On May 9, 9:22 pm, Bob Lipton <boblip...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Histriadogsilver wrote:
> > On May 9, 7:52 pm, Hank Youngerman <dontspa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> the reason I posted that hand, is that these are the hands:
>
> >> Jxx
> >> AK
> >> AQxxx
> >> Axx
>
> >> AQTxxxx
> >> xx
> >> Jxx
> >> x
>
> >> My partner, as declarer, won the low diamond lead with the Ace, lost
> >> the spade finesse, and scored a 10% board for making 5. His later
> >> comment was "I should have looked at the guy's profile. He was an
> >> intermediate player, and an intermediate might have led away from the
> >> diamond K, but I assumed it had to be a singleton because why risk
> >> leading from the King?
>
> >> It's one thing to lead passively yourself. But I thought it was a
bit
> >> extreme to assume a far less likely layout (small stiff on his left)
> >> than that the opponent might have failed to lead passively. The
small
> >> stiff is about a 5% shot, I think.
>
> >> On May 8, 3:25 pm, Hank Youngerman <dontspa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>> Matchpoints, both vul, you hold:
> >>> Kx
> >>> Txx
> >>> Kxx
> >>> T8xxx
> >>> With your side silent, your LHO opens:
> >>> 3S - 4C
> >>> 4H - 4S
> >>> 4C is keycard, 4H shows one keycard. (Please ignore the bidding,
> >>> there was a mixup - this is what you have been told.)
>
> > I am not a world champion but just look at Hugh Kelsey's, Mike
> > Lawrence's and Kantar's books on defense and what they have to say on
> > the subject mentioned by your partner i.e. the never ending story that
> > you can hear from time to time and it goes: 'never lead away from the
> > king'.
>
> Yes, but for an expert, 'never' isn't as long as for a beginner.
>
> Let's reduce this to a simple solution: you can, let us say, eliminate
> one suit from consideration. Your other choices are trumps, and you
> know they have at least eight and not more than nine cards in it. You
> have low doubleton. The other two suits are each K42, and you are told
> specifically that leading one side suit will gain a trick and one will
> lose a trick and the trump lead will break even. Which do you lead?
>
> You may suffer and stew over it, but I lead the trump. Why? Well, the
> gain one-lose-one equation will break even on guessing at MP AND
> DECLARER MIGHT BOTCH THE PLAY WITHOUT IT. In other words, it's not win
> one lose one, a straight 50% shot, it's win one 48%, lose one 52%. Or
> maybe more. And, of course given the foog of war, you don't know this
> specifically; any of these leads might be right in real life, since you
> may be stopping a ruff. And of course, it doesn't matter whether you're
> winning eight tricks with the neutral lead or 12, you expect the field
> to be at about the same level.
>
> That's at MP, of course. At IMPs the equation changes dramatically.
> You tell me once again that the trump lead lets the contract make on the
> nose, while underleading one of the kings sets it and leading the other
> will let the overtrick make, you will see me stewing and finally
> underleading a king. Nominally I have a 50% chance of letting an
> overtrick through, which will give up an IMP, but I also have a 50%
> chance of setting the contract, which can range from five IMPs (partial
> contract vulnerable) to seventeen IMPs (6 of a major or NT.... and if
> you include grand slams, it's more). I will take any even odd bet when
> the other side is offering between five and seventeen to one odd. It's
> what makes Lightner Doubles worthwhile.
>
> That's why I prefer IMPs: at IMPs the payoff comes when you're right.
> At MP it comes when you're simply not wrong. It feels better, too.
>
> Bob
I remember one of Kelsey's: If you are likely to loose a king on a
finesse, give them an early guess (in my own words, and only because I
don't have his book with me right now).
Cheers
Boris
|
