- 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?
- Hi Joe,
> > Of the times where it makes a difference, hereNote I said "Of the times where it makes a difference." A guarded L
> > 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%).
is not one of those times.
> Your line of play addresses trying to take the firstSort of. I was simply examining the relative merits of leading the A
> 3 tricks, not necessarily the whole hand.
vs. leading the R.
> However, as I have said, I'd be grateful I cashed myDepending on the rest of my hand, I might do that, too.
> off A and I'd be leading offsuit away from my RA combo
> and hoping for endplay.
> What are the chances you lead the R and get 2nd's16%.
> unguarded L when you hold just RA? Didn't you put
> that at less than 15% when you hold RAK?
> And the chance that 4th has Lxx OR 2nd has Lx22%.
> was very high.
> With only 2 trump between 1st & 3rd, Lx in 2ndYes, and that's what's interesting. A guarded L in 2nd is actually
> is even more likely.
more likely than a lone L. This is due to the mass of non-trump in
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
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.