BGonline.org Forums

bridge probability question (OT) - final summary

Posted By: Chuck Bower
Date: Sunday, 18 December 2011, at 3:37 p.m.

In Response To: bridge probability question (OT) - final summary (Rodney Lighton)

I don't think the split Aces argument is fallacious. Occasionally in bridge it is as good a reason as any to guess a suit and gives you a slight improvement in odds.

What you just said about split aces contradicts the conclusions of this thread. Where does "slight improvement" come from? As far as I can conclude, (assuming RH is a smart player) the only thing you know about the opponents' diamond holdings is that RH opp doesn't have a void in diamonds, and I don't think that helps one iota in deciding which card (K or x) from hand this turn. Please explain.

Messages In This Thread

• bridge probability question (OT)
  Chuck Bower -- Thursday, 15 December 2011, at 7:06 p.m.
  • bridge probability question (OT)
    Bob Koca -- Thursday, 15 December 2011, at 9:19 p.m.
  • bridge probability question (OT)
    eXtreme Gammon -- Thursday, 15 December 2011, at 9:53 p.m.
    • bridge probability question (OT) - a much easier answer.
      eXtreme Gammon -- Thursday, 15 December 2011, at 10:01 p.m.
    • bridge probability question (OT)
      Casper van der Tak -- Thursday, 15 December 2011, at 10:04 p.m.
      • bridge probability question (OT)
        eXtreme Gammon -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 2:27 a.m.
        • bridge probability question (OT)
          Petter Bengtsson -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 6:22 a.m.
          • bridge probability question (OT)
            Petter Bengtsson -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 6:27 a.m.
  • bridge probability question (OT)
    Steve Mellen -- Thursday, 15 December 2011, at 10:34 p.m.
  • bridge probability question (OT)
    David Rockwell -- Thursday, 15 December 2011, at 11:09 p.m.
  • some clarifications
    Chuck Bower -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 12:44 a.m.
    • some clarifications
      Timothy Chow -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 1:01 a.m.
      • some clarifications
        Chuck Bower -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 3:27 a.m.
        • some clarifications
          Casper van der Tak -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 8:26 a.m.
    • some clarifications
      Steve Mellen -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 2:46 p.m.
  • bridge probability question (OT)
    Dorn Bishop -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 6:05 a.m.
    • bridge probability question (OT)
      Dorn Bishop -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 6:54 a.m.
  • bridge probability question (OT)
    Rodney Lighton -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 7:49 a.m.
  • bridge probability question (OT)
    misja -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 9:11 a.m.
  • bridge probability question (OT) review and another question
    Chuck Bower -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 5:27 p.m.
    • bridge probability question (OT) review and another question
      Bob Koca -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 6:14 p.m.
      • bridge probability question (OT) review and another question
        Casper van der Tak -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 6:47 p.m.
      • bridge probability question (OT) review and another question
        TarHeelFan -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 7:09 p.m.
  • bridge probability question (OT)
    gampas -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 7:42 p.m.
  • Recommended Reading
    David Levy -- Friday, 16 December 2011, at 9:07 p.m.
    • Recommended Reading
      Chuck Bower -- Saturday, 17 December 2011, at 4:06 p.m.
  • bridge probability question (OT) - final summary
    Chuck Bower -- Saturday, 17 December 2011, at 4:00 p.m.
    • bridge probability question (OT) - final summary
      Rodney Lighton -- Sunday, 18 December 2011, at 10:12 a.m.
      • bridge probability question (OT) - final summary
        Chuck Bower -- Sunday, 18 December 2011, at 3:37 p.m.
        • bridge probability question (OT) - final summary
          Rodney Lighton -- Sunday, 18 December 2011, at 4:02 p.m.
          • bridge probability question (OT) - final summary
            Casper van der Tak -- Sunday, 18 December 2011, at 4:28 p.m.