[manudude03]

I've always believed that when people are being taught, it is just simpler to teach 4th best. You will always have a suit with at least 4 cards in it, but you are not going to be guaranteed to have a 5 card suit, and so if playing 3/5*, you need to know what to lead from a 4 card suit, and then if partner doesn't know how to apply the rule of 10 and 12 properly, they may not be able to play the right card in 3rd seat. As a 3rd best lead is usually a lower card than a 2nd best lead, it is more likely there will be ambiguity regarding if it was a 3rd best lead from a 4 card suit or a 5th best lead from a longer suit.

*Assuming the normal 3/5 as opposed to the 3/low which is sometimes played.

[barmar]

manudude03, on 2016-March-15, 17:18, said:

I've always believed that when people are being taught, it is just simpler to teach 4th best. You will always have a suit with at least 4 cards in it, but you are not going to be guaranteed to have a 5 card suit

Although often there will be reasons why leading from your 4-card suit may not be best, like if the opponents bid the suit. So there's still some ambiguity.

[1eyedjack]

I am curious to know with what frequency all y'all consider the rule of 11 (or as the case may be the rule of 10 and 12) to be relevant to the defence,

I have a vague recollection of a time some decades ago when I first learned the game and was struck by the elegance of the rule of 11, and I would religiously go through the mechanical exercise of working it out on every hand possible, as part of the discipline of the overall plan.. But these days I cannot remember the last time that I actually applied it at the table. That could be because the potential for its adding value is infrequent (ie dummy wins trick 1, or dummy only has low cards etc). Or it could be because the right card to play is kind of obvious, without doing the maths (but that may just be an instinct honed by experience).

[Mbodell]

ggwhiz, on 2016-February-25, 09:49, said:

I also remember reading that Hampson (and Levine and Weinstein) are regarded as the types that will beat anyone in a KO but are not great at racking up big matchpoints against random fields so it comes down to what style of player you want to be.

I don't know about Levine, but I'll back Hampson, Weinstein, and Bobby Levin all putting up good match point scores in pretty much any field!

Robotic 4th best is obviously terrible. The double dummy best lead is frequently not 4th best, but frequently making more speculative leads also makes defending the hand more difficult to read. Some form of Smith echo can be very helpful then in my opinion.

There are also reasons to not lead 4th best in a suit you lead, like you are leading rho's suit and have 5 of them, often lead 5th since the spots might matter. Or you have AKxx, lead the attitude A/K, not 4th best.

[rhm]

1eyedjack, on 2016-March-15, 21:20, said:

I am curious to know with what frequency all y'all consider the rule of 11 (or as the case may be the rule of 10 and 12) to be relevant to the defence,

I have a vague recollection of a time some decades ago when I first learned the game and was struck by the elegance of the rule of 11, and I would religiously go through the mechanical exercise of working it out on every hand possible, as part of the discipline of the overall plan.. But these days I cannot remember the last time that I actually applied it at the table. That could be because the potential for its adding value is infrequent (ie dummy wins trick 1, or dummy only has low cards etc). Or it could be because the right card to play is kind of obvious, without doing the maths (but that may just be an instinct honed by experience).

This is the crux of the matter.
The times when fourth best really helps my defense are few and far between, while as declarer I find it often useful to know how the suit is likely to break.
That's why people sometimes depart from fourth best to fool declarer.
But fourth best seems to me a signal, which breaks even at best. I have given up zero or two higher honors (sometimes called coded leads) for the same reason. It seems to help declarer more than partner.
Not all signals are created equal in this respect. On balance some seem to benefit partner more and some declarer.

Attitude leads are an alternative against notrump contracts.
Attitude leads are clearly superior when you decide to lead passive. Choosing second best from a poor suit is not quite the same.
The way I play attitude leads I have a lot of leeway.
The card led is not only determined by the length and quality of the suit led, but by the whole hand and how much I hold in other suits.
If I have a second suit, to which a switch might be welcome, I might choose a different card than when not.
Declarer gets the same information, but it seems less useful to him.
Whether I lead high or low, he never knows how the suit is breaking, while partner is rarely in the dark. It seems to me declarer has not the same benefit from this lead than partner.
Of course there is a learning curve for this lead.
For example I am reluctant to waste the 9 or even 8 say from a "worthless" three card or longer holding and will often choose a lower card.

Rainer Herrmann

[mikestar13]

For me, leading from my longest suit against NT is the default--what I will do if I am in doubt after I have considered the evidence. Players who are not so good at considering the evidence will lead from the long suit more often than more experienced players who can spot the cases where another lead is better. But I think the important point is don't reject the lead just because your long suit is weak, analyze the bidding and collect as much evidence as you can, then decide. A small point: most NT defensive advice is geared towards defending 3NT--an alternative lead is more likely to be right against 1NT or 6NT. As for the 4th best vs. third or fifth, you follow whatever your partnership agreement is, and something this fundamental should be discussed. Another agreement that a partnership might decide on is attitude leads from long suits: high spot=weak suit, low spot=strong suit. This doesn't allow third hand the use of the rule of 11 (or 10/12), but also denies this information to declarer.