[pooltuna]

mikeh, on Jun 11 2010, 10:10 AM, said:

gnasher, on Jun 11 2010, 09:28 AM, said:

Rodney26, on Jun 11 2010, 02:44 PM, said:

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.

This is a point that many miss. They feel that a ruling against a call or play they 'would have made without the UI' is a finding that they acted unethically. The ruling is made without ANY imputation of improper motive. It can be difficult to accept that as an individual but it is central to the application of the laws.

so what are you supposed to do? Maybe turn your cards face down and shuffle them up so you have no clue which card is which and then blindly pick one for a lead? IMO if you have no lead agreements for a double then the trance conveys no useful UI so track the 9♥. If however you have an agreement do not lead that suit and lead the J♣ instead. If partner by hesitating has constrained your play you need to alter your tactics to something that makes sense and a passive ♣ lead makes the most sense.

[peachy]

bluecalm, on Jun 10 2010, 07:37 AM, said:

Quote

This is a wrong assumption. 12-14 NT very often has a 5-card major, the whole system becomes pretty much unplayable if no 5c major allowed with 12-14 NT opener. There are some but not many 12-14 range hands where 1M is better.

This is not true at all. Maybe some systems becomes unplayable if you don't do that as well as some systems becomes unplayable if you don't open 15-17 NT with 5card M. Some players open every 15-17 5M-3-3-2 with 1NT and some others (like top Italian pairs) don't. This situation is the same with weak 1NT.

That being said I am not sure how the constraints should look for 1NT with 5M as then responder is probably either 3-3-(4-3) or 2-2 in majors as he didn't use puppet stayman ?

EDIT:
Assuming 1NT is possible with 5M and the responder is either 3-3-(4-3) or 2-2 in majors, the results are:

Winning lead:
3♠ - 105
9♥ - 197
5♦ - 105
J♣ - 94

You said about the simulation constraints:
That being said I am not sure how the constraints should look for 1NT with 5M as then responder is probably either 3-3-(4-3) or 2-2 in majors as he didn't use puppet stayman ?

Though Puppet Stayman is common when playing weak NT, it is not known whether the pair in the OP had that on their card or what their methods were otherwise; weak NT can be played without Puppet just like a strong NT can.

Still, thank you for doing the simulation, it is nice to have somebody do the work for the benefit of posters here:)

[bluecalm]

Quote

Though Puppet Stayman is common when playing weak NT, it is not known whether the pair in the OP had that on their card or what their methods were otherwise; weak NT can be played without Puppet just like a strong NT can.

We don't know if they open with 5M either. I don't think a system which allows opening most 5M-3-3-2 with weak NT and without ability to show this 5M is to be taken seriuosly.

[gwnn]

There are lots of people who open 1NT on 5cM's and then can't ask about it. Anyway even if I could I would only ask with a small doubleton or something to that effect.

[MickyB]

bluecalm, on Jun 11 2010, 04:49 PM, said:

Quote

Though Puppet Stayman is common when playing weak NT, it is not known whether the pair in the OP had that on their card or what their methods were otherwise; weak NT can be played without Puppet just like a strong NT can.

We don't know if they open with 5M either. I don't think a system which allows opening most 5M-3-3-2 with weak NT and without ability to show this 5M is to be taken seriuosly.

So long as you can find your 5-3 major fits when responder has an outside singleton, you aren't missing much by not being able to ask for a 5-card major.

[gnasher]

pooltuna, on Jun 11 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

so what are you supposed to do?

You're supposed to
- Decide whether you have UI
- If you have, decide what the logical alternatives are
- Decide whether the UI demonstrably suggests one logical alternative over another
- If it does, choose a logical alternative which wasn't suggested over any another

Quote

IMO if you have no lead agreements for a double then the trance conveys no useful UI so track the 9♥.

Really? So what could partner have been thinking about, other than a lead-directing double? And if he was thinking of doubling for a particular lead, which suit is it most likely that he wanted?

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2010-June-11, 11:26

[pooltuna]

gnasher, on Jun 11 2010, 12:25 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Jun 11 2010, 05:21 PM, said:

so what are you supposed to do?

You're supposed to
- Decide whether you have UI
- If you have, decide what the logical alternatives are
- Decide whether the UI demonstrably suggests one logical alternative over another
- If it does, choose a logical alternative which wasn't suggested over any another

Quote

IMO if you have no lead agreements for a double then the trance conveys no useful UI so track the 9♥.

Really? So what could partner have been thinking about, other than a lead-directing double? And if he was thinking of doubling for a particular lead, which suit is it most likely that he wanted?

1] KQJ9x Axxx Axx x
he wanted a ♠ lead

2] Axx KQJTx xx Ax
he wanted a ♥ lead

3] Axx Axxs KQJT9 x
he wanted a ♦ lead

4] maybe he didn't care what you led but thought he could set it anyway

5] maybe he didn't realize it was his bid for 30 seconds

The point is, if you have no lead agreements, to assume a double after a hesitation means lead ♥s is IMO absurd.

[gwnn]

pooooooltunaaa

gnasher-emphasis mine said:

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

is it most likely

that he wanted?

[peachy]

gnasher, on Jun 11 2010, 05:19 AM, said:

The right question (or one of them) would be "What are the logical alternatives?" I can't imagine anyone thinking that a club lead isn't one of those.

For me it is not a LA in the given auction and the given hand. But I am repeating myself, enough

[Jinksy]

peachy, on Jun 11 2010, 11:36 AM, said:

Though Puppet Stayman is common when playing weak NT, it is not known whether the pair in the OP had that on their card or what their methods were otherwise; weak NT can be played without Puppet just like a strong NT can.

I think I specified this, but we don't play puppet over 1NT openings (it's all I can do to persuade my p to play them over 2NT).

[pooltuna]

gwnn, on Jun 11 2010, 02:55 PM, said:

pooooooltunaaa

gnasher-emphasis mine said:

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]

pooltuna, on Jun 11 2010, 05:29 PM, said:

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]

bluecalm, on Jun 10 2010, 10:42 AM, said:

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]

peachy, on Jun 11 2010, 06:08 PM, said:

pooltuna, on Jun 11 2010, 05:29 PM, said:

 

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]

mikeh, on Jun 11 2010, 11:37 PM, said:

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