[Cthulhu D]

So basically, what's best to lead from three and four small? There is probably a question about leads more generally here.

I suggested top of nothing, partner really likes MUD and 2nd highest respective, and you so rarely lead from 3 or 4 small I'm not hugely sure it matters, but I figured I'd ask anyway. I ran a forums search but didn't turn up any interesting discussions.

[the hog]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-April-09, 22:25, said:

So basically, what's best to lead from three and four small? There is probably a question about leads more generally here.

I suggested top of nothing, partner really likes MUD and 2nd highest respective, and you so rarely lead from 3 or 4 small I'm not hugely sure it matters, but I figured I'd ask anyway. I ran a forums search but didn't turn up any interesting discussions.

Look at Combine leads - Slawinski.

[Cthulhu D]

the hog, on 2012-April-09, 23:16, said:

Look at Combine leads - Slawinski.

That's this thing isn't it: http://www.ugcs.calt...awinski/69.html

That's actually pretty cool. Some research also turns up Fantunes system, which is a related development (and makes sense to me)

your lowest spot card show an odd number of cards with an honour or an even number without an honour
the highest spot card that isn't a working card shows an even number of cards with an honour or an odd number without

That's actually pretty nifty as well, and fits in well with Slawinski's ideas.

[paulg]

MUD is only bad in partner's suit and notrump.

[P_Marlowe]

Top of Nothing is worse than MUD.

In the end, MUD belongs to an agreement set, that combines length and attidute information,
works ok, I currently play pure length based leads.

MUD is to a certain extend related to 2nd / 4th leads, the bid difference is, that from
Hxx you lead 3rd, playing 2nd / 4th you play 2nd, hence the attidute information by a
2nd / 4th approach is reduced.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[Vampyr]

MUD gets a lot of bad press, but it is played extensively in England and doesn't seem to cause many problems.

[mgoetze]

The case for MUD

Traditionally, people like to lead high from a doubleton and 4th best from 4+ card holdings. This leaves the question of what to lead from xxx. Some people lead xxX. Then when they play a higher card next, partner often still has no clue whether they have 3 or 4. Some people play top of nothing, i.e. Xxx. This often can't be told apart from a doubleton. In the extreme, they may even lead Xxxx, making it really hard to tell opening leader's length when a high card is followed by a somewhat lower card. What's left? xXx. But if you then continue with the lower card you again have ambiguity vs. the doubleton. Enter MUD. By leading the 2nd and following with the higher card, partner will know we don't have a doubleton. The risk of confusion with a 4-card suit is much lower than if we lead xxX, the card we lead will ofen be so high that it is not feasible for us to have 3 higher cards. Partner will know we must have 3 cards. (Unless you also play MUD from 4 small...)

The case against MUD

After having seen that MUD is a really good idea just now, we note that the argument gives axiomatic status to some rather debatable statements. More obviously, whether you play high or low from a small doubleton is a pretty arbitrary decision. Now if you have Jx there is certainly some technical merit to leading the Jack. Tx, it's very unlikely to matter against a suit contract, but I see the point vs. NT. From 9x on down though I think it won't matter more than once in a blue moon. Your main worry will always be telling the doubleton from a singleton, and there may be small swings either way. If you have 98 you'll wish you were playing high from doubletons, and if you have 43 you'll wish you were playing low from doubletons. Enter what I call Polish-style 2/4 leads: you lead the 2nd or 4th best (possibly depending on your attitde, i.e. xXxx and HxxX) and continue by giving a UDCA count signal. In other words, MDU.

Instead we can also challenge the other assumption: leading 4th best from 4 cards. Yes, the rule of 11 is nice, but the rule of 10/12 is also workable. Enter "3rd and low" leads: you simply lead your lowest card from an odd number, and your 3rd best from an even number, and then continue by giving a standard count signal. I personally don't prefer this style but there are cases where it has advantages over 2/4, e.g. leading from KTx.

There are many combinations out there: 2/4 throughout, 3/low throughout, 2/4 vs. NT and 3/low vs. Suit, usually 2/4 but 3/5 in partner's suit... there is much to be said about their relative merits. Either way, it is likely much easier for partner to tell 2 from 4 or 3 from 5, than 2 from 3 or 3 from 4. Therefore, I think either of these styles are superior to MUD or top of nothing.

The case for something entirely different

Some people don't care about count at all and prefer to play purely attitude leads. Some people just find attitude much more important when playing specifically against 1NT or 2NT.

And I'm sure Slawinsky leads have technical merit, but I think they should be banned from the I/A forums - in my view they are Expert-level material. Learn to walk before you learn to run and all that. Where legal you can probably get all the advantages of Slawinsky and none of the disadvantages by playing Cryptoleads, if a suitable key is available.

