Leads

[euclidz]

Personally I find leads the most difficult part of the game. I recall an instance many years back when I lead from a doubleton and my partner that evening, a 'good' player, said "never lead from a doubleton".

 

I was just watching play (repeat - I was watching not playing) . . . E/W two 'experts' playing against N/S two intermediates. The bidding by N/S was 1♥, 1♠, 2♥, 4♥. West led 8♣ from a doubleton of 8♣ 5♣. East's comment was "it is clear just from cards ppl lead if they are experts or not - at least twice previous p lead from un supported doubleton into unknown territory. I know no expert who would do that"

 

Is that correct? I've read many books on leads and most talk about what to lead and sometimes what not to lead but I don't ever recall reading "never lead from a doubleton".

[johnu]

The person making the comment sounds like a BBO self-rated expert to me. Without seeing the complete hand, nobody can say whether this was a good lead or not, and from double dummy analysis of the best lead, the differences between any of the 4 suits is often surprisingly small.

 

I would say that anybody who says "never lead from a doubleton" is not an expert.

[1eyedjack]

"Never say never" is a reasonable riposte

[wank]

utter rubbish. a small doubleton in an unbid suit is a totally normal lead.

 

the comment is humourous in itself. 'unsupported doubleton', wtf is that supposed to mean?

[geoffff]

As an intermediate player, I find leads the most difficult part of the game. I sometimes lead from a doubleton - but should I lead the higher or lower one first (this is based on two moderate cards, say 8, 5).

My dad also told me if you haven't got a good lead, lead from a heap of rubbish, e.g. 9,5,4,2. Is that sensible?

[wank]

As an intermediate player, I find leads the most difficult part of the game. I sometimes lead from a doubleton - but should I lead the higher or lower one first (this is based on two moderate cards, say 8, 5).

My dad also told me if you haven't got a good lead, lead from a heap of rubbish, e.g. 9,5,4,2. Is that sensible?

 

you lead the top from 2. the purpose being that you give partner your count. let's say that p has akxx and dummy jxxx and you lead the high one and follow with the low one, now p knows you have 2 and can give you a ruff. with 3+ you would lead a lower one and follow with a higher one (in exactly which manner depending on your agreements).

 

leading from small cards is considered safer, because declarer could always play the suit himself and finesse partner's goodies, so your dad's right.

[zillahandp]

There are very few "nevers" in bridge but be reluctant to lead dbltns in side suits unless p has bid them is not a bad guide because you are often setting up a side suit for declarer. And whether you get a ruff depends on whether you will win a trump trick early and have a spare low trump with which to ruff is also a key factor. On the bidding you gave to four hts i would be incined to lead a trump to cut down ruffs in dummy. By and large advanced and less advanced players do not lead trumps frequently enough.

[GrahamJson]

Two of the most interesting bridge books in recent years were by David Bird and another (sorry, can't recall his name at the moment), one on trump contract leads and another on notrump leads. In both cases they took a bidding sequence and a leaders hand. They then used a computer program to simulate thousands of layouts consistent with the hand and the bidding. For each case each possible opening lead was taken in turn and the hand was played out using something like GIB. This enabled the average number and maximum number of tricks to be computed for each lead.

 

One of their main conclusions, which surprised them, was that leading from a doubleton was greatly underrated. In many cases it turned out to be the best lead. So it seems that your "expert" friend is behind the times, not that a doubleton lead has ever been considered bad.

 

One word of caution. The evaluation method used was not perfect, as the authors admitted. The program used to evaluate the play assumed double dummy play. So, for example, it would always make the right "guesses" when it came to finesses, play for drop, etc. This means that it probably under rated "safe" leads and overrated attacking leads. Hence a doubleton may not be quite as good as their method suggested. Never the less, it was clear that a doubleton lead should be considered and may often be the best.

 

Other conclusions they came to is that an ace lead is usually the worst at imps, at is the one least likely to defeat the contract, but can be the best at MPs as it is most likely to prevent an overtrick. Also, at NT a major suit lead is usually better than a minor suit lead when leading "blind" (I.e. 1NT-3NT).

[msjennifer]

On BBO many self rated "expert" are in reality " expert in making comments".A self rated "world class" played with an"expert" and when he went down in a 3NT contract when intermediates would have reached six spade,a cold contact ,he turned out to be a "World class with 'cl' silent".

[The_Badger]

Hi Euclidz,

 

Never say never, say never again :)

 

It's total tripe to be told this lead's right and that's wrong, etc., etc. There's a time where a lead from a small doubleton or an honour doubleton (Ax, Kx, Qx, Jx) is absolutely right. All hands are different - and I realise I am stating the obvious, but it's funny how everyone is obsessed with conventions, when choosing a decent opening lead gets less coverage. It's just as important.

