Leading against 1NT P 3NT

[pooltuna]

pooooooltunaaa

 

And if he was thinking of doubling for a particular lead, which suit

 

is it most likely

 

that he wanted?

So if I understand you correctly if you make a lead and it successfully defeats the contract, the opponents scream to the director for score rectification and you are SCREWED because no matter what lead you choose the opponents can scream if it is successful. This is also known as a lose/lose (aka double shot) situation. This strikes me as most unfair so maybe I should just shuffle my cards and blindly pick one but this doesn't strike me as bridge. But I repeat (you said this worked right) IMO there is no lead suggested by the UI.

[cherdanno]

No you did not understand gwnn correctly.

[peachy]

gnasher knows the law well enough so even if you did not understand, you can trust that what he said is true.

[mikeh]

Hey, 'tuna...calm down!

 

All we are saying...is give peace a chance....ooops...that got away from me.

 

What we (and in particular, Andy) is saying is that your response giving various holdings on which partner might tank....in essence hands where he wants, variously, a lead of spades, hearts or diamonds misses the point.

 

It is true, speaking without regard to our hand, that all of your posited hands are equally likely and that, on that basis, it is impossible to say that the tank, that you posited, carried even a hint of which suit should be led.

 

But we aren't choosing our lead in a vacuum. We can make assumptions, or draw inferences, based in part on our hand and in part on the auction.

 

Our hand suggests that partner's long suit will more often than not be one of our short suits. Thus the tank tends to suggest that a red suit will be more effective than a black suit, simply because he will hold a long strong red suit more often than a black suit. I don't think you need a simulation to prove that, but it would be easy to do.

 

And the auction suggests that dummy may hold long, strong diamonds, but won't hold long, strong hearts. This inference suggests that when partner holds a long, strong suit that he wants/needs to have led, the most likely candidate is hearts.

 

Since the tank arguably carries with it SOME suggestion that he thinks that a particular lead is going to be more effective than whatever you may be planning, it is arguable that the tank constitutes UI. If it does, then it seems beyond argument that the lead most likely to hit partner's suit is the heart lead. Thus any UI has brought with it a suggestion that a heart be led and accordingly you can't lead one if another LA presents itself (as it clearly does).

 

If he turns out to hold AKQxx in clubs and dummy was 3=3=5=2 and declarer 4432 or the like, then while the opps might scream for the director, and while as we all know, committees are far from infallible, a strong committee might well tell the offended side that they lose their deposit if they were the appealing parties. No competent committee would rule, imo, that the club lead was rendered the least bit more attractive by the tank, while a successful heart lead would and, imo, should be rolled back.

[junyi_zhu]

1000 hands simulation assuming opener is 12-14balanced without 5M and 7m and responder is 12-16 without 4+ card major or major shortness (people usually play methods to show those):

 

Winning lead:

 

3♠ - 135

9♥ - 234

5♦ - 120

J♣ - 128

 

Adding the possibility of responder being any 4-3-3-3 (including major):

 

Winning lead:

 

3♠ - 116

9♥ - 212

5♦ - 139

J♣ - 120

 

It looks like ♥ works almost twice as often as any other which isn't surprising to me at all as I did many simuls of this kind and old adage of leading majors from weak hands against 1nt-3nt auction is very reliable.

 

Same simulation at MP's (lead which is the best trick wise not taking into account setting the contract) :

 

Best lead:

 

2♠ - 613

9♥ - 727

5♦ - 562

J♣ - 578

I am not surprised at all by the double dummy results. JT9xx may easily cost a trick when you are unlucky (for example dummy holds AK87x declarer Qxx and 98 can almost never cost you a trick if you play double dummy. Still, bridge is a single dummy game. and 98 lead sucks big time playing single dummy, because it would often offer a free ride and make a 50% game to be 100%.

[mikeh]

j_z: I thought much the same thing, until I ran some simulations. There is no doubt but that dd analysis favours the heart lead. In real life it won't do anywhere nearly as well. But the figures, even adjusted by personally reviewing the hands on which 3N failed dd, still show that the heart lead is very good. Now, I didn't review the (large) number of hands on which 3N made dd....when I did a manual analysis, it made 50 out of 66 times, or about 75% DD it made about 79% over 200 deals, so that suggests that the dd effect was modest.

 

I was a club leader, but now think that a heart is at least as good and probably better.

[pooltuna]

 

gnasher knows the law well enough so even if you did not understand, you can trust that what he said is true.

I am not questioning his knowledge of the law in fact I would defer in most if not all situations but I disagree with his assessment of what the UI suggests.

[gwnn]

Just because there are possible holdings with long spades, or long diamonds or gulp, long clubs, it doesn't mean that they are equally likely.

 

Premise 1: Because we have short hearts and diamonds, it is more likely that partner's suit is hearts or diamonds than spades or clubs.

Premise 2: Because they didn't stayman or transfer a major is more likely than a minor.

Conclusion: If partner has a long suit and was considering bidding it/doubling for the lead, then it is most likely hearts.

