Giving Count When The Primary Signal Is Attitude

[pbleighton]

In my partnerships, I play that the primary signal is attitude.

 

Under what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate to give count rather than attitude, when there is a conflict between the two?

 

We are all strong intermediates, striving to become Advanced :D

 

Please make your answers appropriate to our level, if possible. Something like "in notrump contracts, in a suit the declarer has broken" would be nice. I'm sure that "use your judgement" is the right answer, but I'm looking for guidelines.

 

In two of the partnerships, we are in the process of switching to UDCA. Does this change anything?

 

Also, I don't give count or attitude in the trump suit, or in dummy's long, strong suit? Is this right?

 

Peter

[Flame]

Attitude first is a good approach.

The question is what do you do when attitude is no longer nececarry, for example you lead a suit and find dummy with AKQ in that suit, or a siglton (in suit contract) is there a point in signaling attitude ? Most play that when the honors of the suit lead are known signaling is switched to count instead of attitude. For example if i lead K and dummy has the A, KQ and A are known so count instead of attitude.

Others add more situations where count is given, and many others signal whatever suit the situation, meaning they will think when they see the dummy and decide wather partner would prefer count or attitude. These options especially the last one (which is quite common i think) are not easy and will lead to misunderstanding.

On the other side there are those (im included) who like attitude all the way this mean if dummy has AKQ i will still play attitude but my attitude will not regard only this suit but the all hand, this approach is know as the ovious shift principle, we look at dummy and find (in a systematic way) which is the suit which the leader suppose to shift to when i discarage his lead, now if the leading suit as AKQ and i want the ovious shift suit (i want partner to make that ovious shift) i will discarage, if i dont want that switch (wather i want no switch or i want a switch to a third suit, not the ovious one) i will encarage, now partner looking at dummy's AKQ and see my encaragment will understand.

As i mentioned before i like the attitude way.

Even when playing attitude all the way, there are some special situation where you show count, most importent of them is the lead of a K vs a 5/6 suit contract, this is to let partner know if his next trick (the A) is going to work or be ruffed.

Udca is atleast imo better then std, but it doesnt matter for this discussion.

And to the last question, its very importent to show count in dummies long suit, especially when dummy doesnt have many enteries, partner needs to know whater to duck and how many times.

In trump most give count (count in trump is given in the udca way even when you dont play udca, small=even, high=odd) , most would give count only when they have a ruff situation and partner need to know if they have another trump.

Some play suit preference in trumps which is also what the ovious shift inventors advice.

[mikestar]

Buy a copy of the Granovtter's Obvious Shift book for each of you and study it thoroughly--your defense will improve significantly. Count should be used sparingly (the book lists appropriate situations) as this signal is the most likely to give declarer information he didn't already have.

 

Declarer is likely to have at least a good guess for your attitude or suit preference even without reading your signal, so on balance you are transmitting more useful information to your partner than to the enemy with these signals.

 

Note that in most of the exceptional cases where count is recommended, the balance of information is also favorable. Knowing whether the Ace will cash against 6S after RHO signals count on the lead of the King is of interest but no use whatever to declarer--but immense use to LHO.

[Cascade]

One situation that I always like count is when an honour is led and a lower honour appears in dummy e.g. Qxxx in dummy and partner led the Ace (or King). Now partner will often be very interested in whether his other honour is going to cash.

 

Similar considerations apply when Jxxx in dummy and partner leads the King.

 

There are many variations.

[jillybean]

This is a good thread on signaling & count...

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/ind...ct=ST&f=5&t=575

[the hog]

"Count should be used sparingly (the book lists appropriate situations) as this signal is the most likely to give declarer information he didn't already have. "

 

This really is a matter of attitude, (pun intended). I know a number of players who insist on count throughout, who are excellent defenders. I know of others who give no signals at all.

 

I am not a great fan of the Granovetter book and suggest that if you want to improve defence you would do far better reading Kelsey's books.

