How do u continue?

[twcho]

You are in 3rd position holding ♠QT4 ♥T8 ♦AKT ♣K8532, IMP, NIL.

 

The bidding went:

Pass-Pass-1NT(1)-2♦(2)

Pass-4♥-All pass

(1) 12-14

(2) Both majors

 

You lead ♦A (A from AK). Dummy shows ♠AJ752 ♥KQJ4 ♦863 ♣Q. Your pd follows with 2 showing even no. How will you continue your defense?

[MFA]

1. ♣K.

2. Change our agreements.

[pclayton]

Ugh, this is an unsolvable problem playing these methods. I can't tell if pard has the ♦Q and the ♠K, the ♦J and the ♣A, or whatever.

[han]

Ugh, this is an unsolvable problem playing these methods.

Agree. And while there will always be unsolvable problems at bridge, it seems like this one shouldn't be as hard as you and your partner make it.

[mikeh]

why would you agree to play count in this situation? Seems to be a clear case for an attitude card, not a count card. I agree with the earlier posters.

[pclayton]

By the way, in this situation, playing Obvious Shift, an encouraging diamond would DENY the ♠K (or Queen - but we are looking at it).

 

Knowing this, the defense has different options, but needs to get busy. We can play pard for the ♦Q, or the ♣ A and ♦J, or a trump card and a doubleton spade, or any doubleton diamond and a side winner.

 

A discouraging diamond would show the ♠K, which takes pressure off of us, unless declarer has exactly a stiff spade.

[mikeh]

By the way, in this situation, playing Obvious Shift, an encouraging diamond would DENY the ♠K (or Queen - but we are looking at it).

 

Knowing this, the defense has different options, but needs to get busy. We can play pard for the ♦Q, or the ♣ A and ♦J, or a trump card and a doubleton spade, or any doubleton diamond and a side winner.

 

A discouraging diamond would show the ♠K, which takes pressure off of us, unless declarer has exactly a stiff spade.

Sorry, Phil, but I disagree. An encouraging ♦ would be encouraging 'compared to' the ♠ suit, but partner should encourage with, say, Kxx ♠ and Qxx(x)♦s. Partner wants you to cash out the ♦s before they go away: the ♠ can wait.

 

I agree that, if we were looking at AKQ(x)♦s, an encouraging signal would deny interest in a ♠ switch, and that a discouraging signal would indicate tolerance for a ♠ switch.. therefore, given what we can see, the ♠K.

[skjaeran]

1. I'd never agree to use count here, so I'd never encounter this exact problem. Attitude signal is a must.

 

2. Assuming I had to sub for someone, I'd most probably switch to a low ♣.

[twcho]

Can anyone give any idea on how to continue the defense given the context of the defensive signal agreement?

 

I know many will play different defensive signal agreement. Some will apply in some cases, but not working very effectively at another. How can one decide which signal is in priority with so many different possibilities?

[pclayton]

By the way, in this situation, playing Obvious Shift, an encouraging diamond would DENY the ♠K (or Queen - but we are looking at it).

 

Knowing this, the defense has different options, but needs to get busy. We can play pard for the ♦Q, or the ♣ A and ♦J, or a trump card and a doubleton spade, or any doubleton diamond and a side winner.

 

A discouraging diamond would show the ♠K, which takes pressure off of us, unless declarer has exactly a stiff spade.

Sorry, Phil, but I disagree. An encouraging ♦ would be encouraging 'compared to' the ♠ suit, but partner should encourage with, say, Kxx ♠ and Qxx(x)♦s. Partner wants you to cash out the ♦s before they go away: the ♠ can wait.

 

I agree that, if we were looking at AKQ(x)♦s, an encouraging signal would deny interest in a ♠ switch, and that a discouraging signal would indicate tolerance for a ♠ switch.. therefore, given what we can see, the ♠K.

The nice thing about Obvious Shift is that you can choose to ignore the rules.

