[mike777]

Opp bid
1h-1s
1nt-2h
all Pass

you decide to lead a diamond; my question is what card is the correct one from T93?
The ten or three?

[jillybean]

What are your lead agreements?

I lead the T

[jschafer]

I would lead the T

[bluenikki]

mike777, on 2026-September-06, 21:46, said:

Opp bid
1h-1s
1nt-2h
all Pass

you decide to lead a diamond; my question is what card is the correct one from T93?
The ten or three?

I also lead the ten. But I'm protected: My partners know I strain to avoid leading doubletons.

[paulg]

mike777, on 2026-September-06, 21:46, said:

Opp bid
1h-1s
1nt-2h
all Pass

you decide to lead a diamond; my question is what card is the correct one from T93?
The ten or three?

I would lead the ten, but then small from three small has never been the British way.

I discovered, during a hand, that my wife leads the nine - "second from three or more small".

And my partner did it to me on Vugraph during the Scottish Cup final. It is not our agreement, but it is his with his regular partner. I looked at the commentator's comments later and she was surprised that I did not find the "obvious" club switch, but I was giving my partner a ruff. I was surprised when he showed up with three.

So the answer is clearly that there is not a correct card to lead with a random partner, but you should have agreements with a regular partner.

[jillybean]

Over here, MUD—Middle Up Down—and is a popular treatment. 9 then 10 from this sequence
I'm meh about it, but if partner wants to play it, I will.

I wonder if the popularity has anything to do with the name.

[WasWinM]

Depends on what I think is most important for partner to know, count or lack of honor if it can be read as not an interior sequence.

[Kaitlyn S]

WasWinM, on 2026-September-08, 11:39, said:

Depends on what I think is most important for partner to know, count or lack of honor if it can be read as not an interior sequence.

Lead the ten. Follow smoothly with the nine unless it costs a trick. Partner should assume you would play the 9 second from 10 9 x, and pay off when you hold exactly 10 9 doubleton.

[mike777]

Kaitlyn S, on 2026-September-08, 17:52, said:

Lead the ten. Follow smoothly with the nine unless it costs a trick. Partner should assume you would play the 9 second from 10 9 x, and pay off when you hold exactly 10 9 doubleton.

Strangely enough that was my plan and what I did...

Smile 😁


Hence the discussion after the game .

Partner had a different theory

[jillybean]

Playing UDCA and holding T9 tight, I lead the 9
Playing UDCA, following suit and holding T9 tight, I play the 9

[mike777]

jillybean, on 2026-September-08, 18:52, said:

Playing UDCA and holding T9 tight, I lead the 9

Dont, please

[jillybean]

mike777, on 2026-September-08, 19:25, said:

Dont, please

fixed

[Kaitlyn S]

jillybean, on 2026-September-08, 18:52, said:

Playing UDCA and holding T9 tight, I lead the 9
Playing UDCA, following suit and holding T9 tight, I play the 9

That raises an interesting point. In theory, if you lead the 10, when following suit the next time playing UDCA, "remaining count" says you play the 3. I think that common sense has to overrule rule following here. If you play the 3, partner doesn't know whether you started with 10 9 3 or 10 3. If you play the 4 after the 10, partner doesn't know whether you started the 10 9 4 or the 10 4.Same with 2, 5, 6, 7, 8. If you always follow with the 9 the second time, partner knows that you had a doubleton when you follow with the 3 or any other non-nine card. The only ambiguous card is the 9, and partner uses restricted choice to reason that you are far more likely to have 10 9 x than 10 9 doubleton. This, of course, assumes that you wouldn't lead the 10 from 10 4 3. I doubt that anybody in this forum would do that. IMO that's not even right in partner's suit, unless you supported showing three.

