Defensive signals

[NickRW]

This is a problem from the 1970 book, "Case for the Defence", by Victor Mollo (it may have been sold in the US under a different title). Mollo himself gave two answers, one of which he declares to be correct. To my mind there is a third possible answer - which seems to me to be at least as right.

 

I'll post the problem now - Mollo's answer in about 6 hours or so - after tonight's game...

 

[hv=pc=n&w=sqjt764hqt93da4c8&n=s98h2dkjcqjt97652&d=w&v=e&b=16&a=2s3cp3nppp]266|200|West leads the spade queen.<br>East wins with the ace and returns the deuce on which declarer playes the King.<br>Which card should West play?[/hv]

[gnasher]

The four, showing suit-preference for diamonds. I can't think of another answer, let alone two other answers.

[NickRW]

The four, showing suit-preference for diamonds. I can't think of another answer, let alone two other answers.

 

Ha, well you've got the answer I gave - the third option

[wank]

i think the 10 would be just as obviously suit pref for diamonds.

[wyman]

i think the 10 would be just as obviously suit pref for diamonds.

 

In fact, the 7 should be just as obviously SP for diamonds; the only card partner has seen is the 3 or the 5, depending which declarer played. If partner believes that I hold 6 spades, my spade is not low.

 

Also, this is a little subtle; maybe it's obvious to everyone else that I can never want a club switch, but if delcarer now puts the HK on the table, I'm a little worried he might have a spade, 6 diamonds, and 2 hearts. I need to know how to hit partner, and if he plays the 4 -- I'm thinking club. Maybe I will still return a diamond, but I'd sure love to have had this conversation with partner before.

 

In theory, I should be able to signal hi-med-lo, and I'd love a "no preference" card, assuming partner can work out my approximate holding (which, given the spots, he should be able to).

 

When I first saw this hand, my first thought was S10, though I'm positive my regular partner would return a diamond if I played the S7.

[gnasher]

Also, this is a little subtle; maybe it's obvious to everyone else that I can never want a club switch, but if delcarer now puts the HK on the table, I'm a little worried he might have a spade, 6 diamonds, and 2 hearts. I need to know how to hit partner, and if he plays the 4 -- I'm thinking club. Maybe I will still return a diamond, but I'd sure love to have had this conversation with partner before.

 

You're worried that declarer will lead ♥K to partner's ace, and partner will now underlead his ♣K? OK, so declarer makes two club tricks becfore he has to let me in to cash all my winners.

[Fluffy]

I am worried that declarer bangs down ♣A and catches partner's singleton ♣K, when we might induce him not to do so by playing highest because he is stupid and then he will play us for ♥KQ and nothing in the minors.

 

Partner is also suposed to duck ♣A with nothing in diamonds when we clearly signaled for hearts and he is looking at the king himself, so we can then make a contradictional signal with ♥Q that he will understand.

[Phil]

I can imagine he might suggest the J as the card we are known to hold. Perhaps we are supposed to convince declarer spades are 4-4.

 

To what end eeither of these plays accomplishes I have no idea.

 

OTOH, when partner wins his singleton ♣A, I think I know what suit I want him to return.

[wank]

I can imagine he might suggest the J as the card we are known to hold. Perhaps we are supposed to convince declarer spades are 4-4.

 

 

we opened 2♠. i suspect declarer knows spades aren't breaking

[wank]

I am worried that declarer bangs down ♣A and catches partner's singleton ♣K, when we might induce him not to do so by playing highest because he is stupid and then he will play us for ♥KQ and nothing in the minors.

 

Partner is also suposed to duck ♣A with nothing in diamonds when we clearly signaled for hearts and he is looking at the king himself, so we can then make a contradictional signal with ♥Q that he will understand.

 

that would give us a club void. it seems a little far-fetched to expect declarer to try to cross to dummy on diamonds, knowing he'll lose a trick to the ace (east's ace he hopes), in order to hook a club missing only Kx.

[NickRW]

Well, Mollo said the right answer is the ♠10. He explains:

 

"Did you fail to get this right? Then you are in good company. One of America's leading pairs had their wires crossed in this situation during a friendly international. West played the ♠7, a middle card designed to show his entry was in the middle suit, diamonds."

 

"East argued, correctly, that since West was marked on the lead with the ♠J10, the jack would signal hearts and the 10 would singnal for a diamond. The deuce (misprint - must mean the 4) would be the signal for clubs."

 

"West, a world champion, had overlooked the fact that he might have had no ace at all. That was what the ♠7, an essentially neutral card, suggested to East. When he came in the ♣A, he returned a heart and..."

 

East's hand was

A2

87654

Q8732

A

 

Declarer held

K53

AKJ

T965

K43

 

So the actual West played the 7 to indicate a diamond. East and Mollo vote for the 10 and I thought, the same as gnasher, that surely a club would never be a preference with that dummy - so the 4 should be right.

 

It seems from the answers so far you all don't see it the same way either!

 

Nick

[gnasher]

What was East playing for? For a diamond switch to let the contract through, declarer would have to have Kxx AKQJx Axx xx, which would make his line of play rather odd.

