[Elianna]

I have recently been playing with a new (to me) partner, who hails from a non-US country.

We have had huge fights about what to play, and the nastiest was centered around what to lead from a bad 3+ card suit (if that is what we choose to lead).

She thinks that leading small from a bad suit is AWFUL, because partner needs to know if you have an honor in the suit you led ASAP. And so from, say, four small she thinks that you should lead the second highest.

I (as you can likely guess) think that this is really silly: If you follow up the second highest with a small card, how will partner know if you are looking for a ruff, and if you follow it up with the highest card, how will partner not know that you didn't originally lead your lowest card? (ie 5 then 8 could be from 854 or from Q85 so this doesn't solve her problem at all, from my POV).

After saying some very mean things to each other (her: you think that just because it's what you're familiar with, that makes it best. Me: Your preferred playing method is as nonsensical as you are), we "compromised" by agreeing to play her method playing a small card after leading second highest, and lead small from doubleton.

The reason I'm sharing this with you all is because I'm rather curious to hear from non-American experts to know what would be considered standard leads in your country (especially if you are from Europe, super-specially if you are from Israel), and I also am interested in hearing from anyone what you think about how to make these leads work, or if they're clearly superior and I'm wrong.

Lastly, if your suggestion is to play with someone else, thanks, understand the sentiment, but won't likely happen.

[barmar]

I know you asked for non-US answers, but I'll give my 2 cents anyway. In the US there isn't much concensus. Some lead low, some lead high, and many use MUD.

I like leading low. My answer to your partner's objection is that most of the time you can figure out whether the lead was from 3 small or to an honor, based on what you see in your hand, dummy, and which card declarer plays from dummy. There are also often other clues that can help.

I think it's more important to know the leader's count in the suit than whether it has an honor. Every time one of my partners has chosen to violate our lead agreement and lead top of nothing, it's totally confused my defense because I had the wrong idea of declarer's possible shapes. Or I tried to give partner a ruff and ended up helping declarer pitch a loser.

[655321]

Playing 3/5 leads, the 2 from 432 is mandatory.

Leading 4ths, I would never lead the 2, I would lead the 4 or the 3, whichever we had agreed.

So whether your agreement is 4ths or 3/5 seems the relevant thing here.

Elianna, on 2011-February-09, 17:07, said:

After saying some very mean things to each other (her: you think that just because it's what you're familiar with, that makes it best. Me: Your preferred playing method is as nonsensical as you are)

One of you is saying mean things, anyway...

[mtvesuvius]

$20 says she's Italian.

Anyway, I agree with you, and had a partner who had very similar beliefs. I couldn't take it, couldn't read any of his leads, and felt completely in the dark on his signals... Don't get me started on discards.

[manudude03]

My agreement with my partners is MUD from 3 small, but I will occasionally fudge if it looks ambiguous (eg. I'd lead 8 from 842 but 6 from 763). As regards to the ambiguity on the second round, partner will usually know already. Also probably worth saying that from an original 3 small, I'd usually follow high even if playing remainder UDCA.

[nigel_k]

Where I live (New Zealand) MUD is sadly very popular among weaker players. It's just about the only thing I will flat out refuse to play under any circumstances. I don't know where it came from but Kelsey liked it and Reese hated it and they are the two most respected authors. I'm blaming Kelsey for making it popular unless anyone has a better explanation.

In general, I prefer top from three small cards against NT and low against suits unless it is partner's suit and I have raised. But I can easily live with just leading top all the time.

[barmar]

Lawrence also hates MUD. He says so over and over in his Opening Leads book.

[Elianna]

655321, on 2011-February-09, 17:41, said:

Playing 3/5 leads, the 2 from 432 is mandatory.

Leading 4ths, I would never lead the 2, I would lead the 4 or the 3, whichever we had agreed.

So whether your agreement is 4ths or 3/5 seems the relevant thing here.




One of you is saying mean things, anyway...

I will admit that written out, what I said sounds meaner, but that's because I was trying to be fair to her and toned down what she said. It was more along the lines of "you play stupid things because you are ignorant", and so I gave an analogous reply of "you play stupid things because you won't listen to logic". Again, not exact quotes, because of the heat of the moment and all, but I try very carefully to only parallel what she says.

[Elianna]

mtvesuvius, on 2011-February-09, 17:44, said:

$20 says she's Italian.

Anyway, I agree with you, and had a partner who had very similar beliefs. I couldn't take it, couldn't read any of his leads, and felt completely in the dark on his signals... Don't get me started on discards.

If you're coming to the LA regional in summer, I'll collect the $20 there.

[mtvesuvius]

Elianna, on 2011-February-09, 18:42, said:

If you're coming to the LA regional in summer, I'll collect the $20 there.