EDIT to add: Another way of dealing with the problem: cheat! You lead the 10 from 10 9 3 against a suit contract, dummy hits with QJx and partner wins the king and plays the ace. You ponder and play the nine. Partner returns something else because declarer is out. The director and committee (correctly IMO) rolled the play back to partner leading a third card playing you for a doubleton. Unfortunately, on BBO there is no director and you get away with it. You win this hand but with any justice, have put yourself on two players' block lists. I'd like to think that (a) if partner tanked, I would ethically play her for a doubleton, and (b) if I tanked and saw that I had gained a trick through such duplicity, that before the play was over, I would concede a trick to declarer (much to the chagrin of partner!) An ethical partner would understand. On the other hand, an ethical partner would have played me for a doubleton.

[WasWinM]

jillybean, on 2026-September-08, 18:52, said:

Playing UDCA and holding T9 tight, I lead the 9
Playing UDCA, following suit and holding T9 tight, I play the 9

A better question is playing third and fifth leads, what do you lead? Still the 10?

[WasWinM]

Kaitlyn S, on 2026-September-08, 17:52, said:

Lead the ten. Follow smoothly with the nine unless it costs a trick. Partner should assume you would play the 9 second from 10 9 x, and pay off when you hold exactly 10 9 doubleton.

You're making a big assumption (that there will be a second chance to lead or follow suit.) I think need to know can take precedence over routine or standard.
RHO is declaring 5S after LHO opened 1C and partner overcalled one heart. On the lead of a heart, it is probably more important for partner to immediately know how many hearts you hold. The lead of the 10 is an unnecessary risk of confusing partner into thinking you have a doubleton. I think it is better in that or some similar situation to lead low from 109x and not slavishly lead the 10. If only one heart will cash, partner will win and switch to a diamond and maybe he has the Q.

[Kaitlyn S]

You assume that partner might play you for T9x when you lead low. Some partners would assume you had a singleton because they wouldn't dream of leading low from T9x.

[WasWinM]

Kaitlyn S, on 2026-September-09, 21:57, said:

You assume that partner might play you for T9x when you lead low. Some partners would assume you had a singleton because they wouldn't dream of leading low from T9x.

I think partner, hearing the bidding and seeing his hand and dummy's can figure out the chances I have led a singleton. That argument is kind of a reach, isn't it? Surely you agree that there are times when count at trick 1 is critical?

[Kaitlyn S]

WasWinM, on 2026-September-09, 22:27, said:

I think partner, hearing the bidding and seeing his hand and dummy's can figure out the chances I have led a singleton. That argument is kind of a reach, isn't it? Surely you agree that there are times when count at trick 1 is critical?

Of course, it could be critical. I think we are talking from different points of view. You are probably assuming that partner is your favorite partner that you can have such lead agreements with and plays the game of bridge quite well. I am speaking from a more practical standpoint. I frequently play with partners that on a good day can make 3NT with ten tricks on top because I like them as people. Some of them have enough bridge sense to think about my lead and whet I might have. If they misdefend the hand based on the fact that I could never have the 10 9 3 when I lead the 3, it is definitely my fault. Much of the time, my job is to make partner's life as easy as possible. I believe the same would apply when you play with a random partner in the Main Bridge Club. Also, I suspect that when your GIB advanced robot partner does it's double dummy simulations, it will not consider hands where you hold the 10 9 3 when you lead the 3.

[pescetom]

jillybean, on 2026-September-08, 09:48, said:

Over here, MUD—Middle Up Down—and is a popular treatment. 9 then 10 from this sequence
I'm meh about it, but if partner wants to play it, I will.

I wonder if the popularity has anything to do with the name.

I think it was originally a British thing, but clearly out of fashion for players of paulg level. At world class level, Zia is still fond of it, I doubt he has much company.

[paulg]

pescetom, on 2026-September-10, 07:06, said:

I think it was originally a British thing, but clearly out of fashion for players of paulg level. At world class level, Zia is still fond of it, I doubt he has much company.

Michael Rosenberg is fond of MUD, except in partner's suit.

I really don't think it makes any significant difference what your leading agreements are, as long as your partner is doing the same.