[rmnka447]

Play frequently with 2 partners.

One prefers small from 3 small, one prefers middle.

However, I think small is best. At least pard is not likely to confuse it for a doubleton.

Most of the time leading from 3 small is not a preferred choice. But if the opponents have had a tortured auction and a passive lead seems right, it may be necessary with tenaces in the other suits.

[FrancesHinden]

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-18, 16:07, said:

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.



Interesting I am generally a very passive leader and often will lead from 3 small. Obv depends if its MP or imps I guess.

My passive leading has gone up a bit recently but I have always thought that strict 3rd/low i.e. including low from xxx didn't fit well with a passive leading strategy. Putting a strong emphasis on count works best when partner has a good idea what your honour holding is up front.

Maybe it also works fine if you are a very passive leader; it only goes wrong when partner has no idea if you like to lead from Hxx or not.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-18, 16:07, said:

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?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

awm, on 2012-June-17, 11:29, said:

Suppose you decide to lead from xxx vs. a suit contract. This suit has never been bid, ....

I would lead LOW ( from odd ) .

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now you didn't ask about the following, but let's say partner HAS bid, and you have NOT supported:
- - then Lead LOW from odd in his suit ...

However, if you HAVE supported:
- - then Lead HIGH w/NO honor ( x x x )
- - or LOW w/an Honor( H x x ).

[mgoetze]

rmnka447, on 2012-June-19, 01:35, said:

However, I think small is best. At least pard is not likely to confuse it for a doubleton.

A good demonstration of why the question posed in this thread is in fact slightly silly. A better question may have been "given that it is axiomatic to lead high from a doubleton, what do you lead from three small?"

I like to lead the middle card from three small because it fits well with the rest of my preferred leads, which include low from a small doubleton.

[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]

MrAce, on 2012-June-19, 17:15, said:

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

Well said.

[bluecalm]

Quote

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:

---

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]

bluecalm, on 2012-June-18, 04:32, said:

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]

Quote

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.

[FrancesHinden]

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]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-June-27, 15:38, said:

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.

[mgoetze]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-27, 16:28, said:

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.

"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]

gnasher, on 2012-June-19, 14:58, said:

JLOGIC, on 2012-June-18, 16:07, said:

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]

mgoetze, on 2012-June-28, 02:06, said:

"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]

blackshoe, on 2012-June-28, 07:09, said:

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

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