But there are surely reasons why most experts play some form of 2/4 or 3/5, and if you still need to ask about the relative merits of MUD and top of nothing you are probably best served by learning 2/4 or 3/low instead.

[akhare]

+1 for Slawinski.

Note that pard and I play a version that was noted in the margins, i.e., upside down count without and honour and upside down without.

In other words, assuming H means J or higher, vs. suits we lead:

x from HXx, HXXXx, XXXx, Xx
x from HXxX
x from xXX, or occasionally x from XxX if x is potentially important (like 5 from 952 for example)

Also:

1) Normal leads in partner's suit or a suit we have bid naturally, including coded T/9

2) Normal leads when defending a 5+ level contract

It might seem daunting, but starting with the assumption that pard led from HXx or HXXXx makes it pretty easy.

[paulg]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-April-09, 22:25, said:

... you so rarely lead from 3 or 4 small I'm not hugely sure it matters ...

Very true. Leading from three small is a tough way to make a living.

[nigel_k]

It's hard to argue these kind of things because there are bad cases for any method and it becomes a question of frequency. And the frequencies are not something you can easily calculate mathematically or any other way. Slawinski's work is interesting though.

The clarity of the different options also depends on whether you normally lead 3rd or 4th.

Against suits I prefer 3rd/lowest, second choice is top which I think is actually ok, especially if you don't lead doubletons that often and declarer false cards as badly as 99% of declarers do. Against NT I prefer top, second choice is low. I never play MUD now (that and Multi are the only two things I will refuse to play with a casual partner) but did play it a lot years ago and it just seemed much harder to read.

[gnasher]

I quite often lead from three small or four small. It seems to work for me.

[kenrexford]

I really strain to lead fourth best from three small.

[Cthulhu D]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-10, 09:20, said:

But there are surely reasons why most experts play some form of 2/4 or 3/5, and if you still need to ask about the relative merits of MUD and top of nothing you are probably best served by learning 2/4 or 3/low instead.

Yeah, you prompted me to look up the polish carding and 2/4 or 3/5 makes a lot of sense.

[WellSpyder]

P_Marlowe, on 2012-April-10, 07:56, said:

MUD is to a certain extend related to 2nd / 4th leads, the bid difference is, that from
Hxx you lead 3rd, playing 2nd / 4th you play 2nd, hence the attidute information by a
2nd / 4th approach is reduced.

There is scope for confusion when playing 2nd/4th leads. This is a very common shorthand in England, where it actually means 4th highest from an honour but 2nd highest from poor suits. In other words
a)HxxX
b)xXxx
c)HxX
d)xXx
It is also normal to lead top of doubletons
e) Xx
Note that of these, only a), b) and d) are you actually leading your 2nd or 4th highest card. In c) the lead is your 3rd highest, and in e) it is your highest.

I believe that in some other places 2nd/4th means something much closer to literally leading your 2nd or 4th highest card...

[Cthulhu D]

I gather the poles lead the 2nd from a small doubleton yeah. So in A they lead 4th, B 2nd, C 2nd, D 2nd and E 2nd.

[mgoetze]

WellSpyder, on 2012-April-11, 04:09, said:

I believe that in some other places 2nd/4th means something much closer to literally leading your 2nd or 4th highest card...

Yes, that's why I called what I described in my post "Polish-style 2/4". I think what you described could reasonably be called "Stupid-style 2/4".

[paulg]

mgoetze, on 2012-April-12, 07:38, said:

Yes, that's why I called what I described in my post "Polish-style 2/4". I think what you described could reasonably be called "Stupid-style 2/4".

Given that almost the entire UK calls their leads 2/4, it is probably more diplomatic to call it "stupidly-named 2/4" given that it is often the 1st or 3rd card that is led (Xx HxX).

[mgoetze]

paulg, on 2012-April-12, 09:25, said:

Given that almost the entire UK calls their leads 2/4, it is probably more diplomatic to call it [...]

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind when I visit the UK.

[podforgod]

Hi there, can someone tell me what the “2/4” lead style is please?

[P_Marlowe]

podforgod, on 2018-September-15, 03:14, said:

Hi there, can someone tell me what the “2/4” lead style is please?

Start a New topic.
But in short: Non Honor lead, leading 2nd or 4th best of your longer suit.
If you decide to lead from xxxx, you can agree to lead 2nd, so that leading
4th adds the information, that you have values in the lead suit.
MUD is basically a variant, if you played add. length signals, than high - low
would indicate even parity.