Signal in defense

[42]

Perhaps this issue has been discussed before, then sorry in advance B)

 

Dummy     You

 

Qxx(...)      AKJ(...)

 

 

Partner is on lead and you win the trick in another suit. Obviously you want partner to play this suit.

Which card do you play (or better: which card is the right one), the K or the A, to show your holding before you bring partner on lead again? And why?

[Sonny S]

K

[cherdano]

You have to play the king. I think all of the following is standard in this situation: K shows AK and asks for count, A just shows...the A and asks for attitude (i.e. for the king). K doesn't imply AKJ yet, partner will have to figure that out later.

[SoTired]

1) If you play the K and it holds with the queen in dummy, then obviously you also have the ace. Since you switch, then you want partner to lead thru dummy's queen. This is not so much a signal as common sense.

 

2) If you play the ace and then switch, this is a signal and implies that you want the switched to suit returned (probably for a ruff).

[Free]

K

[Tola18]

1) If you play the K and it holds with the queen in dummy, then obviously you also have the ace. Since you switch, then you want partner to lead thru dummy's queen. This is not so much a signal as common sense.

 

2) If you play the ace and then switch, this is a signal and implies that you want the switched to suit returned (probably for a ruff).

Yes. Exactly.

 

A comment to point 2.

Taking out Ace in a trump contract is often when it is single.

Thus you want the return to be in the aces suit.

 

So. If a well schooled player does make the "lower-intermediare" move of taking out ace, it is usually because of one of the two different variations:

 

a) Like SoTired says, to take off from partner the possibility to make the wrong switch, ie make hishers guess much easier.

 

b ) open for ruff...

 

An intelligent defender must have eyes open - and decide which it is...

[pclayton]

The King shows the Ace. It doesn't necessarily 'ask' for anything, although I would expect pard would echo with a doubleton in a suit contract with a trump.

 

The Ace is looking for an attitude signal. Its probably in an instance where the defense is looking to cash out. If the defender follow with the King, it would indicate AK tight and is looking for suit preference signal, if that isn't already obvious.

[cherdano]

The King shows the Ace. It doesn't necessarily 'ask' for anything, although I would expect pard would echo with a doubleton in a suit contract with a trump.

I think it is very normal to give count here, not only for the ruff in case partner has a doubleton but also to know whether the ace is cashing.

[skjaeran]

The King shows the Ace. It doesn't necessarily 'ask' for anything, although I would expect pard would echo with a doubleton in a suit contract with a trump.

I think it is very normal to give count here, not only for the ruff in case partner has a doubleton but also to know whether the ace is cashing.

Agree. I've always played that laying down the K with such a dummy is a command to give count. (Of course there's exceptions, like if partner knows this is from a short suit, he'll give suit preference holding the ace to let me know how to put him on lead if the king is a singleton.)

[ralph23]

This may be what you're looking for ..or it may help....I don't know.... a lot of people get confused over this (including my wife and her partner who just can't seem to get it. :D ..)

 

nb - I should note people have ALL sorts of leading conventions, and theories. I'm just listing what I think most consider "standard" at least by American standards....

 

1 Suit contracts. In the USA for generations, the standard lead (opening lead and otherwise) from AK was the King. Of course, from KQ that was also true. So, on opening lead, 3rd hand was unsure what to do if he held the Jack.

 

If opening leader holds KQTx or KQxx, then encouragement is good! But if opening leader has led from AKTx, then 3rd hand knows that declarer's got the Queen, and you don't want him to continue! omg ... what to do??

 

Thus, many good USA players now on opening lead at suit contract, lead Ace from AK, and (as always) King from KQ. This disambiguates opener's holding for third hand. (Of course you trade off and get another ambiguity in return, but that's more tolerable, so the adherents of this procedure hold).

 

However, A from AK is a trick-one agreement only. For other than the opening lead, continue to use the "standard" (in US anyhow) method of leading the King from both AK and KQ.

 

2. NT contracts. If you've decided to lead a suit that contains AK, and if you've also decided to lead one of the big ones (rather than e.g. fourth best), lead the King.

 

Leading the Ace at NT on opening lead (provided you're not leading partner's suit or some other exceptional circumstance applies) asks third hand to unblock == to throw away the K, Q, or J if he has one of those, or else to give count.

 

(NB - Giving count is very popular and is better, but old-timers may still always play their highest card, even if it's a non-facecard-honor, so you need to clear that up with your partners).

 

This helps opening leader when he has a long suit that he wants to run.

 

n1: should this procedure apply at trick 2 and thereafter? To discuss with your partners.

n2: a lot of people reverse the A-K meanings here, and use "Ace for Attitude, King for Count"

n3: there's no substitute for common sense... you still have to think about it when partner opens with the Ace at NT. Could something else be up?

[pclayton]

The King shows the Ace. It doesn't necessarily 'ask' for anything, although I would expect pard would echo with a doubleton in a suit contract with a trump.

