Defensive Signalling Problem

[WesleyC]

[hv=pc=n&n=s654hq62dq32cqj75&e=sk872h74dkj9c9832&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp1n(13-15)ppp]266|200[/hv]

 

Partner leads the ♠T (standard leads) and your ♠K holds the first trick while declarer follows with the ♠J.

 

Which spade do you return at trick two and what does it mean?

 

What is your signalling plan on further rounds of spades?

 

Cheers,

 

WesleyC

[gnasher]

I return the 2, it means that I have an odd-number remaining, and on the the remaining two rounds I play 7-8 to say that I prefer diamonds to hearts.

[PhilKing]

I return the 2, it means that I have an odd-number remaining, and on the the remaining two rounds I play 7-8 to say that I prefer diamonds to hearts.

 

What would you do with ♦654 ♣KT98?

[WellSpyder]

What would you do with ♦654 ♣KT98?

Play the same spades to indicate a preference for clubs, and then tell partner afterwards that he should have been able to guess which suits I was expressing a preference between!

[PhilKing]

Play the same spades to indicate a preference for clubs, and then tell partner afterwards that he should have been able to guess which suits I was expressing a preference between!

 

That's what I thought. :)

 

Anyway, I want to cash four spades ending in partner's hand. If I return the seven, he can lead back to our eight. Then I play the two to his three.

[gnasher]

What would you do with ♦654 ♣KT98?

I'd signal for some suit that I didn't have.

[WesleyC]

I'd signal for some suit that I didn't have.

 

Imagine that after gaining the lead, declarer played on hearts - say a heart to the Queen and a heart back to King and Partner's ace.

 

Now when partner runs the spades, would you now play 8,7 to suggest diamonds and 7,8 to suggest clubs?

[JLOGIC]

With my good regular partners I would lead back suit preference (the 7) at trick 2 and think they could read it. That said, this is a very unusual spot, and I have never had something exactly like this in real life.

 

I think not only will we know they have QJ doubleton of spades, and not only will our partner know, but our partner will know that we knew that they knew, and that's what is important and makes this unique. My only slight worry is if partner thought we needed them to have 3 entries so we unblocked, but in that case our 7 would still be suit pref for diamonds (since we would lead the 8 or the 7). And that is pretty obscure anyways.

 

I think it might come down somewhat to your philsophical beliefs as a partnership though, I see many good pairs on here and in real life who have many many rules covering situations. I have always been more of the vague "I give what you need" school, obviously with some caveats, obviously with a lot of growing pains but the main discussions I have with my partner about signalling and after a signalling agreement is the logic behind our actions and views, in order to try and get on the same wave length obviously. I am not saying that this is right or wrong, but I think my partners and I would be on the same page here, and I think the rule based partnerships have more of a view that "we will follow our rules even if they are suboptimal for this specific situation" so they at least know what page theyre on always. For those pairs they would probably just return count because this is a very unique spot so I doubt they'd have some rule for it.

[PhilKing]

The seven is just right. The game is too complicated for Gnasheresque agreements to trump bridge logic.

 

If I play 782 and partner does not play a diamond when necessary, I would want to know what he was thinking. It doesn't matter if pard has AT93 or QT93, I am playing the cards in that order, and I expect partner to work out why.