 

We do it all the time in our partnership, and I would agree that if pard is looking at both the ♦Q and the ♠K, that pard should disregard the ♠ card, even though per strict OS dogma pard has denied the ♠K. This is a systemic 'lie' designed to keep pard on the right path.

 

On the other hand, if Dummy held a shorter spade suit, a spade shift may have more appeal, and pard should be more willing to confirm possession of the ♠K.

 

I'd be surprised if we OS differently, but per the book, spades is the Obvious Shift suit, and a discoraging diamond tends to show the ♠K or Q.

[awm]

I would continue diamonds. This is right any time partner has doubleton diamond, or if partner has four diamonds to the queen.

 

If we assume partner has four diamonds, then he's about 4/7 to hold the queen (Qxx and xxx diamonds will look roughly the same to declarer in the bidding). If partner has neither the queen nor jack of diamonds then the continuation probably won't cost, so for the second diamond to be bad we need partner to have the jack and not the queen (about 2/7).

 

Even if partner does hold ♦Jxxx without the queen, it's not all that clear what we should do at trick two. A club switch to partner's ace could set, but a club switch with declarer holding the ace and jack could also be the only switch that allows them to make (say partner has ♠Kxx and ♦Jxxx and out).

 

My thought process would be: continuing diamonds is right more than twice as often as it's wrong. If continuing diamonds is right, I must do it now. If continuing diamonds is wrong, then I'm on a guess as to what to switch to anyway. So I'll continue diamonds.

[pclayton]

Can anyone give any idea on how to continue the defense given the context of the defensive signal agreement?

 

I know many will play different defensive signal agreement. Some will apply in some cases, but not working very effectively at another. How can one decide which signal is in priority with so many different possibilities?

 

I'll play a club. If pard doesn't have the ♠K, or the ♣Ace, we aren't beating this anyway. On the other hand, if pard has the ♣A, and the ♦J, we need to cash our tricks quickly.

 

If pard has exactly 2 diamonds, and the ♠K, I need to give him a ruff now, however, we also need pard to hold at most 2 or 3 spades. Along with the expected doubleton heart, that gives pard 6 or 7 clubs, and I think pard might have found a Lebensohl 2N call over the Capp call.

[mikeh]

The nice thing about Obvious Shift is that you can choose to ignore the rules.

 

We do it all the time in our partnership, and I would agree that if pard is looking at both the ♦Q and the ♠K, that pard should disregard the ♠ card, even though per strict OS dogma pard has denied the ♠K. This is a systemic 'lie' designed to keep pard on the right path.

 

On the other hand, if Dummy held a shorter spade suit, a spade shift may have more appeal, and pard should be more willing to confirm possession of the ♠K.

 

I'd be surprised if we OS differently, but per the book, spades is the Obvious Shift suit, and a discoraging diamond tends to show the ♠K or Q.

I may have to haul my copy of A Switch in Time out of the basement (my wife uses all the meagre bookshelves we have upstairs), because I think we do OS differently :)

 

I would play an encouraging ♦ as either neutral or discouraging re ♠s, and encouraging re ♦s. I would definitely NOT take it as denying a useful ♠ card.

 

My view of OS is that, at trick one, 3rd seat thinks as follows:

 

1. applying the agreed-upon hierarchial rules, determine the OS switch (while this sounds complex, it is easy and quick once you internalize the rules)

 

2. Look at your holdings. With the exception (and rare) case of the 'flag' to suggest the non-obvious switch, tell partner whether you like the lead or whether you would prefer that he switch to the obvious switch suit.

 

With Kx(x) of ♠s, and the ♦Q, there is no way, on the given hand, that I would want partner to switch, so I encourage ♦s regardless of my ♠ holding, and, unless memory serves me wrong (not for the 1st or last time) that is consistent with the book. A discouraging ♦ is a positive suggestion to consider switching, an encouraging ♦ is suggests continuing, which is based on EITHER a true liking for ♦s, independent of ♠ feelings, OR a denial of tolerance for the OS.

