You presume that the first hand has led from strength, and, if you have a high card in his suit, you lie over him when it is led again; whereas, if you play your high card second hand, you get rid of a commanding card of the adversary's suit, and, when it is returned, the original leader finesses against you. Besides this, the third player will put on his highest card, and, if it is better than yours, you have wasted power to no purpose.
If, however, you have a sequence of high cards, you should put on one of the sequence second hand, for, if you pass the trick altogether, the third hand may win with a very low card, or, with his low card, may force a high one from your partner. The chief objection to playing an unsupported high card does not apply, as the leader cannot successfully finesse against you in the next round.
With a moderate sequence, such as queen, knave—knave, ten—ten, nine—you play the lowest of the sequence if you are numerically weak; but, withmore than three cards of the suit, you pass a small card led, agreeably to the principle already discussed—that in weak suits you play to strengthen your partner, but in strong ones you leave him to help you. For instance: the leader (A) has king, ten, nine, eight, seven of a suit; the second player (Y) has queen, knave, and one small one; the fourth player (Z) has ace and two small ones. A leads a small card; Y should play the knave; if he does not, the card led forces Z's ace. It is true that this happens also if Y passes with queen, knave, and two small ones; but Y, in this case, has a guard to his queen and knave, and is left with the two winning cards after the second round of the suit.
With a sequence lower than ten, nine, there is no advantage in putting on one of the sequence; so the lowest should then be played second hand, in conformity with the general principle.