Defend this 1NT

[JLOGIC]

Gnasher, why would partner not give honest carding with AT9 or KT9? The need to falsecard is no longer there.

 

Anyways, enough about the carding.

 

Overall it seems very symmetric to me, so I'm not sure why several people seem to be convinced that a diamond is much better.

 

This is a good question. Here is my answer:

 

If declarer has a minor suit queen, we have to shift to the other suit obviously. So I think a diamond is better because:

 

1) If declarer has Qx of a minor and is open in the other minor, I am dead if I shift to a club, but he might have QT doubleton of diamonds and misguess (meaning partner led from AQxx instead of J9xx which I think is reasoanble), or he might even have QT8 of diamonds and end up misguessing twice. If I play a club and he has Qx or Qxx he cannot misguess

 

2) If declarer has QJ of a minor, he would almost definitely have gone after diamonds first with QJT, but since he can't have the ten of clubs he might have chosen to go after spades first with QJx of clubs.

 

3) It's possible declarer with JT8 of diamonds will misguess later even though not likely. Returning a high diamond might be a good play for this reason.

 

Minor things but imo they make D>C.

 

Edit to add:

 

I forgot, if declarer has NO queen then he might well have gone after diamonds first with JT9 of diamonds (the correct play). That eliminates a combination where playing a diamond back is worse than a club.

[gnasher]

Gnasher, why would partner not give honest carding with AT9 or KT9? The need to falsecard is no longer there.

He can't afford to consistently play the 10 from A109, because declarer might have KQ8x.

 

With K109, it's still not a good idea to tell declarer which suits are breaking.

[JLOGIC]

He can't afford to consistently play the 10 from A109, because declarer might have KQ8x.

So? Declarer will still play him for AT if he plays the ten, and A9 if he plays the 9. What's the problem?

 

Yes if declarer knows he plays the 10 100 % from AT it is a very small problem, in that case he should play it 90 % or w/e, in reality it does not matter if you play it 100 % of the time.

[bluecalm]

Partner's ♠9 is interesting. I'd expect suit-preference here - count is far more likely to help declarer than the defence. I also don't think he'd play the 9 unless he had either the 10 or the 8 to go with it, or he had no choice.

 

+1 for suit preference. Many people here had given up smith in favor of suit preference.

 

it was that I do not think you can assume partner is giving suit preference with no agreements to that effect.

 

Interesting. Playing with advanced+ partner without any agreements other than "no smith" I would assume this is suit preference. I guess we live in different bridge cultures.

 

Fascinating discussion here on signalling, I'm glad I posted the hand. FWIW I do believe suit preference is not standard below the top-level, but if I were playing with a top partner I expect it to be standard.

 

I think top level is overstatement. I usually play with bright people but by no means some top level guys and all of them play either smith or s/p or some combinations of those (smith if honor possible s/p otherwise etc.). Nobody dreams of giving count in declarer's suit when there is so much useful information to give.

 

Anyway, gotta think about the hand assuming ♠ spot is irrelevant.