[Swammerdam]

It was 65 years ago that my grandmother (an ACBL Life Master) taught me the mantra "Second hand low; Third hand high."
I'll guess that experts laugh at that mantra; The many cases where it holds are too trivial to think about; it's the exceptions which are interesting.
BUT I wish some of the players at BBO knew the basics of card play. I blame the modern age! In the old days people bought textbooks, some of which covered all the beginner aspects of bridge thoroughly. Now it's hit-or-miss with random Google hits (or no learning at all).

One pet peeve is players who follow 3rd-hand with the Q from QJ. This is NOT a matter of partnership agreement. The J is ALWAYS more informative. An expert might rarely play the Q to deceive declarer, but these BBO'ers know nothing; they only deceive partner. (One tutored me with the "3rd hand high" rule -- the Queen is higher than the Jack!)

I see weird opening leads: 9 from K9543 is popular. WTF?

But yesterday I think my partner made a good play. I led 4♠ against 3NT; dummy had 10-7-6; my partner had K-J-3 and played the Jack! Brilliant? Whatever we do, we'll either lose a trick to declarer's Q-5 OR block the suit. Her play was unnecessary BUT prevented me (entryless except for A♠) from mistakenly winning Ace at trick 2. Was she clever? Or just "finessing partner" like some BBOers do routinely?

(In fact, declarer had nine top tricks once he took the Q♠ but played ridiculously. I may need a better venue than "Casual Games.")

- - - - - - - - -

I hope this thread can become a repository for others' useful ideas about carding.

[bluenikki]

The refusal to play third hand high by casual players on BBO confuses me. If they decide I've made a short-suit lead and refuse to play K from Kxxx, I can understand, even though I strain not to lead short suits. But from Kxx.

It does not occur to them that I will place too many honors in declarer's hand and misdefend as a result.

(They also refuse to cover an honor.)

[pescetom]

 Swammerdam, on 2025-April-14, 07:11, said:

One pet peeve is players who follow 3rd-hand with the Q from QJ. This is NOT a matter of partnership agreement. The J is ALWAYS more informative.

I was taught J from QJ, but did not spot an inherent overall advantage such that one could not agree the opposite. Is there one?

[smerriman]

 pescetom, on 2025-April-14, 15:11, said:

I was taught J from QJ, but did not spot an inherent overall advantage such that one could not agree the opposite. Is there one?

Partner leads from the K, you play an honor, declarer plays the A.. only one of the two agreements helps partner know if you have the other one, doesn't it?

[Swammerdam]

An exception to "third-hand high" is with AQx when you're almost certain declarer does not have singleton K. Not only does the Q play allow you to discover the K's location, but declarer will be afraid to hold up if he doesn't know where the Ace is. Are there other common exceptions?

smerriman, on 2025-April-14, 15:49, said:

Partner leads from the K, you play an honor, declarer plays the A.. only one of the two agreements helps partner know if you have the other one, doesn't it?

Yes. If you know partner plays correctly his playing the Q tells you he does NOT have the J. Defense is MUCH easier when partner can be relied on to follow this simple rule.

Top experts, eager to deceive declarer when partner doesn't matter, might deviate from this rule 2% of the time or so. Please wait until you're a top expert to get so imaginative!

Similarly, play T from JTx, play Q from KQx; play J from KQJ etc.

I do remember one expert (when I played regularly 55 years ago) who suggested playing the Ten or such from QJT98, not the Eight. Does this really matter?

[Stephen Tu]

There's one lesser known card combination, where you aren't supposed to play lowest from equals third hand.

Partner leads low vs NT, dummy has like xx, and you have QJT. You should falsecard the J!. If partner has the K, it doesn't matter, declarer holds up and you play q then ten to clear the suit. But when partner has the ace, declarer wins the K, and partner gets in first, this is where the falsecard helps.

If you played the T, partner may think you have JTx, and declarer has Kqx, and he needs to get you in to run the suit. This is bad when you can run the suit now, and partner playing something else lets declarer make it.

On the other hand, if you play the J, partner should reason that either you have QJx (in which playing the suit again is right), or you have Jxx, in which case declarer has KQT and always a double stop and entitled to two tricks in the suit anyway, so he might as well duck the suit to declarer in the second case also, then can run the suit if you get in.

[mikeh]

Classic example of third hand low…defending against notrump where, on the auction, it seems clear that declarer has either the Ace or the King….

Partner leads a 4th best spot….consistent with having 5 cards. You hold Qxx, dummy J10x.

Declarer calls for the Jack.

If partner has AKxx(x) you need to play the Queen, and run the suit. If partner has Kxxxx, your play is, within the suit itself, irrelevant. Declarer has two stoppers. Whether you play the queen depends on whether you think it’s more important to let partner know that opener doesn’t have AQx…. If partner wins the first defensive trick you’d like him to know the situation. But if you expect to win your side’s first trick, then play low because…..

But…if declarer has Kx, and partner Axxxx, then you must duck!

Coupled with playing smith echo (I play reverse smith, which is the more common version), Partner may be in a position to lay down the Ace if he gets in…holding declarer to just one trick.

This situation is difficult to play without giving partner UI. Say partner leads a spot…declarer calls quickly for the Jack…..and you tank before playing low. Now partner has to lean over backwards to avoid using your hesitation to guide his play….here’s where playing some form of smith really helps because (so long as your signal is clear) partner can ignore your hesitation and rely upon your perfectly proper smith echo.

You’ll have seen that not only is there an ethical issue if third hand hesitates but that there is no guaranteed best play. As is often the case, and part of what makes bridge so fascinating, you need to be willing to draw inferences (for example, whether partner could have AKxx(x)) and you need partner to be familiar with the situation, otherwise he won’t cater to you having ducked from Qxx.

Btw,it’s very useful for third hand to ALWAYS pause for thought at trick one, even if declarer calls for dummy’s card instantly. But you need to do it everytime or you create UI situations.

And it’s perfectly ok for declarer to call quickly and to take advantage of any third hand leaks.Maybe that shouldn’t be so, but it is. Opening leader, otoh,is ethically required to avoid later plays made attractive by UI.

[Swammerdam]

Thanks much for the replies. I am learning much! Exceptions to normal 3rd-hand play are VERY interesting.

I'd never heard of Smith echoes (though I'd read a lot of Bridge Worlds from the 1960s). Recently I read about "rotating discards" or some such, which seem almost masochistic in the opportunity for confusion. But at this very late stage in my "bridge career" I'd be happy to find more BBOers who simply follow high on opening lead to encourage continuation. There are "Advanced" players who don't even do this!

Other than Lavinthal discards, which were pretty standard in the late 1960's, the only unusual carding convention I heard of way back then was Foster echoes (play 2nd-best if can't win trick) when following to an opening lead at No Trump. This seems OK to me, but I read on the 'Net it is obsolete.

[blackshoe]

Revolving Discards, I suspect.

[Swammerdam]

The very next day Wolff's "Aces on Bridge" #359 shows another exception to 3rd Hand High.

Holding J7652♥, partner leads 3♥ against 3NT; dummy has K4♥ and plays small. You must not follow High with the Jack -- that Jack is your entry to cash your fifth heart and set the contract.