Cashout carding

[rbouskila]

Does anyone know of any defensive carding conventions when cashing out a long suit?

 

I just watched Sveindal-Auken vs Pottenger-Rimer (board 25, round 6A):

 

East (Sveindal) got on lead (vs North's 1NT, with 5 tricks to N-S) in this position:

 

[hv=d=w&v=e&n=s8hd64cj92&w=sakj2hdca5&e=s9hda9852c&s=st76hdckqt]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

East proceeded to cash all his diamonds in descending order of rank; on the ♦5, Auken pitched the ♠A, and also pitched the ♠K on the ♦2, thereby giving up the final trick to dummy's ♠10

 

One can certainly argue (in fact Roland Wald did) that the discard of the ♠A indicates the ♠K and the rest of the tricks as well, but in the given situation, could there be any inference drawn by the order in which East cashes out? After three rounds of diamonds, everyone has the count in that suit, and therefore the order of playing them out could well convey information about the remaining cards in East's hand.

 

My suspicion is that Sveindal was sort of trying to show he had a spade by his ♦8-5-2 play, but that they had no such agreement. Does anyone here?

[dake50]

Liking this idea. Similar to suit-prefer where entry is when driving out declarer's stop. Here D8, then D5 =Spade, conversely 2-5 = club, extending 5-8 or 5-2 for a heart?

[gszeszycki]

Signals are useful ONLY when both partners know they are signals. When E cashed the A9 and N followed this could be merely cashing tricks (since the N hand was hidden) the A9 at that point was only a hint that E had something of interest in a higher remaining side suit the 9A would indicate nothing or some interest in lower ranking suit) Once E cashed the dia 8 (both players would have a complete dia count at that point because N would show out) the play of the A98 in retrospect was a strong indication of where E had "stuff" (in this case their last card). The last 2 dia plays were meaningless. This method is useful in any NT or suit contract where P is known to be out of trumps. If P still has trumps you have to cash tricks from the top in order to keep p from ruffing a winner.

[rbouskila]

Signals are useful ONLY when both partners know they are signals. When E cashed the A9 and N followed this could be merely cashing tricks (since the N hand was hidden) the A9 at that point was only a hint that E had something of interest in a higher remaining side suit the 9A would indicate nothing or some interest in lower ranking suit) Once E cashed the dia 8 (both players would have a complete dia count at that point because N would show out) the play of the A98 in retrospect was a strong indication of where E had "stuff" (in this case their last card). The last 2 dia plays were meaningless. This method is useful in any NT or suit contract where P is known to be out of trumps. If P still has trumps you have to cash tricks from the top in order to keep p from ruffing a winner.

Yeah that's what I meant, only the last few cards, when partner knows you have them and that you have the option of cashing them in any order. Sorry if I was unclear

[Free]

In such situations I give suit preference in the cashout suit. So playing ♦A, ♦9, ♦8,... means I have a ♠ left, playing ♦8, ♦9, ♦A, ♦2 and ♦5 means ♣, and if I mix things up I have ♥. This under our agreement "suit preference in free signaling situations"

[WellSpyder]

Usually in these sort of cash-out situations, it is entlrely clear to the player with the long suit from the earlier play that partner has winners in both remaining suits. In that case the answer is not to play the diamonds in any particular order but to switch to the spade at T12 rather than keep it for T13. Partner might claim to feel insulted, but in reality he will appreciate not having to worry about which winner to keep for the last trick.

[jdonn]

They both should have gotten it right, it happens. East playing his cards in a particular order to show what he will play next is not a special agreement, it's called "suit preference signals" where I come from.