Louisville? Toronto? Cavendish/Trials?

[Echognome]

I know many people will have their own views about this, but I don't think we can look at leads in isolation. We need to think of the whole carding system. Here's what I have observed playing in both the US, UK, and Ireland.

3/low leads - These are primarily count leads. Most people I know that play these leads use attitude as their primary discard (whether standard or upside down).

2/4 leads (UK style) - These are primarily attitude leads. Most people I know that play these leads use count as their primary discard (whether standard or upside down). Note that I mention "UK style", as my experience is that the leads are Xx, xXx, HxX, xXxx, HxxX as opposed to a more literal translation of xX, xXx, HXx, xXxx, HxxX.

Which is better?

Well I know many will vary depending on suit contracts versus NT contracts for starters. That mean there is some thought that getting an initial count defending against a suit contract is more important and getting an initial attitude signal is more important defending NT. Beyond that, I think we can argue for a long time about which signal is most important first and which signal is more important later.

At least she didn't ask you to play revolving discards.

Edit: Given Elianna's big clue "super-specially if you are from Israel", I tend to think that Adam was pulling our leg... but maybe not.

[blackshoe]

Eddie Kantar sez:

Vs. NT:
leading a suit partner has bid but you have not supported: low from 3 cards.
leading a suit partner has bid and you have supported: high from 3 small, low from 3 to an honor.

Vs. suits:
lead low from 3 to an honor (exception: lead the Ace from Axx)
lead low from 3 small in a suit partner has bid but you have not supported
lead high from 3 small in a suit partner has bid and you have supported
regarding leading from 3 small in an unbid suit: "Experts tend to lead low, but for the rank and file, 'top of nothing' is better".

[Siegmund]

Giving a different first discard according to what information the lead conveyed is an interesting idea.

I've been playing 3/low against suits, and attitude against notrump, for years - but never crossed my mind to explicitly play different signal systems. (Though there is always the implicit "if attitude is already known, give count" rule, and that takes effect more often after an attitude spot lead.)

As OP said, it's a question of whether its more important to convey length or the high-card position right away. Neither one is a one-size-fits-all perfect solution. I think the answer has to be "low from xxx in one set of situations, and high in another set" (the set can be more complicated than suit vs NT and partner's suit vs not if you want it to be, but I can't think offhand of what the other exceptions ought to be.)

[Echognome]

MUD is a "compromise" in my view of trying to lead high for attitude, but being able to distinguish between xxx and xx with your next card. Better yet is leading low from a doubleton and high from three small if you want to focus on attitude. However, I understand that leading low from a doubleton is difficult after being ingrained with leading high your whole bridge career.

[aguahombre]

Echognome, on 2011-February-09, 20:13, said:

Better yet is leading low from a doubleton and high from three small if you want to focus on attitude. However, I understand that leading low from a doubleton is difficult after being ingrained with leading high your whole bridge career.

Yeh. Attitude opening leads --including low from xx vs suit --- have served us well for many years. It does not apply when leading a suit pard has shown in the auction, just "blind" leads. low from xxx if pard has shown the suit, but high if we have shown support for the suit. Here in ACBL, this requires pre-announcement, though we have encountered many pairs who apparently would rather keep it a secret

[Bbradley62]

Elianna, on 2011-February-09, 17:07, said:

... I'm rather curious to hear from non-American experts ... super-specially if you are from Israel...

mtvesuvius, on 2011-February-09, 17:44, said:

$20 says she's Italian.

Italian wouldn't have been my first guess.

[mtvesuvius]

Bbradley62, on 2011-February-10, 00:10, said:

Italian wouldn't have been my first guess.

After I missed that in the OP I deserve to pay up

[Antraxxx]

If you're interested in the opinions of Israeli experts, you could try the Israeli forum: http://www.israbridg...e=viewforum&f=8
(It's okay to post in English in there)

[karlson]

Don't all the poles lead second (or high, I don't remember) from xxx and low from doubleton? Then it can't be that bad.

I played this style for a while (high from xxx, low from xx). I have to admit that my experience was that it gave away information to declarer more often than it helped the defense. Obviously the sample size was small, but I don't remember many hands where opening leader's partner couldn't have figured out the defense even on an ambiguous small card lead, but I remember several hands where declarer would have had a nasty trick 1 guess that we took away.

And to come back to your original point, yes, I think it's pretty common to lead high/mud from xxx in much of Europe even playing normal high from doubleton. I share in the general dislike of this.

[paulg]

Leading from xxx is a very tough way to earn a living and, in the long run, it really does not matter what you do. Just never play MUD in partner's suit.