 

To answer your question, Peter, most strong partnerships I know play primarilly count and give attitude when it is obvious. In terms of leads, what I personally have found useful is A or Q asks for attitude, K asks for count - so from AKxxx in a suit contract we lead the K, from AKxx we lead the A and from KQxx we lead the Q.

[Fluffy]

I normally give attitude, but there are cases where I give count, and where I give preference.

 

Count when partner leads small, dummy plays Q or lower and I cannot beat it, its kinda obvious I don´t like this suit, so I am giving count.

 

Preference when continuing the suit is obviously wrong, that is the case of AKQ, QJ1098 in NT contract, or much more often, a singleton an Ace lead on a suit contract.

[luke warm]

i'm on my 2nd reading of the granovetter's book... from what i can tell, the basic thrust of this system is to insure that you take the tricks coming to you... in that sense, a pair could probably do worse than to play this scheme

 

it takes a very special player to know what to do even when the count is known

[Stephen Tu]

I recommend two very good books, Woolsey's "Partnership Defense in Bridge" & Miles' "Defensive signals" which spend a lot of time on when a particular signal ought to apply.

 

>Under what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate to give count rather than >attitude, when there is a conflict between the two?

 

Normally one gives attitude when partner leads, count when following to a lead from declarer or dummy. But you give count when attitude is already known or would not be helpful. One example is against NT when you cannot beat the card played from dummy, you cannot like the suit so you give count, which may allow partner to know he can drop declarer's original doubleton ace or similar by just leading low, rather than having to wait for you to get the lead. There are many other situations of course.

 

>In two of the partnerships, we are in the process of switching to UDCA. Does this >change anything?

 

Not particularly, other than the card you pick.

 

>Also, I don't give count or attitude in the trump suit, or in dummy's long, strong >suit? Is this right?

 

Depends. If dummy has a long strong suit, but no side entry, and partner probably has a stopper, it's essential to give accurate count so that partner knows how long to hold up, if he should hold up at all. In other situations you might want to play randomly so that declarer doesn't know. In the trump suit, normally one gives count (traditionally upside-down count even if playing standard, because of the importance of saving high trumps from doubletons for trick taking purposes) if one is trying to get a ruff, so that partner knows if you have any trumps left to ruff with.

 

Whether to give count always is partnership preference, I prefer to only signal if I think it will help partner more than declarer.

[han]

I don't know for sure, but I think it was Soloway who once answered a similar question with "I usually give the signal my partner needs". This is not so useful to the beginning bridge player, but the idea is right. I think that Fluffy gave some good examples of when count is needed, and when attitude is definitely not needed. I'm sure that as we get better, we can better recognize what problem partner is going to be have (e.g. continue the suit, hold up once more, which suit to shift to, etc.) and how we can help partner with the decision.

 

I can think of one more common situation is when it is obvious from the bidding that I'm bust. In this case, attitude is usualy known, and I mostly give count.

 

Regarding the question what defensive books are best to read, I think that one should read all the books mentioned for sure!

[keylime]

I give count only in certain situations:

 

1. When partner leads the A-K, and we WANT to ruff (i.e. not using up a natural trump trick in the process).

2. When leading a king versus any six level contract.

3. Against NT when leading the Ace (i.e. A-K-J-T-x).

4. When helping partner hold up a possible Ace/King.

5. When cashing out is the only alternative and the high cards of the hand are known entities.

 

Otherwise, attitude with suit preference overtones.

[whereagles]

Kantar's "Take your tricks" book on defense has a discussion of when to give count/attitude at trick one, depending on what dummy has.

 

Examples:

1. Pard leads the K and dummy has AJx. 3rd hand gives count.

2. Pard leads the K and dummy has xxx. 3rd hand gives attitude.

3. Pard leads small and dummy has AKQ. 3rd hand makes a suit preference signal

4. Pard leads the Q and dummy has Kxx. 3rd hand gives count (regardless of having A or not - that will become obvious)

[Flame]

Iv posted a hand in the intersting hands section, which illustrates different approach to attitude.