 

Leads can be lucky, too, can make or break a contract, so if you are in a regular partnership (or even not) you should try to aim at consistency with opening leads. Buy an up-to-date bridge book on leads. Discuss with a partner what you do in different types of auction. Most of it is commonsense, not rocket science. And above all, don't fret if your lead turns out to be bad. As much as good bridge players analyse the bidding before leading, trying to make a distributional picture of the hands before committing that first card, even the very best get it wrong from time to time.

[sfi]

Two of the most interesting bridge books in recent years were by David Bird and another (sorry, can't recall his name at the moment), one on trump contract leads and another on notrump leads. In both cases they took a bidding sequence and a leaders hand. They then used a computer program to simulate thousands of layouts consistent with the hand and the bidding. For each case each possible opening lead was taken in turn and the hand was played out using something like GIB. This enabled the average number and maximum number of tricks to be computed for each lead.

 

One of their main conclusions, which surprised them, was that leading from a doubleton was greatly underrated. In many cases it turned out to be the best lead. So it seems that your "expert" friend is behind the times, not that a doubleton lead has ever been considered bad.

 

Bird and Anthias. Since I read those I've started leading doubletons and weak suits much more, and it does actually pay off in the situations discussed in the books. Not always, and sometimes the result is dreadful compared to a more standard 4th best or whatever, but on balance there is a lot of merit in their points.

 

The moral of the story is 'opening leads are hard, and there are many different types of situations.'

[sfi]

As much as good bridge players analyse the bidding before leading, trying to make a distributional picture of the hands before committing that first card, even the very best get it wrong from time to time.

 

Indeed. One of my personal rules is that I never complain about a choice of opening lead if there was a reason behind it. It's one area where partners almost always get a free pass if they get it wrong.

[GrahamJson]

Some good comments here. I think a key point is that you can never make rules such as "always lead this" or "never lead that". It depends on your hand and the bidding, plus often a big slice of luck. However one key factor to consider is; what is your aim? For example, when leading against a 4S contract is your aim to make four tricks or is it to prevent oppo making ten. If oppo have bid aggressively, and are likely to have a ready source of tricks, then your aim is to take four tricks before oppo can cash their ten. This means you can take risks such leading from unsupported honours. If however the bidding has been something like 1NT-2C-2S-3S-4S then oppo have not got anything in hand, so you should be cautious and avoid making a lead that could give away a trick.

 

Having said all that a doubleton falls somewhere in between, having an element of aggression but not likely to give away a trick. As such I guess it is a good general lead, particularly if nothing else appeals.

[euclidz]

Thanks for the helpful posts

[msjennifer]

My dad showed a hand from a big tournament..The genuine expert on lead against a four hearts contract holding A9 of spades led the NINE of spades.Dummy came down with KJ10x of spades.Put into a guess at trick one,nobody could blame declarer for misguessing when he played the 10.But he was not

prepared for the worst.RHO won the Queen and returned the suit.LHO won the Ace and duly got a ruff when partner won the Ace of hearts and returned a spade as declared held xxx.This was a real Expert lead.On the other table the contract was made easily when spades were led but the Ace was led and returned the nine.Declarer won the King and played trumps.RHO won the ace and cashed the SQ and retuned a spade but LHO was not able to overruff when declarer ruffed high enough.A real "expert" Player making an"expert "lead.!

[Caitlynne]

Anybody who has a "rule" prohibiting something without a specific contaxt/situation is NOT an expert. Anybody who pays attention to these "experts" is a fool.

[Zelandakh]

You have to take each hand on its merits. You also have to decide what you are trying to achieve. Are you considering a doubleton lead to get a ruff? To be passive and avoid blowing a trick? To hit partner's suit?

 

In the ruff case, having a trump holding such as Axx makes a doubleton lead much more appealing. Against that, if one of the opps has bid the suit it is less appealing as it might enable the suit to be set up even if a ruff is available.

 

The decision between an active or passive defence is a complex one that cannot be easily dealt with in a few throwaway lines. One indicator for a passive defence can be when it is clear from the auction that the opps are minimum for their contract, such as after an invite auction. Passive defence is also more common at MP scoring than with IMPs. And sometimes it is just the case that every other suit is so dangerous that being passive is the best chance. This is an area where a little reading and a lot of experience is helpful.

 

Finally, when deciding whether to look for partner's suit or not, one indicator is to consider the overall strength of each hand. If you expect partner to be weak then they may well not have enough entries to enjoy their suit even if it becomes established. On the other hand, if partner is much stronger than you the chances of this line being successful go up greatly. This is the origin of the well-known saying "Never lead a weak 6 card suit in an entryless hand". As with all bridge sayings containing the words "never" or "always", you should consider it more of a guideline than a rule.

