On May 9, 10:52=A0am, 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
***************
Hank,
I must ask this question.
Where are the T and 9 and 8 of diamonds?
The more of those intermediates that South is missing, the more
reasonable his line of play because he expects to lose a diamond in
any case. By the same token, the more of those intermediates that he
has, the less reasonable is his play.
Still, there is this aspect to consider:
In November 2005, Anders Wirgrenn published an article on signalling
in bridge that, in essence, claimed that the interpretation of 3rd
hand's carding should focus on the a priori analysis and, in general,
ignore declarer's card.
In this case, that dictum could apply as follows: Assume the diamond
spots missing are the K, T, 4,3, and 2. In this case, West is leading
the 4 (from KT4, the 3 (from KT43 or KT3 or K43 or T43) or the deuce
(from KT42, KT32, K432, KT2, K42, K32, T42, or T32) under the
assumption that EW ae leading 4th best. (Obviously the case is
different if EW are leading 3rd and lowest.)
So in the most dramatic case, the lead of the deuce, it is a singleton
in 1 case and a length lead in 8 cases. The lead of the 3 is a
singleton once, a doubleton once and from length in 4 cases. The lead
of the 4 is from length once, from a doubleton 2 additional times, and
from a singleton once.
So, without adjusting for whether hands with singletons are, or are
not, more frequent than hands without singletons, one would suspect
that a low lead is from length more often then from a singleton, and
the lower the spot the more substantial the difference.
I don't know, frankly, if Anders would agree with the application of
his idea to declarer's interpretation of opening leads, but it would
seem that South would have to have a pretty strong hunch that West was
unbalanced to go against the a priori odds, even if they are not
exactly 8-1.
Henrysun909
|
