standard splitting

[kenberg]

You are defending, it's the middle of the hand, declarer leads a card frmo dummy and you, second hand, decide to play an honor. Let's suppose that this is a hand where you do not wish to deceive anyone. You wish to make your honor card holding in the suit as clear as possible.

 

 

Watching the Reisinger, second hand played the J from KJTx. There was some discussion, with no consensus, among the commentators as to whether the J or the T is standard and which is best. My rule of thumb has always been that if you split, you split with the card that would have played first hand at trick 1 making standard leads, even if you are not in fact playing standard leads at trick 1. Thus I too would play the J here.

 

I play pick-up a lot on BBO so knowing what standard is (if there is a standard here) would be useful. Of course I am also interested in hearing arguments about what agreement is best.

 

Ground rules: You are defending, playing second hand, decide to split, and you are not trying for deception. This leaves it open as to whether the lead is from dummy or from declarer if that matters. By no means is this meant to be restricted to the specific holding of KJTx. It's a general question about how to split.

 

Ken

[Finch]

I believe 'standard', such as it is, is to play the lowest card from touching honours in such a position. This is an extension of rising from AK: if you rise with the king and it holds, partner is often correct assume that you have the ace, but if you rise with the ace the location of the king is unknown.

 

There are some good arguments that the highest card from other holdings is better, but I don't believe this is 'standard'.

 

If you get into detailed analysis, there are times where in fact the middle card from three is best, but only in some specific situations.

[mikeh]

I actually raised this while commentating on the Reisinger, so I think it is a good topic ;)

 

I play 'top down': that is, I play the top of the sequence, as if I were on opening lead...bearing in mind that I play standard leads.

 

I know others who split 'bottom up', as Francs says she does. I have never looked deeply into the issue: from my perspective it seems that the important issue is that both partners are on the same wavelength.

[Chamaco]

Kantar suggests that, when splitting second hand, the defender plays the honor he would play if leading the suit on opening lead.

[Guest Jlall]

I split low from 2 and high from 3 but this is not standard. I don't think there is any standard when it comes to splitting.

[inquiry]

I go up... playing the "standard" lead card.

[han]

I play them like Justin said.

[pclayton]

I was always taught split to 2nd highest. I've been advised since that you split what you would lead.

 

I'm experimenting with my real life pard splitting to show present count. With an even number remaining split highest and with an odd number split 2nd highest.

 

Theres a certain logic to it when it comes up.

[Flame]

I asked same question on begginers board not long ago.

I think std is high (but K from AK), but playing low is more common and with pickup i would play low.

[kenberg]

Both the discussion during the Reisinger and the discussion here seems to bear out what I have seen in practice. If you are playing with a pick-up and he plays the J second hand after a lead from the dummy you really have no idea if this denies the queen or suggests the queen. In a fair number of cases, it's important. I looked at BBO advanced. Nothing. I'm pretty sure SAYC write-ups are silent. My guess is that knowing what partner means by that J will be crucial to your score far more often than having the latest high tech bidding agreements. As mentioned, the crucial item is to be on the same page as partner. Which agreement you have matters less than that you have an agreement. (What else is new.) Maybe there should be some default stipulations about such items for BBO play. Maybe there is, and I just don't know it.

 

The bare plurality of a small sample appears to favor "split as if you were leading" and I like it as well. But it does nothing for us if partner has no clue about what we intend, and no one appears to expect partner to understand it as a matter of common knowledge.

 

Ken

[Double !]

This rationale might not be compelling, but I have always felt that the lower of touching honors might be the preferable card to play because it would be more difficult for declarer to falsecard due to the fact that there would be at least one more missing card between the card that I played and the card that declarer played, making it more likely that my partner would be able to read the situation. I am willing to acknowledge the fact that my view is a minority opinion. It's more important, I believe, that you and your P just agree on which to play and go with it. However, it is nice to know what the expert opinion on this issue is...thanks

 

DHL

[Winstonm]

My understanding - which of course could be wrong - is that in this situation when trying to show partner your holding you play the highest of touching honors - the reverse of 3rd hand play.

 

Winston

[Winstonm]

I split low from 2 and high from 3 but this is not standard. I don't think there is any standard when it comes to splitting.

I heard you split from Plano because you were 2 high or was this just a standard split?

 

:rolleyes:

 

Winston

[kenrexford]

This is an interesting situation I have never thought of. Is there a difference between splitting from J10 and splitting from KJ10?

 

My initial reaction is to assume a style for the J10 scenario. Whether J or 10 seems relatively irrelevant. Once that is decided, however, perhaps it makes sense to play the OTHER with a higher honor.

 

Thus, if you play J from J10, play 10 from AJ10 or KJ10. Sounds a bit like power tens on lead, right? This would not interfere with anything unless you split from 109, but hopefully partner can make reads. A similar possibility might be splitting from the 109, playing the 9 (or maybe the ten?) with a higher honor.

 

This might also be analyzed with lower honors. For example, if splitting from KQ, you might agree to play the King. But, from KQ10, perhaps then you would play the Queen, promising the ten.

 

Let's see:

 

K from KQ

Q from KQ10 or QJ

J from J10

10 from AJ10 or KJ10 (or 109) [or A109/K109/Q109]

[9 from A109/K109/Q109]

 

This is just flow of consciousness, perhaps...

[Fluffy]

I use highest, not really sure of the difference.