[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2011-January-02, 14:00, said:

Gnasher, no offense but whenever someone says they think it's exactly 50-50 and base the decision on their psyche/morale I think they are copping out of making a decision. How could one objectively decide that this decision is 50-50?! Some people just hate to make a decision they could get wrong and thus rationalize it with "well they could have beaten me anyways..." to protect themselves.

It's OK, I'm not that easily offended. But it would be nice to think that you (and Han) had read all of my post, rather than just the final paragraph. I gave four reasons for playing low, and the effect on our side's morale was only one of those reasons.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2011-January-02, 16:20, said:

It's OK, I'm not that easily offended. But it would be nice to think that you (and Han) had read all of my post, rather than just the final paragraph. I gave four reasons for playing low, and the effect on our side's morale was only one of those reasons.

Yes I guess if you say contradictory things every other post we can just never comment or else you'd say we didn't listen!

I read this:

Quote

Unless there's a reason to hope for RHO to play the ace from AJ, I'd always play the king. If I play the king when they've underled QJ, it's just a Grosvenor; if I play low and they've underled the ace, I've chucked a trck that was legitimately mine.

It seemed like nonsense.

Then you said this:

Quote

Leading low from QJ is (in my experience) rather less common than leading from an ace

Ok, good job, isn't that the crux of this matter? Who cares about a hypothetical world where it is exactly 50-50 whether they underlead the ace or QJ. That hypothetical world is interesting I guess, but when your first post is that you are popping king because of the grovesnor/lower variance thing rather than just that they are more likely to underlead the QJ, I think that is just bad reasoning to justify not making a real decision.

As I said, if it's exactly 50-50 then use the other stuff. Since it's never 50-50 I think that calling it 50-50 and using morale/lower variance would be a copout from just making a decision.

Just because you introduced a hypothetical where it is 50-50 does not make your first post correct imo. If you thought that the underlead of the QJ was more likely than the ace and you popped king, you would be making an error. (Cue genius, but what if it is 50.5 % to 49.5 % and we are a big favorite in the match comments!).

[awm]

Supposing that we're pretty sure our teammates will not lead low from QJ on this hand, we're being given the choice between one line of play (king) which will push the board and another line of play (low) which will either win the board (QJ underlead) or lose the board (ace underlead). Even if we think it's 50-50 for these opponents (i.e. they are equally likely to underlead ace or underlead QJ), there are definitely times when we have a preference between taking a push board and having a 50/50 chance of win or lose ten IMPs. Assuming that we believe we're the favorite in this match, we should prefer the push board.

[JLOGIC]

lol

[JLOGIC]

jlogic said:

(Cue genius, but what if it is 50.5 % to 49.5 % and we are a big favorite in the match comments!).

awm said:

Even if we think it's 50-50 for these opponents (i.e. they are equally likely to underlead ace or underlead QJ), there are definitely times when we have a preference between taking a push board and having a 50/50 chance of win or lose ten IMPs. Assuming that we believe we're the favorite in this match

Almost my hero. But you said the same exact thing that has already been said, instead of advancing the amazing argument of EVEN IF IT IS 50.5 % that they underled the QJ, and we're a favorite in the match, we should go up with the king!

[JLOGIC]

I think there are 2 ways to play bridge.

1: Be scared to commit and make a bridge judgement on whether they are more likely to underlead the QJ or the A. Instead, orgasm about how smart you are to think of hypotheticals where non bridge judgement matters (or at least, repeat the same argument that others have given). If you are wrong, oh well you are a better team and achieved a push. Obviously you will always win, you are capable of thinking of these marginal spots! If you are right, hellz yeah.

2: Play bridge and realize that you can very accurately guess whether they are underleading the QJ or the A because you are a bridge player, gain huge edge and actually be a better team that is more likely to win because you pick up imps in these spots rather than pass on them and INCREASE your match variance because you are making the same bad plays every time for pushes, reducing the amount of chances you have to win imps.

They have these arguments in poker all the time "SOMEONE GOES ALL IN IN THE MAIN EVENT AND FLIPS UP AK suited, DO YOU CALL WITH QUEENS?" which are also retarded but at least in poker you can actually know that something is 50 %, rather than arbitrarily assigning that probability because you don't want to risk looking dumb ever.

Personally whenever something in cardplay seems 50-50 to me in bridge I look for more clues that I might have missed since I know it is not actually 50-50, I don't look for reducing variance. This IS your edge. I don't see how one could go about saying they think something like this might be 50-50 and keep a straight face. At least gnasher realized the error in his ways and immediately posted that he does in fact think that they are more likely to underlead an ace than a QJ.

[MarkDean]

Definitely a guess about the opps distribution in the suits would help. For example, if I think LHO has 3, he is more likely to have underled A than QJ, but if he has 5, I think he is more likely to underlead QJ.

All of this eliminating variance thing is kind of weird to me. I have enough trouble trying to get expected value decisions right, and now I am supposed to worry about the second moment too? And why is everybody always playing weaker teams?

[MarkDean]

Oh, and I forgot to add, not having the 9 or 8 makes it more likely LHO has the ace to me, as Mr. LOGIC mentioned, I think she is unlikely to underlead QJ with QJ9x(x) or even QJ8x(x).

[gnasher]

Is there a smiley for "I think I've lost this argument"?