I think it is very normal to give count here, not only for the ruff in case partner has a doubleton but also to know whether the ace is cashing.

Agree. I've always played that laying down the K with such a dummy is a command to give count. (Of course there's exceptions, like if partner knows this is from a short suit, he'll give suit preference holding the ace to let me know how to put him on lead if the king is a singleton.)

I suppose there's no other meaning for pard's card when we lead the King, so this is OK. When we led the King, there must have been some compelling reason for us to cash tricks, it would be nice to know if a 2nd trick is cashing too.

 

Its not automatic at all to lay down the King looking at Qxx in dummy. There are many instances when this can cost a trick.

 

Unless, you just don't like to give count in the first place, then its a different matter.

[ralph23]

Its not automatic at all to lay down the King looking at Qxx in dummy. There are many instances when this can cost a trick.

Well, it's assumed that you cash the King, then lead another suit.

 

Partner will be smart enough to figure out that you have the Ace when the King holds the trick.

 

So he'll lead the suit when he gets in, hoping you had AKJ (if declarer has Jxx, then his Jack will always make because the AK are not split, unless he's foolish enough to lead the Jack).

 

But surely, partner will think, you had a reason for cashing the King and then switching to another suit...

 

but, How can it possibly blow a trick when you hold AKJ and dummy holds Qxx in front of you (assuming you don't also cash your Ace right after your King LOL :D )? You have 3 cards, dummy has 3 cards... are we worried that declarer holds xxxx in this suit?

 

I don't see anything else to worry about, and maybe partner has xxxx.

 

Maybe it's not the right lead at the time to play the King, depending on the whole hand, but that's a different issue than whether leading the King's going to give away a trick, isn't it?

[pclayton]

Its not automatic at all to lay down the King looking at Qxx in dummy. There are many instances when this can cost a trick.

Well, it's assumed that you cash the King, then lead another suit.

 

Partner will be smart enough to figure out that you have the Ace when the King holds the trick.

 

So he'll lead the suit when he gets in, hoping you had AKJ (if declarer has Jxx, then his Jack will always make because the AK are not split, unless he's foolish enough to lead the Jack).

 

But surely, partner will think, you had a reason for cashing the King and then switching to another suit...

 

but, How can it possibly blow a trick when you hold AKJ and dummy holds Qxx in front of you (assuming you don't also cash your Ace right after your King LOL :D )? You have 3 cards, dummy has 3 cards... are we worried that declarer holds xxxx in this suit?

 

I don't see anything else to worry about, and maybe partner has xxxx.

 

Maybe it's not the right lead at the time to play the King, depending on the whole hand, but that's a different issue than whether leading the King's going to give away a trick, isn't it?

I was thinking more in the context of AKx. Even AKJ could be wrong in certain circumstances if we can't get endplayed and the trick isn't going anywhere.

 

It gives a slew of information to declarer, who might be able to pick up honors in partner's hand, especially if we didn't open the bidding initially.

 

This is a secondary concern to the OP, however.

[ralph23]

Its not automatic at all to lay down the King looking at Qxx in dummy. There are many instances when this can cost a trick.

Well, it's assumed that you cash the King, then lead another suit.

 

Partner will be smart enough to figure out that you have the Ace when the King holds the trick.

 

So he'll lead the suit when he gets in, hoping you had AKJ (if declarer has Jxx, then his Jack will always make because the AK are not split, unless he's foolish enough to lead the Jack).

 

But surely, partner will think, you had a reason for cashing the King and then switching to another suit...

 

but, How can it possibly blow a trick when you hold AKJ and dummy holds Qxx in front of you (assuming you don't also cash your Ace right after your King LOL :( )? You have 3 cards, dummy has 3 cards... are we worried that declarer holds xxxx in this suit?

 

I don't see anything else to worry about, and maybe partner has xxxx.

 

Maybe it's not the right lead at the time to play the King, depending on the whole hand, but that's a different issue than whether leading the King's going to give away a trick, isn't it?

I was thinking more in the context of AKx. Even AKJ could be wrong in certain circumstances if we can't get endplayed and the trick isn't going anywhere.

 

It gives a slew of information to declarer, who might be able to pick up honors in partner's hand, especially if we didn't open the bidding initially.

 

This is a secondary concern to the OP, however.

If we can't get endplayed, how is leading the King going to blow a trick?

 

I don't see how blowing a trick can happen unless we DO get endplayed, and have to lead away from our AJ right into Qx !!

 

And the question, again, isn't whether it's the right lead or not. Who knows that?

 

We don't have any information about the hand.

 

The question was, will it blow a trick?

 

As I noted before "Maybe it's not the right lead at the time to play the King, depending on the whole hand, but that's a different issue than whether leading the King's going to give away a trick, isn't it?"

[pclayton]

If we can't get endplayed, how is leading the King going to blow a trick?

 

It gives a slew of information to declarer, who might be able to pick up honors in partner's hand, especially if we didn't open the bidding initially.