[rogerclee]

GreenMan, on 2013-May-23, 19:49, said:

I'll go slower, then.

From previous posts, we have asserted, in effect:

1) The ♦10 lead could only work if the deal were a freak of nature.

2) The ♦10 lead worked.

So we conclude: 3) The deal was a freak of nature.

I simply want to know: Is the conclusion in fact a true statement?

If it is, then assertion 1 is not disproved.

If it is not, then assertion 1 IS disproved.

Nobody asserted (1), I don't know where you got this idea, but I think you are being dense/stupid on purpose so I will not respond anymore. A lead does not need to have the standard of being "almost impossible to be correct" in order for it to be "very terrible", opening leads are very random, it is very common for a lead that no expert would consider to be even reasonable to be the winning lead in any given scenario.

[benlessard]

How is club lead not defeating the contract ?

won in hand, 3 round of S ending in dummy now what ?

Even if you dont lose a diamond you will lose 3H+ club ruff.

[gnasher]

Even ♥Q lead beats it.

[PhilKing]

gnasher, on 2013-May-24, 01:05, said:

Even ♥Q lead beats it.

This hand looks like proof that the queen never costs - even when partner has almost the nuts in diamonds and declarer has the ♥K, the heart is just as good.

All leads beat it by one trick.

[GreenMan]

rogerclee, on 2013-May-23, 22:47, said:

Nobody asserted (1), I don't know where you got this idea, but I think you are being dense/stupid on purpose so I will not respond anymore. A lead does not need to have the standard of being "almost impossible to be correct" in order for it to be "very terrible"

Two people in the thread scored the diamond lead at MINUS 2 on a 1-10 scale. You may consider that -2 falls between 1 and 10, but I believe you are being dense/stupid on purpose.

[lamford]

wank, on 2013-May-23, 20:13, said:

the hand isn't freaky at all, though i still hate a diamond lead. well, actually i suppose you could argue the trump blockage is a bit freaky.

---

If you swap the ten of spades with the five, then no lead beats the contract. As some point out, on the actual hand, every lead, including either queen, beats the contract, provided East has the wit to either cover the second spade or not cover the third spade.

I would have led the 8 of clubs, as I do not want declarer running it round to a putative jack. At least wank has presented a problem that even Nigel will get right, as all leads work.

[cherdano]

GreenMan, on 2013-May-24, 11:08, said:

Two people in the thread scored the diamond lead at MINUS 2 on a 1-10 scale. You may consider that -2 falls between 1 and 10, but I believe you are being dense/stupid on purpose.

If we have KQx in one side suit, and Qxx in another against a normal auction, it would be an incredibly poor decision to lead the Qxx suit. -2 on a scale of 1 to 10 would be generous. Yet of course there will be many hands (just give partner KTxx over dummy's Jxx) where leading from Qxx will be successful in practice.

incredibly poor decision != only successful on freak layouts

-2 rating = incredibly poor decision

[wank]

benlessard, on 2013-May-24, 00:22, said:

How is club lead not defeating the contract ?

won in hand, 3 round of S ending in dummy now what ?

Even if you dont lose a diamond you will lose 3H+ club ruff.

3 rounds of spades ending in hand

[cherdano]

wank, on 2013-May-24, 11:16, said:

3 rounds of spades ending in hand

That doesn't work, unless West foolishly makes the "safe" pitch of a club. You will get forced out of your heart trick.

[wank]

i foolishly didn't write out the hand with the crucial pips in it. the JT should be doubleton in dummy so you can play them yourself and indeed the 9 should be in declarer's hand (i was given it with the 9 in the leader's hand too tbf) so the queen lead sets up 2 tricks, which i suppose slightly reduces the temptation to lead it.

hand 2 here: http://www.zbk.hr/T2013/3f1.pdf

[CSGibson]

GreenMan, on 2013-May-24, 11:08, said:

Two people in the thread scored the diamond lead at MINUS 2 on a 1-10 scale. You may consider that -2 falls between 1 and 10, but I believe you are being dense/stupid on purpose.

MY GOD MAN! Roger was not one of the people who said it was a -2, he said that your argument was not logically sound. He was right, by the way. The combination of condescending and wrong that you are giving off is almost foo-like.

I don't know what the heck you are doing here. Are you trying to convince people that the T of diamonds is a standout lead? If so, present an argument to that effect, counter the arguments of some of the best bridge players that contribute to this forum and win all of our respect in the process. Otherwise it appears that you are just trying to "gotcha" people, but doing it extremely ineffectively - and to the wrong people, too.

[mfa1010]

wank, on 2013-May-24, 11:22, said:

i foolishly didn't write out the hand with the crucial pips in it. the JT should be doubleton in dummy so you can play them yourself and indeed the 9 should be in declarer's hand (i was given it with the 9 in the leader's hand too tbf) so the queen lead sets up 2 tricks, which i suppose slightly reduces the temptation to lead it.

For me it is not an option to lead the ♥Q without the 9.

[GreenMan]

CSGibson, on 2013-May-24, 11:38, said:

I don't know what the heck you are doing here. Are you trying to convince people that the T of diamonds is a standout lead?

I'm trying to figure out what people mean when they say the lead is the worst possible ever. Every lead could succeed on a freak layout. Does a lead that can and does succeed on a non-freak layout really deserve such approbation? Everyone here seem so sure of themselves and their analysis, I was wondering what the relationship was between such certitude and the actual hand. Does "minus 2" just mean "probably won't work"? That doesn't seem sensible to me.

Quote

Otherwise it appears that you are just trying to "gotcha" people, but doing it extremely ineffectively - and to the wrong people, too.

So someone explain to me what "minus 2 out of 10" means, then. Does it mean "This lead is so bad it'll cost you tricks on the next hand too"? If it just means "Probably won't work", then what score would mean "Absolutely would never work"?

