[gwnn]

LHO leads an Ace against our small slam (dummy has Kx in this suit). We have relatively balanced hands and that has been advertised in the bidding. Our trump suit is AKxx in dummy opposite JT9xx in hand. Let's assume that there is not enough time to find out much about opps' distribution. You will need to play trumps relatively early.

What do you infer if LHO switches to a low trump at trick 2? What if he doesn't?

Sorry, I know this is vague but I wonder if this is a stock psychological situation.

[Fluffy]

the ace lead is the biggest finese indicator, not the trump switch.

[mich-b]

Fluffy, on 2012-March-01, 03:29, said:

the ace lead is the biggest finese indicator, not the trump switch.

I heard this before , and I dont particularly "buy" it.
People might lead an ace against a small slam for a large variety of reasons (like hoping to cash 2 quick tricks in that suit) , only one of which is holding a potential trump trick (Or even without a good reason - just because they remember being told cashing an Ace is often good against small slams) . While it may be an indication to the leader holding the trump queen , I don't think this indication is strong.

[phil_20686]

mich-b, on 2012-March-01, 03:56, said:

I heard this before , and I dont particularly "buy" it.
People might lead an ace against a small slam for a large variety of reasons (like hoping to cash 2 quick tricks in that suit) , only one of which is holding a potential trump trick (Or even without a good reason - just because they remember being told cashing an Ace is often good against small slams) . While it may be an indication to the leader holding the trump queen , I don't think this indication is strong.

It doesn't have to be very strong, to put the probabilities in favour of a finesse. I would definitely hook (rise and then finesse if safe entry available).

I also think its very much more difficult to envisage this type of physcological play when you are not holding the Q, as opposed to when you are holding it.

[mikeh]

The notion that the lead of an Ace against a slam suggested that the defender has a possible trump trick is very old...I learned it very early on and I started playing 40 years ago.

I don't think it is particularly valid these days, unless the auction allows LHO to infer that his trump trick will probably score even if I infer he has it. IOW, if he has Qxx and declarer is the one, on the auction, most likely to hold AK, then the inference is valid.

So we do need to know the auction, but the given conditions suggest that this situation didn't exist, and wouldn't be assumed to exist.

I wouldn't play a competent opp to have signalled the spade Q by leading the side A absent declarer showing strong trumps.

As for the switch...absent the switch, and absent the inference from the lead, we'd always play for the drop. The fact that we are having this discussion is enough to suggest that switching from Qxx is an error, since some percentage of posters are going to change their normal play and pick up the suit. Switching from xx, otoh, is clear....because those same posters are now going to lose a trick they'd never lose absent the switch.

This is regressive, of course, and that is another reason to not let the opps dictate your choice of play on psychological grounds...once you start down this rabbit hole, you can never get out...and the opps own you because you are now playing poker, rather than bridge....you are playing your view of their personality rather than bridge odds.

[phil_20686]

mikeh, on 2012-March-02, 10:54, said:

This is regressive, of course, and that is another reason to not let the opps dictate your choice of play on psychological grounds...once you start down this rabbit hole, you can never get out...and the opps own you because you are now playing poker, rather than bridge....you are playing your view of their personality rather than bridge odds.

Lol. Unless you are better at poker than your opps, then you are happy to lead them down the rabbit hole....