[pclayton]

I'm pretty sure Obvious Shift works like this:

 

"An encouraging card in the led suit does not deny the outside card in the OS suit, OTOH a discouraging card absolutely, positively guarantees posession of a card in the OS suit".

 

"Encouraging" diamonds in the subject hand wouldn't deny the ♠K, but discouraging ♦'s would.

 

So 'encouraging' is neutral, but 'discouraging' sends a message that is 100% clear.

 

As long as you choose not to bend the rules LOL. :blink: :)

[Fluffy]

♦K so that partner can finally give a useful signal

[Codo]

I think this is a very poor guess:

1.After a passive lead they may set up spades for a discard.

2. If I cash a second diamond, I need two black suit tricks from pd to beat the contract.

3. If I continue with the King of Club, Pd will nearly never overtake. Or, if declarer has AJ of club, I set up a diamond discard.

4. If I play a low club and declarer has the ace...

 

Oh well.

Okay, I will play the King of Clubs to give my pd the chance to be brilliant.

He will hold the jack of clubs and he will overtake the king to play a diamond if he has Jxxx or xx or he will duck with Kxx in spades.

 

Yes I do have partners who find these plays always at the table. Unluckily they don`t have such a partner...

[MFA]

3. If I continue with the King of Club, Pd will nearly never overtake.

Maybe I'm too good used here, but I fully expect my partner to overtake the ♣K 100% of the time, with or without the ♣J.

He can see dummy too and knows that we need 3 diamond tricks to beat this.

 

Well, ok, if he doesn't overtake, it just means that he holds the ♦Q himself and I will then continue diamonds from my side.

[kenberg]

Given the carding agreements, which like pretty much everyone else I don't like, I would shift to a low club at imps (the given form of scoring) and probably just continue diamonds at mps. My reasoning for the club shift at imps:

 

We need four tricks and at best only three are available in diamonds, therefore partner must have a useful black card. Declaerer is a passed hand and jumped to four hearts over 2D, suggesting, although certainly not guaranteeing, that his useful outside cards are in spades rather than clubs. He has something in diamonds since I trust that if partner holds the QJxx he plays the Q, not the 2. So declarer can hold Kx in spades, Axxxx of hearts Qxx of diamonds and Jxx in clubs and bid this way, I imagine.

 

This reasoning is suspect enough that I am just barely willing to use it at imps. At mps, I just start cashing.

 

Ken

[twcho]

Hi Ken, did u know the hand? You exactly described declarer's hand which was Kx Axxxx Qxx Jxx. :P

[kenberg]

Even a blind pig gets an apple once in a while. No, I hadn't seen the hand.

 

Thanks, I appreciate hearing that it works.

 

Ken

[MFA]

I'm disappointed about the heavy vote for a small club (instead of the K, if we shift to clubs).

 

Are people really so convinced that partner is likely to goof his pedestrian defensive problem (overtake the ♣K to put a ♦ through) that they are willing to unnecessarily hand declarer the contract, every time declarer has the ♣A without the Jack?

 

Hmm, not exactly top flight bridge, I think. :unsure:

[Fluffy]

Are people really so convinced that partner is likely to goof his pedestrian defensive problem (overtake the ♣K to put a ♦ through) that they are willing to unnecessarily hand declarer the contract, every time declarer has the ♣A without the Jack?

 

Hmm, not exactly top flight bridge, I think. :unsure:

Blindly trusting partner might forge a good partnership, sadly it might also destroy it as well :P

[kenberg]

Well, I considered the king of clubs. When I get better partners, I'll lead the king of clubs.

 

I am not actually complaining about my partners. Just being realistic about my ability and theirs.

 

I suppose I could reverse the logic and say if I lead the king of clubs I'll get better partners. If I survive.

 

I'll take it to heart. You are right,and we should all have the courage of our convictions. Partner should get it right.