Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Strategy

Expand Messages
  • Kyle Evans
    I d actually like to see some strategy discussion. I have never been able to discuss strategy with anyone, so everything I do is based on my own experience.
    Message 1 of 40 , Nov 14, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      I'd actually like to see some strategy discussion. I have never been
      able to discuss strategy with anyone, so everything I do is based on
      my own experience.

      Let's see if I agree with the world on the following strategy I have:

      If a bower is the upcard, there is only one condition under which I
      would refuse to take it -- if I had zero cards in that suit to begin
      with. In all other cases (i.e., I have at least one other card in
      that suie) I take it, regardless of the rest of my hand.

      I have had (online) players who seem to refuse bowers in more
      situations than that. But the above has always worked for me.

      Is there a prevalent view on this subject?

      Thanks.

      Kyle.
    • bimbert84
      Hi Joe, ... Note I said Of the times where it makes a difference. A guarded L is not one of those times. ... Sort of. I was simply examining the relative
      Message 40 of 40 , Feb 18, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Joe,

        > > Of the times where it makes a difference, here
        > > are the requirements for success of the two leads:
        > >
        > > 1) A lead: L in 4th (50%); AND 4th ducks (< 100%).
        > > 2) R lead: L in 2nd (50%).
        >
        > I would say that #2 should read:
        > 2) R lead: unguarded L in 2nd (50%).

        Note I said "Of the times where it makes a difference." A guarded L
        is not one of those times.


        > Your line of play addresses trying to take the first
        > 3 tricks, not necessarily the whole hand.

        Sort of. I was simply examining the relative merits of leading the A
        vs. leading the R.


        > However, as I have said, I'd be grateful I cashed my
        > off A and I'd be leading offsuit away from my RA combo
        > and hoping for endplay.

        Depending on the rest of my hand, I might do that, too.


        > What are the chances you lead the R and get 2nd's
        > unguarded L when you hold just RA? Didn't you put
        > that at less than 15% when you hold RAK?

        16%.


        > And the chance that 4th has Lxx OR 2nd has Lx
        > was very high.

        22%.


        > With only 2 trump between 1st & 3rd, Lx in 2nd
        > is even more likely.

        Yes, and that's what's interesting. A guarded L in 2nd is actually
        more likely than a lone L. This is due to the mass of non-trump in
        1st's hand.

        Nevertheless, whatever the odds of the R winning, they will always be
        better than the odds of the A winning.

        For the R lead to be successful, it requires only the proper card
        distribution. There is no luck or skill involved. Call the
        likelihood of this distribution P(R).

        For the A lead to be successful, it requires two things: the proper
        card distribution, call this P(A); and a duck by the dealer, call
        this P(D).

        Since P(R) = P(A), it is always true that P(R) > P(A) * P(D).

        What does this mean? It means if you lead the R a bunch of times and
        lead the A a bunch of times, the R lead will net more success. How
        much more? That depends on how often the dealer ducks.

        This is all I've been saying. This does not address whether either R
        or A is the best lead, nor does it address the score, nor the
        opponent's playing style, nor anything else. Just the logic that in
        the long run, the A lead can never be more successful than the R lead.

        -- Rob
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.