assign the blame

[Apollo81]

[hv=d=n&v=n&n=sqj863h10973d4ck87&w=sa2hk864dakj63c65&e=s107hq5dq875cq10432&s=sk954haj2d1092caj9]399|300|Scoring: MP

p-p-1♣-1♦

X-3♦-3♠-4♦

4♠-p-p-X

p-p-p[/hv]

 

♦A,4,7,2

♣6

 

West thought East's ♦7 was low and wanted East to duck his supposed ♣A a round for a ruff after winning the ♠A.

 

East was trying to give a deliberately vague signal since he didn't know whether a heart or a club switch was right.

[twcho]

As you stated, from west point of view, east may easily have ♣A and declarer has tenace in ♥ and ♥ return will then be fatal.

 

However, from east pt of view, he should well aware that ♣ return will be most probably of no use while ♥ return is likely very urgent in case this can help to create a ruff. So he shd signal ♦Q to indicate a shift to ♥.

 

But this is only deducible on paper for me. :(

[Guest Jlall]

I guess east is supposed to know to signal for hearts and play the 8. Interesting hand, I confess had I been east I would have played the 7 I think. Declarer made a good play of the 2 of diamonds as well.

[awm]

I've found that trying to play a middle card as an intentionally ambiguous signal usually doesn't work out very well. Most of the time partner can't figure out that this was "supposed to be an ambiguous card" so rather than getting partner to "figure out what he thinks is right" you get partner to act based on "whether your card looks big or small" which is probably less likely to be right than if you'd made a choice yourself and just made a committal signal. Of course, playing a middle card like this is a great way to transfer blame in the postmortem, but I'd rather get good results most of the time and lose the postmortem on bad results than get good results only half the time while always winning the postmortem. Others may feel differently.

 

On this hand I think east should signal for hearts. Declarer did open 1♣ after all. Sure it would be great defense to get partner to switch to a low club from Ax at trick two, but this particular holding is not all that likely.

[Guest Jlall]

I've found that trying to play a middle card as an intentionally ambiguous signal usually doesn't work out very well. Most of the time partner can't figure out that this was "supposed to be an ambiguous card" so rather than getting partner to "figure out what he thinks is right" you get partner to act based on "whether your card looks big or small" which is probably less likely to be right than if you'd made a choice yourself and just made a committal signal. Of course, playing a middle card like this is a great way to transfer blame in the postmortem, but I'd rather get good results most of the time and lose the postmortem on bad results than get good results only half the time while always winning the postmortem. Others may feel differently.

If you're not sure what the right play is from partner then how can it be wrong to play a middle card? Partner may not know that it is a middle card, but he will always be aware that it can be. Many times he will say "in 3 combinations this is a middle card, and in 1 combination this is a low card. Partner rates to be playing a middle card." If partner has a hand where he can set the contract if youre playing a middle card by playing one thing and set the contract if you're playing a low card by playing another thing then he will just play you for a middle card and have good odds. If partner has a problem where he can't set the contract if you're playing a middle card he'll just hope you were playing a low card. This is analagous to a lot of bridge hands with count and attitude as well. Even if partner has no idea what your play is and just takes his best guess how can that be worse than you having no idea what the right play is from partner and taking your best guess at which suit preference to show?

 

I certainly agree that if you can commit to a signal you should do it, and on this hand you have enough information to know that you need a heart back no matter what from partner if you think about it so the right signal is the 8. Of course partner won't know the 8 is high since you may have QT98 but he has excellent odds that it is high.

[bid_em_up]

If 3D is preemptive, I'll give 100% to West for doubling the contract to begin with.

 

Forget about the defense. He's lucky that there is even a possible defense that wins.

 

And if its preemptive, I think its more likely to find partner with Qx of hearts than it is to find him with the club Axx of clubs and be able to get him to duck the first one as well.

[awm]

The issues with the middle card are:

 

(1) It's much easier for declarer to falsecard and/or for partner to be confused. The ♦8 from a four-card holding on this hand could be from QT98, but that is the only possible holding where it is the lowest card. On the other hand, the ♦8 might be middle from QT87 or Q987 or T987 or Q985. If I'm known to often play middle cards partner has a tough guess whether my 8 is high or middle, which tends to fuzzy what should be a pretty clear signal from Q875. If I play the 5, this is an unambiguously low signal since it cannot be my highest or second-highest card.... unless I'm known to play middle cards in which case it could be from QT52, Q952.... The point is that partner can usually get these things right if I always am known to signal as clearly as possible but there is a great deal of uncertainty when I am known to often play "ambiguous" middle cards.

 

(2) When partner sees an intermediate card, he will often spend a lot of mental energy trying to work out why I played this card. Did I play the 7 as my lowest from QT87? Is it my highest non-honor from Q752? What are the relative odds of these holdings? Could it be a middle card? Usually the more effort partner has to expend to try to read my signal, the less he is thinking about defending the hand as a whole, and the more tired he will be at the end of the board.