com/documents/files/WBC2013/BermudaBowl/Italy/madala-bocchi.pdf

 

3/5 suit, attitude NT

[the hog]

I think you are referring to Combine Leads, which were designed by Slawinski - note the spelling.

I have played these for some years and have found them very effective.

[Vampyr]

Well but this week our bridge group was suggested to switch to 3/5th, because it improves our game.

 

Be careful, because these data are often "cherry-picked". I assume that you reached the conclusion that it "improves your game" by looking at hands where your current system of leads didn't work terribly well and 3/5th would have been better. But did you also look at hands where your current system worked well and 3/5th would have been less successful?

[MickyB]

Vs NT - attitude [low encouraging]

Vs suits - count [low odd]

 

Simple and effective.

 

I dislike 3rd+5th because you often can't distinguish three from four until it is too late, the same card is led from Q63 and Q632. Slawinski Combine leads are trying to achieve too much in my opinion, a binary signal is much clearer. Maybe I just needed more practice with them. Slawkinski's analysis claimed that they were superior but his methodology was demonstrably flawed.

[P_Marlowe]

Hi,

 

a common way is to play 3/5 against suit, 2/4 against NT.

 

3/5 makes it easier to see, if the led suit is short, so could you say

against suit contracts 3/5 is better than 2/4, since the information,

that the lead was from shortage is an important one.

 

Against NT contract, the 3rd card is quite often very high, and may be

needed later on, so 2/4 is less likely to waste a high card on the opening

lead.

 

Having said that, there are people, who play 2/4 trough out, play 3/5

through out. So the differences are marginal, and more important is to

have a good grip on the method you play.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Zelandakh]

Vs NT - attitude [low encouraging]

Vs suits - count [low odd]

I quite like this. My concern would be that there is no difference between Hxxx(x) and xxxx(x). Is that a problem sometimes in practise? Perhaps this is the case where Slawinsky leads gain (if you can work out the suit lengths).

[MickyB]

I quite like this. My concern would be that there is no difference between Hxxx(x) and xxxx(x).

 

Count leads are in the same boat as 3rd+5th in that regard. Comparison with other methods is harder, but I suspect attitude information vs suits is as likely to help declarer's play to trick one as it is to help partner's, and you are better off making the count signal as clear as possible.

 

With a willing partner, I like to play Fantunes-style leads [versus suit contracts only].

[ArtK78]

Unless I am mistaken, the term "3rd & 5th" really means 3rd and lowest - 3rd best from an even number of cards, lowest from an odd number of cards. So, you will lead 3rd best from 3, 4 and 6 card holdings (and 8, 10 and 12, for what it is worth), and lowest from 3, 5 and 7 card holdings (and, for what it is worth, 9, 11 and 13). Note the duplication on 3rd best from 3.

 

If anyone is leading 5th best from 6 or 7 or 8 card holdings, that is likely to cause confusion.

 

As for 2nd & 4th best leads, I have never played them. But, in my experience, leading 2nd & 4th best also implies that you lead low from a doubleton.

[Vampyr]

As for 2nd & 4th best leads, I have never played them. But, in my experience, leading 2nd & 4th best also implies that you lead low from a doubleton.

 

Then I doubt you have gained your experience in the US or the UK, where this practice is almost universally false. If you have mainly played in Eastern or Central Europe, then I am ready to believe what you claim your experience has been.

[ArtK78]

Then I doubt you have gained your experience in the US or the UK, where this practice is almost universally false. If you have mainly played in Eastern or Central Europe, then I am ready to believe what you claim your experience has been.

My experience is indeed in the US, and the players that I have seen who play 2nd and 4th leads also lead low from a doubleton.

[kenrexford]

I think you are referring to Combine Leads, which were designed by Slawinski - note the spelling.

 

Spell my Name with a W.

[lowerline]

Unless I am mistaken, the term "3rd & 5th" really means 3rd and lowest - 3rd best from an even number of cards, lowest from an odd number of cards. So, you will lead 3rd best from 3, 4 and 6 card holdings (and 8, 10 and 12, for what it is worth), and lowest from 3, 5 and 7 card holdings (and, for what it is worth, 9, 11 and 13). Note the duplication on 3rd best from 3.

 

If anyone is leading 5th best from 6 or 7 or 8 card holdings, that is likely to cause confusion.

 

As for 2nd & 4th best leads, I have never played them. But, in my experience, leading 2nd & 4th best also implies that you lead low from a doubleton.

 

I always wondered whether 3rd/low and 3rd/5th were the same... Around here (Europe) 3rd/5th is very popular and as far as I can tell most people lead 5th from a 6crd suit (which I think is wrong...).

 

Regarding 2nd/4th I think there are two interpretations: (1) leading low from even: 2nd from two/three and 4th from four/five (2) leading 4th from length wanting the suit returned & leading 2nd from length wanting a switch.

In the second case you also lead low from honour-third but high from three small.

 

Steven

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

As for 2nd & 4th best leads, I have never played them. But, in my experience, leading 2nd & 4th best also implies that you lead low from a doubleton.

<snip>

 

There is also a variation to 2/4, when you play MUD from 3 small, in which case you would play high from a doubleton, this is quite often combined

with 3rd from Hxx, in which case you no longer would play 2/4.

I have never seen a fully description of attitude leads, but my guess was always, that this variation belongs to this family of leads.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Vampyr]

There is also a variation to 2/4, when you play MUD from 3 small, in which case you would play high from a doubleton, this is quite often combined

with 3rd from Hxx, in which case you no longer would play 2/4.

 

This is what is extremely popular here, but I think that 3rd from Hxx is consistent with 2/4; does anyone play middle from Hxx? You would lead 4th if you had a 4th -- I think that common sense should play some role in this; if you lead top (or bottom) of a singleton are you not playing 2/4?

 

We play as above, and my partner describes it as "4th from an honour, 2nd from bad suits".

[Vampyr]

Duplicate

[P_Marlowe]

This is what is extremely popular here, but I think that 3rd from Hxx is consistent with 2/4; does anyone play middle from Hxx? You would lead 4th if you had a 4th -- I think that common sense should play some role in this; if you lead top (or bottom) of a singleton are you not playing 2/4?

 

We play as above, and my partner describes it as "4th from an honour, 2nd from bad suits".

We would play middle from Hxx, i.e. we would play our leads strictly length based.

In the end, whats is in a name, is always up for debate. i would not even claim,

that 3rd from Hxx is not part of 2/4.

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[Vampyr]

i would not even claim,

that 3rd from Hxx is not part of 2/4.

I suppose it's possible the Europeans who play 2/4 (including low from a doubleton) play middle from Hxx. I am dubious, but obviously you know better than I.