 

The three big issues with a doubleton lead are establishing declarer's suit, picking up partner's honour holding and making it more difficult for partner to identify your singleton leads. The first of these was touched on already. The second is a real one, often in the form of saving declarer a guess, although the risk of it happening is less than with most other holdings. The last point is difficult to quantify but any analysis of doubleton leads in suit contracts that ignores this point should be looked upon with a degree of skepticism. This last is the reason why a doubleton is often the best double dummy lead but tends to be less popular (and successful) in reality.

 

The bottom line is: leading from a doubleton is fine if you know what you are doing. But have a plan and a reason behind it; do not regard it as a strong option by default.

[johnu]

The bottom line is: leading from a doubleton is fine if you know what you are doing. But have a plan and a reason behind it; do not regard it as a strong option by default.

 

You could say that about almost any lead on any hand. I suppose with a suit headed by AKQJ10 you could auto pilot a high honor lead and almost never be wrong, but if partner made a Lightner against a slam contract, or a trump lead is indicated to prevent a cross ruff even that could be wrong.

[miamijd]

Personally I find leads the most difficult part of the game. I recall an instance many years back when I lead from a doubleton and my partner that evening, a 'good' player, said "never lead from a doubleton".

 

I was just watching play (repeat - I was watching not playing) . . . E/W two 'experts' playing against N/S two intermediates. The bidding by N/S was 1♥, 1♠, 2♥, 4♥. West led 8♣ from a doubleton of 8♣ 5♣. East's comment was "it is clear just from cards ppl lead if they are experts or not - at least twice previous p lead from un supported doubleton into unknown territory. I know no expert who would do that"

 

Is that correct? I've read many books on leads and most talk about what to lead and sometimes what not to lead but I don't ever recall reading "never lead from a doubleton".

 

 

Well, opening lead is one of the most difficult parts of the game. There are no hard and fast rules, only general principles. In a vacuum, yes, a low doubleton is often a poor lead. Still, there are some hands where it is the least of evils. And there are other hands where partner is marked with possible strength in that suit (for example, where the opponents have a protracted auction to 4M or 5m and bid the other three suits but never NT).

 

You gave bidding but not the opening leader's hand. On the bidding you provided, I would generally lead a minor suit, unless I had a stiff spade or my spades were especially strong (in that case, there is no danger of declarer getting discards on dummy's spade suit). You didn't indicate what the opening leader's diamond holding was, but if he had the Ace, then the club lead, though not great, would certainly be preferable to a diamond lead.

[rhm]

Well, opening lead is one of the most difficult parts of the game.

This is often claimed and rarely underpinned by arguments.

What is true is that opening leads have frequently a high impact on the result.

Nobody can expect to get them right all the time, because it often involves some guesswork.

Even experts sometimes lead the only card which allows a contract to be made.

But guessing is not a synonym for difficult and the few general principles - not superstitions - underlying opening leads are not that difficult to grasp.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[barmar]

This is often claimed and rarely underpinned by arguments.

The most obvious argument is that you have to make this decision with the least information. The opening leader only knows what's in his own hand and what he can infer from the auction. After that, you can see an additional 13 cards in dummy, a huge increase in information. And then you get signals from partner and can make inferences from declarer's play.

[helene_t]

Leads are difficult in the sense that a lot of guesswork is needed.

 

But they are easy in the sense that if you follow a few principles you will rarely make a demonstrably bad choice.

 

Compare to 12th tricks discards. A competent defender will rarely get it wrong but most of us will sometimes have lost count. And whenever you do make the wrong discard it will usually be demonstrably wrong

[rhm]

The most obvious argument is that you have to make this decision with the least information. The opening leader only knows what's in his own hand and what he can infer from the auction. After that, you can see an additional 13 cards in dummy, a huge increase in information. And then you get signals from partner and can make inferences from declarer's play.

The argument maybe obvious but is weak.

I can see how lack of information increases guesswork, but lack of information does not make a decision more difficult.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[1eyedjack]

You can choose, if you wish, to apply a very simple set of self-imposed "rules" to take away or resolve the guesswork in an opening lead. Having done so, you will not find leading very difficult. You may not be very successful, but at least the difficulty is eliminated.

[nullve]

You can choose, if you wish, to apply a very simple set of self-imposed "rules" to take away or resolve the guesswork in an opening lead. Having done so, you will not find leading very difficult. You may not be very successful, but at least the difficulty is eliminated.

I don't think anyone can justify their lead by saying

 

"I led x because condition C held"

 

unless they're prepared to believe that the rule

 

"If condition C holds, lead x."

 

is a good one.