benlessard Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 [hv=pc=n&s=s97hqjt54da65c765&d=e&v=0&b=14&a=1np3nppp]133|200[/hv] http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/46338-maybe-obvious/In this post it was suggested that leading low might be better i was highly suspicious of this and decided to do my own sim with dealmaster pro. For 2000 hands East is 15-17 bal (may have 5M but not all of them)West is 9-14 without 4M (i didnt want to include the 4333/3433 for this sim) double dummy a high H win 458 while a low H win 417. ----------------------low H win & high H lose when xx---A9xx = 17 timesA6---987x = 2 times (playing the A at trick 1 block the suit.)k7x---A8xx = 2 times declarer can establish a 3rd H trick ------------------------High H win & low lose when Hx(x)---H9x = 9Hxx--H9 (H9x--H8, H98--Ax ) = 7Hx--A9xx = 4 xx(x)--AK9(x) = 1098--AKx = 19x--AKx(x) = 2 (playing the 9 cost nothing here)Kxx--xx = 8 case i didnt count AKx---98x where declarer has 50% of ducking763---AK8 leading H declarer duck and impossible switchH9x--Hx(x) or 9xx AKx = 11 Kx--xxx = 6case where opener has a 1S opening. Even if i allow 4333/3444 for responder i think its clear that a high H is better. Also if the opps are playing puppet stayman than many hands where responder has xx in H and 3S are to be removed wich mean that low H make no sense anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecalm Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 West is 9-14 without 4M (i didnt want to include the 4333/3433 for this sim) I doubt it matters but why not ? ----------------------low H win & high H lose when xx---A9xx = 17 timesA6---987x = 2 times (playing the A at trick 1 block the suit.)k7x---A8xx = 2 times declarer can establish a 3rd H trick Did you count it manually going through the hands (as I am always doing) or is there any way to extract hands where it matters and look only at them ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecalm Posted June 15, 2011 Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 Overall results of your simulation are very similar to mine. I think letting it run on matchpoints (amount of trick taken) is better but then again, there will be more counting of cases :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted June 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2011 There is a yellow screen in dealmaster pro wich scroll all the hands (review or preview screen i think) in the lower left corner there is a winning lead diagram i just click fast at all the hands and stop cases where QJT or 54 (but not both) is lighted. It goes pretty fast what takes times is eliminating hands that are to "much double dummy" and sorting them. Dealmaster is not obvious to use at first (poor design IMO) but its really quick and has tons of worthy options. As for the 4333/3444In Montreal most of top opponents open 1Nt with 5M on a regular base, many of them have puppet stayman, ive wanted to compensated some of the hands where responder with 3S and xx in heart would make a puppet stayman. But since the vast majority of the low winning case are xx---Axxx (with or without 98 support) its clear that if they play puppet forget about leading low. For doing the sim and counting the cases it took me around 90 min for 2000 hands and around 50 worthy cases. (but i kind of like to take my time for these kind of things) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siegmund Posted June 16, 2011 Report Share Posted June 16, 2011 Double-dummy sims against 1NT-3NT say to lead the queen even from QJ9xx and QJxxx. Deciding how to compare double-dummy against single-dummy results is just about impossible without looking at the cases where single-dummy play is different than double-dummy play (for QJxxx, the big one is that there are a bunch of holdings along the lines of KTx on the table, or Txx on the table K8x in hand, where declarer has a guess single-dummy that he never gets wrong double-dummy. If you find a good method for evaluating the size of this effect, by all means let us know. I've never taken the time to work through enough sub-cases to come up with good proof either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finch Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Double-dummy simulations also ignore the rest of the hand. Take this example: AxxKxxQJxQxxx K9xQJxKxxAKxx If the opening leader has, say,QJ10xxAxxxxxxx then double dummy it makes on either lead but single dummy it will go off half the time against good defence, and slightly less than that on soft defence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Good point, bad example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Good point, bad example. Haha, we will have to teach Frances about the hold up play :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluecalm Posted June 17, 2011 Report Share Posted June 17, 2011 Double-dummy sims against 1NT-3NT say to lead the queen even from QJ9xx and QJxxx Not really. Results for 97 QJ543 A65 765 Winning lead: 7 ♠ - 105Q ♥ - 1534 ♥ - 169A ♦ - 746 ♦ - 796 ♣ - 93 But: best lead:Q♥ 6684♥ 600 On the same sample which suggests that Q♥ is better at matchpoints which may or may not be true but for sure it's reasonable hypothesis (btw my theorem that one should lead the same at MP's and IMP's is taking some heavy blows in simuls I recently made). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.