 

I think Mollo's point about the meanings of signals with this suit is generally correct, but I don't think this deal demonstrates that.

[cherdano]

What was East playing for? For a diamond switch to let the contract through, declarer would have to have Kxx AKQJx Axx xx, which would make his line of play rather odd.

 

I think Mollo's point about the meanings of signals with this suit is generally correct, but I don't think this deal demonstrates that.

I am surprised you agree, in particular since it disagrees with your earlier post!

 

To me, 4 would signal diamonds, Jack would signal hearts, and anything in between would be muddled. Not perfect but so far I never needed to signal for dummy's 8-card suit against NT.

[phil_20686]

you might also consider throughing the Q or T or 9 of hearts (depending a bit on agreement - but one of these must command a diamond switch). I dont think that can ever let the contract through, and will fetch a diamond switch for sure I think. It also gets us one more undertrick... :)

[rhm]

Well, Mollo said the right answer is the ♠10. He explains:

 

"Did you fail to get this right? Then you are in good company. One of America's leading pairs had their wires crossed in this situation during a friendly international. West played the ♠7, a middle card designed to show his entry was in the middle suit, diamonds."

 

"East argued, correctly, that since West was marked on the lead with the ♠J10, the jack would signal hearts and the 10 would singnal for a diamond. The deuce (misprint - must mean the 4) would be the signal for clubs."

 

"West, a world champion, had overlooked the fact that he might have had no ace at all. That was what the ♠7, an essentially neutral card, suggested to East. When he came in the ♣A, he returned a heart and..."

 

East's hand was

A2

87654

Q8732

A

 

Declarer held

K53

AKJ

T965

K43

 

So the actual West played the 7 to indicate a diamond. East and Mollo vote for the 10 and I thought, the same as gnasher, that surely a club would never be a preference with that dummy - so the 4 should be right.

 

It seems from the answers so far you all don't see it the same way either!

 

Nick

 

Sorry, but what a nonsense. This analysis does not stand up in my view and it is a good example that most people rely too much on signals instead of applying simple Bridge logic.

 

If you apply logic this is a trivial hand from East's perspective.

If declarer holds both red aces and and a ♣ honor at least doubleton he will establish ♣ and claim 11 tricks.

Accordingly East has to play West for an ace in the red suit or a ♣ honor.

 

If West has a ♣ honor and South plays on ♣ the defense does not matter with the possible exception that East may have a singleton ♣ ace and that West may not go in with the king when a ♣ is let out of hand at trick 3. The hand will go down sooner or later.

So East need to concentrate only on which ace West to play for.

Accordingly East should return a ♦ unless West played specifically the ♠jack at trick 2.

 

If South does not play on ♣ it is fairly clear that West's entry will be in ♣.

(South would not bid 3NT with long ♥ and a singleton ♣ honor or a doubleton ♣AK)

 

Most players would improve their defensive capability significantly if they would stop signaling for at least 6 months.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[dake50]

Agree Rainer,

Most signals merely redundate what your bridge logic already determined.

 

The real problems come when 'that signal' was needed between two nearly equal cases.

Did I get the signal I needed? Or did partner go automatic? Asleep? Didn't see my problem?

[NickRW]

Sorry, but what a nonsense.

 

Ah, well, the book is, apart from this one problem that is, I think, questionable, very good with a mix of mostly intermediate and some harder questions that the majority here should get mostly right in book form, but if we're honest, would miss a fair proportion of them at the table. I was just miffed at getting this question "wrong" and wondered if it was just me - or whether there was room for argument.

 

I also take your point - playing "unwanted cards" signals is quite a bit better than people think.

 

Nick

[Phil]

we opened 2♠. i suspect declarer knows spades aren't breaking

 

heh, true.

 

Showing a club card makes NO sense.

[pooltuna]

Ha, well you've got the answer I gave - the third option

 

If the J♠=♥ then surely the T♠=♦

perhaps deception is in order so play the 4♠ to show ♣ to get declarer to either misplay the ♣ or try for 8 other tricks in ♦/♥ (if this is possible)

[gnasher]

I am surprised you agree, in particular since it disagrees with your earlier post!

 

Even though this is an internet forum, I do occasionally allow myself to be persuaded by other people's opinions. :)

 

To me, 4 would signal diamonds, Jack would signal hearts, and anything in between would be muddled. Not perfect but so far I never needed to signal for dummy's 8-card suit against NT.

 

What I meant was that if we did need to signal between three suits, the meanings should be as Mollo suggested.

 

Similarly, suppose that we were known to have a six-card suit, and had led the 4 playing 4th best. Then the 2 and 3 should be for the lowest and middle suits respectively.

[Zelandakh]

There is another way of looking at signalling here that is equally as logical and gets all of the messages across. In this the J would show no preference, essentially a denial of anything concrete outside spades. The 10 would be a high card and indicate hearts. The 4 would be a low card and indicate diamonds. The 7 would be a middle card and mean something 'unusual', in this case clearly a club. I understand this is not standard, no need to point it out. However it is logical and this method of thinking (arguably) gives rise to fewer exceptions than standard. Cherdano's method is even more practical with even fewer exceptions!