3rd or 4th?

[Fluffy]

[hv=e=s82hkq1053d64cq953&s=sqj4h62dq875c8642]266|200|1♥-X-4♥-all pass[/hv]

 

Partner leads ♣A promising the king, but showing nothing else, and dummy flops the queen fourth.

 

playing std carding, is it right to play the 2 or the 4?

 

playing UDCA wich card is the correct one?

[JLOGIC]

The 2 in standard, the 8 in udca. WTP?

[whereagles]

this is a classical textbook situation where you should give count instead of attitude

 

in standard the 8 (some prefer the 6)

in UDCA the 2

[JLOL]

LOL

[Tomi2]

this is a classical textbook situation where you should give count instead of attitude

 

in standard the 8 (some prefer the 6)

in UDCA the 2

same for me

[Little Kid]

I would give count here too.

[dburn]

I would give count here too.

If giving count, I believe that the "standard" for standard count players is to begin with the second highest. Of course, any two cards you play will be consistent with a doubleton, and it does not matter whether you play highest or second highest first as long as you do so consistently.

 

As far as I know, there is no corresponding "standard" signal for UDCA players. Symmetry suggests that one should begin with the third highest, but there may be technical disadvantages to this.

 

Whether or not one should give count is debatable - one gathers that jdonn would only play in a fashion consistent with a doubleton if he actually had one (that is, he is really playing attitude and his signal is designed to tell partner whether or not to give him a ruff). Perhaps if his partner wanted count, his partner would have led the king.

[pooltuna]

The 2 in standard, the 8 in udca. WTP?

living up to your new handle I see....hmmm....didn't think that was allowed :)

[Little Kid]

Whether or not one should give count is debatable - one gathers that jdonn would only play in a fashion consistent with a doubleton if he actually had one (that is, he is really playing attitude and his signal is designed to tell partner whether or not to give him a ruff). Perhaps if his partner wanted count, his partner would have led the king.

I guess it depends on whether you play attitude as showing or asking? Never really thought about this, just assumed with no big cards I would discourage. It is interesting though.

[JLOGIC]

Wow I thought giving "count" was a mistake only beginners made here. This is why giving "attitude" is better here:

 

1) You give count, so partner knows you have 2 or 4 when you show even, and 3 if you show odd

 

2) You give attitude and partner knows you have 3 or 4 when you discourage, or 2 when you encourage.

 

The most important thing by far is whether partner knows you have a doubleton or not, so he can give you a ruff. It is only secondary whether you have 3 small or 4 small; partner is always going to shift in those cases anyways so it's not important whether you have 3 or 4. The key here is partner knowing whether or not to give you a ruff. It's nice enough to say partner can usually figure it out when you show 2 or 4 what to do, but in reality he can't. Generally the easiest way to beat a contract will be to give you a ruff, and that's what he'll go for. There's no reason for there to be any confusion though, just play attitude here.

 

If declarer ever leads the suit again your next card can be count. If declarer doesn't lead the suit again, you'll probably have a chance to pitch count. It's possible that you won't get a chance to signal, and it will be relevant whether you had 3 or 4, but it's very unlikely and much less likely to matter than partner getting it wrong and trying to give you a ruff if you've shown 2 or 4 (or getting it wrong and not giving you your ruff when you have 2). Those things can be complete disasters and happen frequently if you attempt to give count, no matter how good your partner is.

[JLOGIC]

I would give count here too.

If giving count, I believe that the "standard" for standard count players is to begin with the second highest. Of course, any two cards you play will be consistent with a doubleton, and it does not matter whether you play highest or second highest first as long as you do so consistently.

This is wrong and is also an antiquated way of thinking.

 

Imagine a situation where partner is missing say J5432 of a suit in a count situation (for simplicity's sake).

 

Ignoring what we play from 5432, we can see that:

 

The 5 is always from 2 or 4.

 

The 4 is from 2 or 4 or J54.

 

Consequently, the 4 is a more ambiguous card since it incorporates a 3 card holding which defeats the point of count parity.

 

So, if you had a choice of what is a better card to play from 5432, would you choose the 5 or the 4? Obviously the 5 as it is the least ambiguous.

 

This is why with 4 small you should always play the highest affordable one. Beginners are taught to play 2nd highest from 4 small so that they don't blow a trick signalling with the highest one (it's hard for a beginner to tell when 9 from 9xxx blows a trick, and when it doesn't).

 

It should be "obvious" that the higher the spot you play from 4, the more readable it will be as an echo. The clearer the signal, the better.

