[mikeh]

gwnn, on Jun 11 2010, 06:50 PM, said:

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]

gwnn, on Jun 11 2010, 06:50 PM, said:

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]

gwnn, on Jun 11 2010, 07:46 PM, said:

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]

gwnn, on Jun 11 2010, 08:34 PM, said:

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]

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.

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]

Rodney26, on Jun 12 2010, 04:18 AM, said:

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]

pooltuna, on Jun 12 2010, 02:35 AM, said:

gwnn, on Jun 11 2010, 08:34 PM, said:

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]