A switch in time

[42]

Hi experts!

I don't know if there is a solution for the following problem in the above mentioned book by Granovetter, but the title sounds really promising :) :

 

Opps play a trump contract and you are on lead with AKD (not trumps B) ), dummy has xxx, UDCA.

Is there a possibility to differ in signalling between 4 or 6 cards / 3 or 5 cards in the cashout situation (you want to know how many rounds run in the suit)?

Did you and your partner discuss what and how you signal here? If so, how?

Thx!

Caren

[Al_U_Card]

I'm not sure if I understand the question. If you want a switch to cash or set up some tricks outside of the suit led then signal discouragement. If you believe it better to cash that suit right away (you don't need more than one lead thru dummy by pard) then signal encouragement. Ya gotta know what dummy looks like as well as the rest of your hand.

[42]

Sorry, when I was not precise: I need to know length from partner which tells me how many times I can play this specific suit (I want to cash out) before I must switch to another suit and I think I have a problem when I cannot differ beween 4 and 6 cards in partners hand (or 3 and 5). I am interested in signal methods here. B)

[Winstonm]

I use a fairly simple method against 5-level and higher contracts, where cashout is more likely to occur.

 

With AK lead, the A ask for attitude, the K asks for count.

[Gerben42]

With AK lead, the A ask for attitude, the K asks for count.

 

The same for lower contracts actually!

[42]

I use a fairly simple method against 5-level and higher contracts, where cashout is more likely to occur.

 

With AK lead, the A ask for attitude, the K asks for count.

Yes, we also do, but when you get the count, let's say an even number of cards: how do you know it is 4 or 6?? Let us assume you have no clue from the bidding (because it was highly competitive for example).

In my example, where you have AKQ and dummy has xxx:

- when p has 4 cards we can collect 3 tricks,

- when p has 6 cards a switch is (or might be) necessary.

Is this problem so rare and can therefore be neglected?

[mike777]

Hi experts!

I don't know if there is a solution for the following problem in the above mentioned book by Granovetter, but the title sounds really promising  :) :

 

Opps play a trump contract and you are on lead with AKD (not trumps  B) ), dummy has xxx, UDCA.

Is there a possibility to differ in signalling between 4 or 6 cards / 3 or 5 cards in the cashout situation (you want to know how many rounds run in the suit)?

Did you and your partner discuss what and how you signal here? If so, how?

Thx!

Caren

This is a great book and I highly recommend it. They also have a website, check it out. BridgeToday.

 

1) Attitude not count is almost always given with few exceptions at trick one.

2) Versus a slam, on lead of an AK give count.

3) Versus the five level, when known to hold 5 cards or more in the suit led, add a count card by playing an odd card for an odd number or an even card for an even number. For example, odd-high=odd number, encouraging.

 

btw in a highly competitive auction partner should raise you to the LOTT level which gives you a huge clue how many cards they have in this suit.

[Al_U_Card]

I think I see now. On the play of a count card (K lead from AK) play odd for an odd number. The larger the odd card (of those available) the more cards held in the suit (and the less damaging the loss of a higher card) etc. THis can't be happening a lot, so you must play many hands to be worried about it......

[mikeh]

I wonder how one manages to get dealt the appropriate mix of odd and even cards to play mike' s suggested method B) The probability of not having the 'right' cards for this signalling method is the reason advanced by Michael Rosenberg in arguing that odd/even methods carry with them an almost unavoidable risk of giving U.I. on defence.

 

I have played odd/even with a very good partner, who is extremely ethical at the table, yet there have been times when I was morally certain (and correctly, it turned out) that his signal was not accurate, in the sense that he had no accurate card to play. I stress this was not due to any lack of ethics on his part, and the situations arose infrequently, but sometimes the need to analyze which misleading card to play requires a small tempo break.

 

As to the posted question, I do not believe that it is possible, in any normal method including 'obvious switch', which I play, to combine count and attitude at trick one. One must choose one or the other.

 

As most do, I change my methods at high levels, due to the increased likelihoods of either needing to know whether the second trick will cash or whether partner has the K.

 

Thus I am far more likely to lead an unsupported A against a high level contract than against a pedestrian 4♠ or such. So I need attitude when I lead an Ace. This makes me lead K from AK or KQ, relying on partner to give me count so that I can cash the A when necessary (if I have KQ, either declarer wins the A at trick one or we can usually work it out)

 

It is possible (I think Vinje wrote on this topic) to change your methods depending on how many cards hit in dummy, but I don't think he was discussing the posted problem.

 

BTW, the switch in time book focuses on attitude, relative to another suit, the identity of which (the obvious switch suit) is determined by the defenders according to a set of rules, relating to the auction and the appearance of dummy. I do not think it will help resolve the posted issue.

[luke warm]

i agree with mikeh, i don't know any way to play obvious shift and signal count on trick 1.. it's always attitude (mike777 can correct me, i'm sure the level matters but if so i forgot that part)

[Fluffy]

I don't know of anyone who signals different with 3 and 5.

[mike777]

i agree with mikeh, i don't know any way to play obvious shift and signal count on trick 1.. it's always attitude (mike777 can correct me, i'm sure the level matters but if so i forgot that part)

Jimmy all of my post was from "switch in time". Though I think only once has point 3 come up at the table with an "obvious shift" partner.

[luke warm]

right, that's the one i forget :)

[kenrexford]

You must assume some parameters. If you are known to have, say, 4, 5, or 6 in a suit, assuming standard count, high-low with four, low-high with 5, and extraordinarily high with 6 in cash-out. If 5/6/7, extraordinarily high with seven. In other words, throw a huge card with the unexpectedly long length.

 

Consider Jxxxxx. If we are in a cash-out scenario, and we see the top-card lead, the Jack is useless, in a six-card suit (probably). So, throw it to show great length.

 

As I usually use upside-down attitude (and count), thiw operates as a "Get Away Fast!!!" signal. With great length, this is what you want.

[Guest Jlall]

Nope, I don't have a way to distinguish between 4/6 or 3/5. Fortunately the opponents have bid all the way to these dizzy heights so you will surely be able to count and figure out the hand. If you can't get a count on the shape, you can often deduce if you can't cash another one the contract will not go down, so you will just assume partner doesn't have huge length. Signalling is overrated, thinking is underrated. It's very very very very rare you have a straight guess, and even if you do you'll get it right half the time anyways.