Interpreting the J

[Echognome]

The example just given is pretty straightforward. You play a middle card = no preference. Thus West can figure out East cannot get a ruff. So the only hope is a trump trick and the continuation is clear.

[jdonn]

The example just given is pretty straightforward. You play a middle card = no preference. Thus West can figure out East cannot get a ruff. So the only hope is a trump trick and the continuation is clear.

The example is a perfect one to demonstrate why suit preference is right. Imagine being void in a major, discouraging diamonds without being able to ask for a particular major, then sitting there as partner is in the tank... As you say, if you are not ruffing a major you play a middle card, and in fact with his actual hand and the actual dummy partner will continue diamonds 100% of the time as anything else is hopeless, which reaffirms that attitude is pointless since partner can use his brain anyway.

[lexlogan]

Re-reading the Bridge Encyclopedia article, the next hand does feature Kx in dummy. North-South have bid to 6♣ off two Aces; West cashes the heart Ace and must switch to diamonds despite KQ10x in dummy else declarer (with two singletons) dumps his diamond loser on the ♥K. Suit preference (or an unlikely guess) is the only way to keep them from stealing the slam. I'm not convinced -- surely, it is more likely that switching could pickle partner's Jack than that he holds a second Ace (or can ruff) AND declarer has two singletons. I'll let those who believe they and partner can simultaneously determine when suit preference is "obvious" collect their good boards on such rarities. I strongly suspect they blow far more matchpoints or IMPs with untimely switches than they gain from saving partner a guess about which suit to switch to.

 

All in all, the Encyclopedia article is very unsatisfying since the final example, a supposed triumph for suit preference, is the sort of hand where logic seems to dictate the only possible defense and no signal from partner ought be needed.

[jdonn]

All in all, the Encyclopedia article is very unsatisfying since the final example, a supposed triumph for suit preference, is the sort of hand where logic seems to dictate the only possible defense and no signal from partner ought be needed.

Just like the example that was a supposed triumph for attitude. So I think all we can really conclude is they don't pick good examples.

[Foxx]

A couple of people have hinted at it, but this question cannot be answered absolutely without knowing the key detail - - - - how many trumps came down in the dummy.

 

Of course, if it was any respectable number (like, more than two) then I would expect suit preference applies, similar to the most well known case where a singleton is in dummy and opening leader's high honor holds the trick.