[CSGibson]

GreenMan, on 2013-May-24, 22:13, said:

I'm trying to figure out what people mean when they say the lead is the worst possible ever. Every lead could succeed on a freak layout. Does a lead that can and does succeed on a non-freak layout really deserve such approbation? Everyone here seem so sure of themselves and their analysis, I was wondering what the relationship was between such certitude and the actual hand. Does "minus 2" just mean "probably won't work"? That doesn't seem sensible to me.



So someone explain to me what "minus 2 out of 10" means, then. Does it mean "This lead is so bad it'll cost you tricks on the next hand too"? If it just means "Probably won't work", then what score would mean "Absolutely would never work"?

Here's the thing. You claim people are saying that a diamond lead is "the worst possible ever". If you look at the thread, no one said that. In fact, the person who originally brought in -2 to the 1-10 scale was rating the lead of the heart Q - and that person's judgment was that the T of diamonds was best. One other poster said his opinion was that the rating of the heart Q and diamond T lead should be switched, and another agreed. Note, Roger was not any of those people, yet you seem to assault him with the random rating crappiness. But if you really don't know what -2 means, it means that they don't like the lead, and think it more likely to cost tricks single-dummy than to establish tricks. Your own assessment may differ.

As to the description of the diamond T lead, you have two (semi)negative descriptions prior to your overreaction. One is that the diamond T lead is horrible, and another is that it is (paraphrasing) clearly not automatic. From those you decided that what people meant was that the only way a diamond lead would work is on a freak deal. No one said that except you.

I think its clear that a diamond lead can work, and its also clear in what scenarios it will work best - people were rating those scenarios as far less likely then effective defenses that depend on establishing the club suit as a threat, or trying to steal/establish tricks in the heart suit.

What really happened is that either you did not comprehend what others were actually saying, or that you have deliberately overstated the position of others in an attempt to do...something I guess, but nothing I see as being worth doing.

[dake50]

the hand isn't freaky at all, though i still hate a diamond lead.
well, actually i suppose you could argue the trump blockage is a bit freaky.

*** Who wouldn't bid 1D over 1C as a lead-director? Cheap, low, safe.
Unless 1D is reserved for some devious obstructive bid.
What partner didn't do should be frame our options about what might work.
I'm with gszes, what do you intend to accomplish?
At least D10 hopes partner has DKJx+ over this strong dummy.
Looking at this hand, go ahead lead HQ, lead Cx.

[GreenMan]

CSGibson, on 2013-May-25, 00:13, said:

Here's the thing. You claim people are saying that a diamond lead is "the worst possible ever". If you look at the thread, no one said that. In fact, the person who originally brought in -2 to the 1-10 scale was rating the lead of the heart Q - and that person's judgment was that the T of diamonds was best. One other poster said his opinion was that the rating of the heart Q and diamond T lead should be switched, and another agreed. Note, Roger was not any of those people, yet you seem to assault him with the random rating crappiness. But if you really don't know what -2 means, it means that they don't like the lead, and think it more likely to cost tricks single-dummy than to establish tricks. Your own assessment may differ.

As to the description of the diamond T lead, you have two (semi)negative descriptions prior to your overreaction. One is that the diamond T lead is horrible, and another is that it is (paraphrasing) clearly not automatic. From those you decided that what people meant was that the only way a diamond lead would work is on a freak deal. No one said that except you.

I think its clear that a diamond lead can work, and its also clear in what scenarios it will work best - people were rating those scenarios as far less likely then effective defenses that depend on establishing the club suit as a threat, or trying to steal/establish tricks in the heart suit.

What really happened is that either you did not comprehend what others were actually saying, or that you have deliberately overstated the position of others in an attempt to do...something I guess, but nothing I see as being worth doing.

You're not exactly providing a model of reading comprehension yourself. I never said rogerclee gave anything a -2 rating, but he took issue with my interpretation of it, and I took issue with his taking issue. I don't care what you think, really, but please restrict your criticism to things I actually said or wrote.

You also take issue with my interpretation of the -2 rating, which is fine, and feel a need to shout that it's my interpretation only, which I already knew.

I'm not sure why you describe "horrible" or a number off the low end of the scale (we're still talking about -2 here) as "(semi)negative". I believe they are much stronger than that. If you disagree, then we have no common ground for discussion. That said, I appreciate your analysis of the hand, which is more constructive than anything rogerclee did say.

[monikrazy]

If we lead a diamond, is there any argument for leading the 8 instead of the 10?

I'm curious to how much value experts might expect from the deceptive lead.

[nige1]

Stating the obvious (again):
Richard Pavlicek has devised freak measures but they're irrelevant in this context. in defensive problems, the simplest gauge of a lead is how likely it is to work in practice (and simulations are good adjunct to judgement). For example, in a perfectly normal looking deal from a book, the only effective lead may be the queen of trumps from Q9x, From a lead point of view, however, that would be a freak deal, because such a lead is rarely required.

[JLOGIC]

monikrazy, on 2013-May-28, 16:15, said:

If we lead a diamond, is there any argument for leading the 8 instead of the 10?

I'm curious to how much value experts might expect from the deceptive lead.

Messes up partner way too much. Unless you have a very specific reason to do it, don't.

[GreenMan]

nige1, on 2013-May-28, 17:10, said:

Stating the obvious (again):
Richard Pavlicek has devised freak measures but they're irrelevant in this context. in defensive problems, the simplest gauge of a lead is how likely it is to work in practice (and simulations are good adjunct to judgement). For example, in a perfectly normal looking deal from a book, the only effective lead may be the queen of trumps, from Q9x, From a lead point of view, however, that would be a freak deal, because such a lead is rarely required.

Thanks.