 

In this case, playing the 6 from 8642 playing udca would obviously be a terrible mistake since it adds in a possible doubleton for us (86 doubleton). That makes partner more likely to go wrong and try to give us a ruff.

[dburn]

I would give count here too.

If giving count, I believe that the "standard" for standard count players is to begin with the second highest. Of course, any two cards you play will be consistent with a doubleton, and it does not matter whether you play highest or second highest first as long as you do so consistently.

This is wrong and is also an antiquated way of thinking.

 

Imagine a situation where partner is missing say J5432 of a suit in a count situation (for simplicity's sake).

 

Ignoring what we play from 5432, we can see that:

 

The 5 is always from 2 or 4.

 

The 4 is from 2 or 4 or J54.

 

Consequently, the 4 is a more ambiguous card since it incorporates a 3 card holding which defeats the point of count parity.

 

So, if you had a choice of what is a better card to play from 5432, would you choose the 5 or the 4? Obviously the 5 as it is the least ambiguous.

 

This is why with 4 small you should always play the highest affordable one. Beginners are taught to play 2nd highest from 4 small so that they don't blow a trick signalling with the highest one (it's hard for a beginner to tell when 9 from 9xxx blows a trick, and when it doesn't).

 

It should be "obvious" that the higher the spot you play from 4, the more readable it will be as an echo. The clearer the signal, the better.

 

In this case, playing the 6 from 8642 playing udca would obviously be a terrible mistake since it adds in a possible doubleton for us (86 doubleton). That makes partner more likely to go wrong and try to give us a ruff.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. At least when I play the five, my partner knows he can give me a ruff - when you play the five, yours doesn't.

 

I use the word "you" in a non-specific sense here; you personally, I know, believe this to be an attitude position, and I do not say you are wrong.

 

But if I were ever to play with you and insisted that this was a count position, and you agreed on the grounds that it is better to humor a madman than to upset him, I should be grateful if you would play the five from 5x and the four from 5432. You probably began with more brain cells than I in the first place, but even if you didn't, you certainly have more of them left.

[JLOL]

lol

[MarkDean]

I played count here for a long time until a partner better than myself set me straight. Definitely an attitude card for me.

[Phil]

I've played attitude here, and I'm content with it. Pard doesn't try to give me a ruff and occasionally makes the right continuation.

 

I don't mind this being a count situation if I know partner can work out that I have length. Or I will occasionally fool partner into continuing not minding setting up the Q even if declarer is ruffing.

[Siegmund]

Interesting thread. My default agreements with all my partners make this a count situation, but the "2/4 vs 3, or 2 vs 3/4" argument is a compelling one.

[karlson]

Heh, I still play count here with my regular partners. I need to meet this partner of MarkDean's too.

 

Of course, it should probably depend on context -- attitude clearly seems better with this dummy, but in a situation where cashout looks like a priority, I would like to be playing count. Unfortunately that type of agreement will also will lead to some misinterpretations in disasters.

[JLOGIC]

Heh, I still play count here with my regular partners. I need to meet this partner of MarkDean's too.

 

Of course, it should probably depend on context -- attitude clearly seems better with this dummy, but in a situation where cashout looks like a priority, I would like to be playing count. Unfortunately that type of agreement will also will lead to some misinterpretations in disasters.

The situations where it is a straight cashout are not only uncommon, they are pretty obvious. Like obviously against a slam you would just give straight count. Or if they have a strong auction and stop in 5, and dummy has 5 solid diamonds or something, you would give count (in a situation where they have 2 solid suits and you need to cash your 3 tricks bascially).

 

All of defense is about context. For instance, if you've raised partner in this suit then obv you give count since a doubleton is not possible. I don't think having hard and fast rules for any defensive situation is smart because of that. But 99 % of the time in this situation the priority is telling partner whether you have a doubleton or not, so if you were to just have a "rule" you would not be losing much at all by playing attitude here. How often are you defending hands where you are just in a cashout situation vs defending hands where partner has to either give you a ruff or shift before this suit is set up for pitches? Seems like a no brainer.

[JLOGIC]

Is it also going to blow peoples minds that if partner leads whatever your systemic lead is from AK vs a suit contract, and dummy has Jxxx, you are supposed to discourage with Qxx so he doesn't go ace king and another potentially setting up the jack when he has AKxx? I also consider that a pretty basic position that happens all the time.

 

This one is wrong/could work badly/has more exceptions way more often than the Qxxx in dummy example because sometimes partner needs to know the queen is your entry or needs to cash out correctly with AKx, but it's still clear.