[kgr]

When playing 3th/5th leads:
- What is the normal lead from a 6-card?
I read in a system of a pair that plays 3th/5th leads, that they lead 4th from a 6-card. Is that normal/better?
It seemed more logic to me, to lead 5th from a 6-card.
Thanks,
Koen

[JLOGIC]

3rd

[JLOGIC]

leading 5th makes no sense...you are trying to tell partner you have 6 not 5, and if you lead 2nd low he will never know if delcarer has the lower spot or not (declarer might falsecard!).

[paulg]

From good suits we play 3rd from three or four, 5th from five and 4th from six as recommended by Slawinski. Seems to work fine.

As we also lead small from xx and top from xxx(+) it makes explaining our leads interesting (we lead top, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th ... never sixth unless suit preference).

p

[whereagles]

Jeff Ruben's original idea of odd leads was, if I recall correctly,

"Low from an odd number, 3rd best from an even number."

In subsequent tricks you'd play spot cards in a way to tell the exact number. Don't remember details on this last point because it seldom mattered in practice.

[kgr]

Seems like some play:
3th from 6
4th from 6
and some play:
3th from 5
5th from 5
I thought it was best to play 5th from 5+
Why is it better to lead 3th or 4th from 6? How will that be more clear? And if you lead 3th from 6, do you lead 5th from 5?
(and why would it be better to lead 3th from 5).

[paulg]

 kgr, on 2011-August-30, 04:39, said:

I thought it was best to play 5th from 5+
Why is it better to lead 3th or 4th from 6? How will that be more clear? And if you lead 3th from 6, do you lead 5th from 5?
(and why would it be better to lead 3th from 5).

If you always lead 5th from 5+, then partner has little idea whether you have a five or six-card suit. If you lead 5th from five, and 3rd (or fourth) from six then partner will see a number of cards are missing. From the auction it should easier to determine where two or three missing small cards are than a single small card.

This comes with no guarantee

[kgr]

 paulg, on 2011-August-30, 06:16, said:

If you always lead 5th from 5+, then partner has little idea whether you have a five or six-card suit. If you lead 5th from five, and 3rd (or fourth) from six then partner will see a number of cards are missing. From the auction it should easier to determine where two or three missing small cards are than a single small card.

This comes with no guarantee

Thanks (My idea was that 5th was ok, because you can play you 6th later to clarify the length, but 3th is better to give an immediate idea of the length length from 6).
We always play 3rd/5th, also against NT.
But we sometimes lead 4th (f.i. with AQ83 against NT).
It seems therefor best to me to lead 3th from 6, except if you don't want to lead the 3th (f.i AQT732 against NT)?
Or is there an advantage to lead 4th from 6?

[Phil]

3rd obv

This is one of those areas that just hasn't caught on with even a lot of good players.

I'm filling out a cc with somebody decent....

"3rd and 5th ok"?

"prefer 3rd and low"...

[1eyedjack]

Helge Vinje recommended leading 4th from a 6 card suit (in a system where generally the lead was 3rd and 5th). His theories may be a bit dated by now, and I forget the rationale but I expect that it went something like this:

The important point is to distinguish a 6 card suit from a 5 card suit. From the bidding, partner will normally not confuse a 6 card suit with a 4 carder (or shorter).
From a 5 card suit, you would lead 5th card. To lead 5th also from a 6 card suit would leave open significant scope for ambiguity over whether the suit length was 5 or 6.

3rd highest card in the suit is much more likely than 4th highest to be an unaffordable active card. This is a general problem when leading from a 4 card suit and is possibly the single most influential factor in players ditching 3rd and 5th (in favour of leading bottom from doubleton etc).

Leading 4th highest provides (arguably) the optimal mix of leading a card which is (1) not an unaffordable active card and (2) likely to be distinguishable from 5th from 5.
Obviously, leading 3rd would reduce the prospect for ambiguity per (2), but the price to be paid in respect of factor (1) is too high.

Not saying that I agree with all of that, but it is I think the argument for the treatment suggested. Personally I prefer to lead 4th highest full stop, bottom from xX, top of Xxx and middle from hXx, but that is an argument for another day.

[paulg]

 kgr, on 2011-August-30, 08:00, said:

Thanks (My idea was that 5th was ok, because you can play you 6th later to clarify the length, but 3th is better to give an immediate idea of the length length from 6).
We always play 3rd/5th, also against NT.
But we sometimes lead 4th (f.i. with AQ83 against NT).
It seems therefor best to me to lead 3th from 6, except if you don't want to lead the 3th (f.i AQT732 against NT)?
Or is there an advantage to lead 4th from 6?

I believe that the idea of 4th from six is that it helps distinguish it from top of three (or four) small, while still not looking like it is from five.

[JLOGIC]

 Phil, on 2011-August-30, 08:47, said:

3rd obv

This is one of those areas that just hasn't caught on with even a lot of good players.

I'm filling out a cc with somebody decent....

"3rd and 5th ok"?

"prefer 3rd and low"...

Really? That is shocking, I didn't know anyone would lead 5th from 6 lol. I thought that's why everyone says "3rd from even, low from odd" rather than 3rd and 5th now. But I believe you, perhaps I live in a bubble of people who know not to do this.

[Siegmund]

It's a remarkably common affliction to misguidedly lead 5th from 6. I don't know why. It seemed perfectly clear to me to lead 3rd from the first time I heard about it.

[FrancesHinden]

 Phil, on 2011-August-30, 08:47, said:

3rd obv

This is one of those areas that just hasn't caught on with even a lot of good players.

I'm filling out a cc with somebody decent....

"3rd and 5th ok"?

"prefer 3rd and low"...

I always thought that 3rd & 5th technically meant 3rd highest from even (or 3 cards), 5th highest from odd. 3rd & low is what I actually play (although it's commonly also called 3rd & 5th) which is 3rd from even, bottom from odd. The difference is what you lead from a 7-card suit. I thought both versions led 3rd from 6.

[kgr]

Thanks all for the instructive answer. I never thought or read about this before and this is where I was coming from:

 Siegmund, on 2011-August-30, 20:29, said:

It's a remarkably common affliction to misguidedly lead 5th from 6. I don't know why.

[jillybean]

Hallelujah! One of my partners tried to explain this as 3rd if you want the suit continued, 5th if you don't.
There was so much confusion I no longer play "3rd/5th" but play "3rd from even, low from odd"

[inquiry]

In the partnership I lead 3rd/5th with we do the following...

3rd from even, lowest from odd, with the following exception.

If we have shown a long suit (5+), and then lead that suit, we lead

Lowest from six, 3rd best from five or seven (backassward from normal). We try not defend with an eight card suit, so not sure what we would lead then.

[Lurpoa]

 JLOGIC, on 2011-August-30, 11:37, said:

Really? That is shocking, I didn't know anyone would lead 5th from 6 lol. I thought that's why everyone says "3rd from even, low from odd" rather than 3rd and 5th now. But I believe you, perhaps I live in a bubble of people who know not to do this.

♥♥♥

and the most important:
agree on this with partner !!!


That is more important, than knowing what is best.


♥♥♥