[blackshoe]

It's never been clear to me what the deal is with the subject lead. It looks like some people claim to play "3rd and 5th" but actually play "3rd and lowest" and some do it the other way 'round. So if you play this, how exactly do you play it? What are the relative merits of one method over the other? I presume this is played only vs. suits. If you disagree, feel free to say so. :-)

[Phil]

3rd and low is best. Just like its tricky to differentiate between 3rd and 4th playing 4th best, its hard to tell 5 from 6 playing 3rd and 5th.

[WellSpyder]

 Phil, on 2017-February-01, 09:30, said:

3rd and low is best. Just like its tricky to differentiate between 3rd and 4th playing 4th best, its hard to tell 5 from 6 playing 3rd and 5th.

Phil, it's not clear to me whether this difficulty is why you play 3rd and lowest, or because you play 3rd and lowest. If you play 5th from 6 then presumably opening leader might have a 6th card if there is still a lower spot card missing. But if you play 3rd and lowest, then presumably opening leader might have a 6th card if there is still a higher spot card missing....

[Phil]

 WellSpyder, on 2017-February-01, 09:36, said:

...But if you play 3rd and lowest, then presumably opening leader might have a 6th card if there is still a higher spot card missing....

You lead 3rd from 6. Maybe you knew this but the comment doesnt convey you do.

Anyway, the idea is leaders partner should be able to figure out length based on a 2 card difference, ie

T32.......2
T432......3
T5432.....2
T65432....5
T765432...2

[WellSpyder]

Thanks, Phil - all makes sense now.

[Zelandakh]

 Phil, on 2017-February-01, 10:04, said:

T32.......2
T432......3
T5432.....2
T65432....5
T765432...2

Has there ever been a good analysis comparing the above with "highest available unimportant card" for even holdings? As in:-
T32.......2
T432......4
T5432.....2
T65432....6
T765432...2

It seems to me not immediately clear that the negative from this (eg no Rule of 10/12/15) outweighs the positive (potentially clearer signals) and the comparison might be interesting.

[wank]

3+low and 3+5 are supposed to be the same. it's just that some people playing 3+5 don't understand it properly, i.e. that you're supposed to lead low from odd and 3rd from even, so for disclosure purposes it's just easier to say 3+low so the opps know you play it properly.

people who don't understand it presumably think they can extrapolate it from the name. it's just a name, not a manual. in the same way that playing 4th doesn't mean your low card is always your 4th highest.

[Zelandakh]

 wank, on 2017-February-01, 19:32, said:

people who don't understand it presumably think they can extrapolate it from the name. it's just a name, not a manual. in the same way that playing 4th doesn't mean your low card is always your 4th highest.

I know some players that always lead 4th highest from their longest and strongest against NT where partner has not bid, even if the suit is AKQT.

[helene_t]

It is sometimes called "odd leads". In a Dutch high-level team match, there was an insident a few years ago where a lead was explained as 1-3-5 and declarer asked if it could also be 7th

[Phil]

 Zelandakh, on 2017-February-01, 17:06, said:

Has there ever been a good analysis comparing the above with "highest available unimportant card" for even holdings? As in:-
T32.......2
T432......4
T5432.....2
T65432....6
T765432...2

Yes. My friend David Weiss developed "Parity Leads" and they apply the principle of 'highest card you can afford from even / lowest from odd".

http://www.davidjwei...eatTrickOne.htm

[Zelandakh]

 Phil, on 2017-February-02, 07:04, said:

Yes. My friend David Weiss developed "Parity Leads" and they apply the principle of 'highest card you can afford from even / lowest from odd".

http://www.davidjwei...eatTrickOne.htm

Ok, that at least tells me that the idea does indeed have some merit. Has anyone done some balanced analysis though, looking at the negative as well as focusing on the positive?