HCP Splits

[fromageGB]

This is clearly wrong since even if there is an empty space argument giving the player you finesse against an above-50% chance of holding the ace, the same would apply to the queen.

So you have demonstrated that the theory of vacant spaces says nothing in this situation. A non sequitur, as that is not the argument. The theory of vacant points does say something, and is as in the book. As Kenberg says, if you have no reason to think your specific card is one one side or the other, go with the theory. Why not?

 

The theory also applies to twos. If one hand shows up with a lot of twos in the play, if I was really bothered about it I would place the remaining two in the other hand. It hasn't caused a problem so far !

[helene_t]

So you have demonstrated that the theory of vacant spaces says nothing in this situation. A non sequitur, as that is not the argument. The theory of vacant points does say something, and is as in the book.

Huh? Are you saying that if all we know is that LHO has ♣A then he is more likely to hold ♦Q than to hold ♦A? Because that is the argument in the book and that is wrong.

 

There is no such thing as a theory of vacant points, given that we have no information from the bidding.

 

If we were told that LHO passed as a dealer then Kerberg's argument apply. But OP said that we don't have any information from the bidding.

 

The theory also applies to twos.

 

What about Fibonnaci numbers? On the first two tricks LHO plays a 3 and an 8 while RHO plays a 4 and a 7. So I should play RHO for a 5 because he hasn't shown any Fibonacci numbers so far? OTOH, maybe I should play LHO for the five because he hasn't shown any numbers so far that don't contain a "t" in their English spelling?

[Endymion77]

So you have demonstrated that the theory of vacant spaces says nothing in this situation. A non sequitur, as that is not the argument. The theory of vacant points does say something, and is as in the book. As Kenberg says, if you have no reason to think your specific card is one one side or the other, go with the theory. Why not?

 

There's no "theory of vacant hcp's", because from a probabalistic point of view there's no difference between a Q and A (or a 2 and an A for that matter) - they're equally likely to be dealt, and "high card points" is an arbitrary assignment made by the observer. The "theory of vacant hcp's" can only exist if we have extra information related to high card strength, e.g. someone bid when he could've passed with different cards, or passed when he could've bid.

[fromageGB]

No, Fibonacci numbers don't count. I've just invented the theory of vacant points, and if you want a theory of Fibonacci numbers that would be different, even though (perhaps) just as valid!