[1eyedjack]

 msjennifer, on 2017-April-23, 01:37, said:

I am poor at the mathematics.However, as a simpleton,On the table,I would not like to concede an unnecessary trick to a singleton or doubleton 10 with my LHO and so I will play small to the jack all the time.

So you are OK with conceding an unnecessary trick to a singleton King?

[FelicityR]

I acknowledge the erudition and statistical ability of all concerned here, but if I spent nearly three minutes at the table trying to work it out at my club, an opponent would either clear their throat noisily, tut, or mutter under their breath 'come on'. So much for today's manners...

However, in the absence of bridge analysers, cerebral or otherwise, if you have a choice of finesses to take (and I have taken on board there is no further entry to dummy) it usually pays to play a lower card than a higher.

If you had the split combination A Q 10 opposite three small, many would lead to the 10; 982 opposite AQJ53 is just a different split variation where leading the 9 is 'finessing' by playing the lower card.

It's probably statistically wrong to do so, but I am only providing my opinion how I would personally play the cards in the absence of other information.

[RedSpawn]

 msjennifer, on 2017-April-23, 01:37, said:

I am poor at the mathematics.However, as a simpleton,On the table,I would not like to concede an unnecessary trick to a singleton or doubleton 10 with my LHO and so I will play small to the jack all the time.

Please be very careful, Msjennifer. You are not a member of the collective, and are a clear outsider whose credentials are dubious at best. Dissenting and/or alternative views are not welcome when groupthink among seasoned veterans is at play.

[RedSpawn]

 FelicityR, on 2017-April-23, 04:16, said:

I acknowledge the erudition and statistical ability of all concerned here, but if I spent nearly three minutes at the table trying to work it out at my club, an opponent would either clear their throat noisily, tut, or mutter under their breath 'come on'. So much for today's manners...

However, in the absence of bridge analysers, cerebral or otherwise, if you have a choice of finesses to take (and I have taken on board there is no further entry to dummy) it usually pays to play a lower card than a higher...

It's probably statistically wrong to do so, but I am only providing my opinion how I would personally play the cards in the absence of other information.

It does not pay handsome dividends to dissent from the collective's statistical erudition. However, all exaltations of the collective's omniscience and greatness are welcome 24/7.

Resistance is futile. You must assimilate.

[msjennifer]

 1eyedjack, on 2017-April-23, 01:50, said:

So you are OK with conceding an unnecessary trick to a singleton King?

YES SIR.

[msjennifer]

 RedSpawn, on 2017-April-23, 04:50, said:

Please be very careful, Msjennifer. You are not a member of the collective, and are a clear outsider whose credentials are dubious at best. Dissenting and/or alternative views are not welcome when groupthink among seasoned veterans is at play.

Oh yes indeed.Thanks for a timely reminder,Sir.

[Cyberyeti]

 FelicityR, on 2017-April-23, 04:16, said:

I acknowledge the erudition and statistical ability of all concerned here, but if I spent nearly three minutes at the table trying to work it out at my club, an opponent would either clear their throat noisily, tut, or mutter under their breath 'come on'. So much for today's manners...

It was the last board of the round and I had that time so it seemed reasonable to use it.