Defensive signals

[AnJoe]

I'm having a friendly disagreement with a regular partner over when to use suit preference signals and when to show count.

 

For instance, against a 4 spade contract, with two broken suits you elect to lay down the diamond ace, and find the dummy with K,Q, J.

 

Now, is an 8 from partner suit preference, or possibly start of a doubleton? (Attitude?)

 

Can we switch from showing doubletons or attitude in such an instance to showing suit preference?

 

I think I can make an argument for either.

 

Should I be able to tell which from length of my own suit and visualizing declarer's hand given the bidding?

[wclass___]

Partner leads naked ace and dummy has KQJ? If i have ace or king to get an entry for ruff i would show s/p (or obvious shift, if u play that), if i have "nothing" i have feeling partner is so afraid to play other suits, that he wont switch anyway, so i can't show anything useful except count.

[jjbrr]

It's not great to make rules like "When dummy has this, we always play SP. If dummy is that, we give count." It's much better to give the signals that convey the information that partner needs to know.

 

In general, I'd say this is not a SP situation, because giving attitude accomplishes pretty much the same thing. Surely if you cashed the A in the middle of the hand looking at KQJ you had a reason. So you probably had something in mind and it was either to continue playing the suit hoping to give partner a ruff in that suit (in which case he encourages) or you need to play something else (in which case partner discourages) and it should be obvious to you what to play. If you're cashing aces because you don't know what else to do in the hand, I suggest worrying less about signals and more about defending in general.

[rbforster]

you elect to lay down the diamond ace, and find the dummy with K,Q, J.

In this situation, I play high from a singleton (encouraging), low from length. Some people prefer upside attitude however and reverse these. :)

[ggwhiz]

I had a regular pard that when I led an Ace or King and the dummy had QJxx, he always played low to say he didn't like it. Duh!

 

I insisted that Ace asks for attitude and King asks for count.

 

This situation clearly is suit preference but anything that's solid can work since I was ignored on the above request.

[kenberg]

I doubt that you will get anything resembling unanimity on this so there is no way around it, you have to sit down with partner and work it out. Here are a couple of my thoughts, fwiw.

 

On the above post: A is led, QJxx hits the table. The A is usually from AKx(xx) and my view is that the only attitude that I can have is governed by my length. So I give count.

 

With regard to the original situation: A is led KQJ hits. I'm not so sure this is a SP situation. Presumably opening leader had a choice of bad leads or he would not have laid down the ace in the first place. It could well be the case, especially if dummy is really KQJ rather than KQJx, that the best move is to continue the suit and let declarer open up the side suits. When it is clear to everyone that you are in a cash out situation, then SP applies. But "clear to everyone" may be a bit ambiguous.

 

I also go with BobF's suggestion of playing high with a singleton, but I have one partner who insists I should play low. Really I think the best is to hold it in the air for an extra second or two before placing it on the table.

[Stephen Tu]

I think if you lead ace and dummy comes down KQJx, if third hand has promised 3+ in the suit in the auction, suit preference should definitely apply. But if this isn't true, if 3rd hand could be singleton/doubleton, you better not play suit pref.

 

On the above post: A is led, QJxx hits the table. The A is usually from AKx(xx) and my view is that the only attitude that I can have is governed by my length. So I give count.

 

I don't know about that. In some auctions you could have 82 as easily as 8752. If you are going to play the 8 (or 7) how is partner supposed to know the difference? I think it should simply be attitude, play high (low if UDCA) if you have the doubleton and want a ruff, OR you want partner to cash because the likely shift is probably worse. Count if it's 5 level+.

[Echognome]

<snip>In this situation, I play high from a singleton (encouraging),<snip>

I don't know if this was meant to be funny, but it was.

[rbforster]

<snip>In this situation, I play high from a singleton (encouraging),<snip>

I don't know if this was meant to be funny, but it was.

:ph34r:

[pooltuna]

you elect to lay down the diamond ace, and find the dummy with K,Q, J.

In this situation, I play high from a singleton (encouraging), low from length. Some people prefer upside attitude however and reverse these. :)

yes I only play UDCA when I have a singleton 2. :)

[awm]

It's not great to make rules like "When dummy has this, we always play SP. If dummy is that, we give count." It's much better to give the signals that convey the information that partner needs to know.

"Conveying the information that partner needs to know" is great in the post-mortem, but unfortunately it backfires fairly frequently at the table. The problem is that partner does not necessarily agree with you about "what he needs to know" or about the meaning of the signal.

 

A couple nights ago I was defending a 4♠ contract at IMPs. My partner is a Hall of Fame player, world champion, bbo star, etc.

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sqj6hq9654dq5caj4&w=sa94hjt732dkcq952&e=s32hk8dat976432c7&s=skt875hadj8ckt863]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

Partner lead the ♦K and I played the ♦2. I was hoping that this would be suit preference for clubs (telling partner what he "needs to know"), but our agreement was just "we play UDCA." After some thought, partner switched to a small heart and the contract made.

 

One of partner's more regular partners was the dummy on this hand, and commented that "obviously the ♦2 was telling him what he needs to know" and he should switch to clubs.

 

But the point is, even among very good players, these signals are sometimes missed/misinterpreted.

 

A method I really like is obvious shift (described in the Granovetter's "switch in time" book). This method means that the trick one signal is a combination of attitude and suit preference, which removes most of the need for special agreements about particular dummy holdings, as well as removing the guess work of "is what you think I need to know actually what I think I need to know."

[jjbrr]

♦2 was clearly SP. Your HOF partner comes from a different generation where, apparently, signals don't mean the same thing anymore. I don't think this is a problem with "what partner needs to know" but rather partner simply didnt know what answer he was looking for.

 

Bramley gave us a similar anecdote about a time when he needed to know SP and partner gave it on opening lead instead of in trumps like would be standard now.