 

Which of these three statements do you disagree with pooltuna?

[junyi_zhu]

j_z: I thought much the same thing, until I ran some simulations. There is no doubt but that dd analysis favours the heart lead. In real life it won't do anywhere nearly as well. But the figures, even adjusted by personally reviewing the hands on which 3N failed dd, still show that the heart lead is very good. Now, I didn't review the (large) number of hands on which 3N made dd....when I did a manual analysis, it made 50 out of 66 times, or about 75% DD it made about 79% over 200 deals, so that suggests that the dd effect was modest.

 

I was a club leader, but now think that a heart is at least as good and probably better.

I guess they are probably close in single dummy analysis.

My lead tends to be single dummy safe if no other obvious appealing leads and I usually wait for opps to blow tricks. Usually they'll blow tricks. If it's a world class declarer, H9 may be the best lead.

[mikeh]

edited: quoted wrong post

[mikeh]

Just because there are possible holdings with long spades, or long diamonds or gulp, long clubs, it doesn't mean that they are equally likely.

 

Premise 1: Because we have short hearts and diamonds, it is more likely that partner's suit is hearts or diamonds than spades or clubs.

Premise 2: Because they didn't stayman or transfer a major is more likely than a minor.

Conclusion: If partner has a long suit and was considering bidding it/doubling for the lead, then it is most likely hearts.

 

Which of these three statements do you disagree with pooltuna?

a far better post than mine in which I tried to make the same points, but used 5 times as many words

[pooltuna]

Just because there are possible holdings with long spades, or long diamonds or gulp, long clubs, it doesn't mean that they are equally likely.

 

Premise 1: Because we have short hearts and diamonds, it is more likely that partner's suit is hearts or diamonds than spades or clubs.

Premise 2: Because they didn't stayman or transfer a major is more likely than a minor.

Conclusion: If partner has a long suit and was considering bidding it/doubling for the lead, then it is most likely hearts.

 

Which of these three statements do you disagree with pooltuna?

I think the tank projects that hitting partner's long suit lead probably won't work otherwise he wouldn't have a reason to tank ergo a ♠ lead is suggested or a passive ♣ lead.

[gwnn]

Maybe I made myself insufficiently clear.

 

Which of the three statements do you disagree with?

[pooltuna]

Maybe I made myself insufficiently clear.

 

Which of the three statements do you disagree with?

number 2. length in a suit in and of itself is not enough. and the tank suggests this IMO

[gwnn]

gnasher said that if partner was thinking of making a lead directing double, it was most likely in hearts.

 

And you don't agree with that because

"length in a suit in and of itself is not enough. and the tank suggests this IMO"

?

 

I am sorry but I am not following. I afraid we are not making ourselves understood very efficiently.

[pooltuna]

gnasher said that if partner was thinking of making a lead directing double, it was most likely in hearts.

 

And you don't agree with that because

"length in a suit in and of itself is not enough. and the tank suggests this IMO"

?

 

I am sorry but I am not following. I afraid we are not making ourselves understood very efficiently.

IMO the tank shows a suit like A5432

[Rodney26]

Let's say though for argument's sake that as leader you hear 3NT on your left, which you recognize as the likely end of the auction. You mentally pick the heart 9 right away....and then partner trances. Maybe the most ethical thing to do is use this as an opportunity to educate partner not to trance. The opponents probably are going to feel like they were snookered no matter when you picked the lead. Still, the trance was truly irrelevant in this instance.

The trance might be irrelevant to your opinion of what the right lead is, but it's very relevant for determining what the rules allow you to do.

 

If partner's trance suggests a heart lead over a club lead, it is illegal for you to lead a heart. That applies regardless of whether you already knew what you planned to lead.

So, put another way -- your understanding is the fact that you were not in possession of UI when you picked the opening lead is irrelevant. The fact that you are in possession of UI when you actually make the opening lead is what is relevant (and thus restricts your choices).

[gnasher]

So, put another way -- your understanding is the fact that you were not in possession of UI when you picked the opening lead is irrelevant. The fact that you are in possession of UI when you actually make the opening lead is what is relevant (and thus restricts your choices).

Yes, that's correct.

 

The rationale is this: if we allowed the defence of "I'd already decided what to lead before he tanked", a director or committee would have to decide whether you were telling the truth. That's a hard thing to do fairly and without causing ill-feeling.

 

With the rules as they are, if you get an adverse ruling in a situation like this, it just means that your judgement of the effect of the UI was different from that of the director. It's much nicer to be told that your judgement is faulty than that you're dishonest.

[gwnn]

gnasher said that if partner was thinking of making a lead directing double, it was most likely in hearts.

 

And you don't agree with that because

"length in a suit in and of itself is not enough. and the tank suggests this IMO"

?

 

I am sorry but I am not following. I afraid we are not making ourselves understood very efficiently.

IMO the tank shows a suit like A5432

why does partner tank with A5432?

[655321]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3226/3020564896_b864e79ef4.jpg