Here's the original question that inspired this one: It was about whether West should lead a short major instead of a long, weak minor when the opponents failed to find a fit using Stayman. A number of people weighed in with both statistical and experiential analysis of why the long weak suit was (somewhat) better. That result doesn't surprise me.
Even so, does it make sense to lead the spade one or two times out of ten in order to confuse declarers that are accustomed to West's leading long suits? Meaning that a declarer might be led to "finesse" into the East hand or make other misplays? Plus the fact that doubt is then cast on his ability to read West's hand in general.
Making the occasional "suboptimal" play is a staple of poker for "bluffing purposes." (If you are bluffing, you are making an inferior play and hoping to "get away" with it. And if you are "caught," your opponents can't be sure that you are playing "honestly" next time.) Is there anything that stands in the way of doing this in bridge?