Count signals

[ahydra]

There was an instructive topic recently where most people agreed that, against a suit contract, when partner leads A (from AK) for attitude, holding 5 to the Q with 3 in dummy you shouldn't encourage because declarer will ruff.

 

What about count signals? We lead A for attitude, King for count and play standard signals. Partner and I have had a couple of disasters where he leads K from AKxxx, Qxx or similar appears in dummy, I play high (even) from xxxx and partner then tries to play K thinking he can give me a ruff. Also the case where he leads K from KQxx(x), Jxx in dummy, declarer wins with Ace while I signal even number, partner then gets in and tries the same thing but declarer is the one who's short in the suit.

 

Partner thinks we should save this for a suit which has been supported so we know it's 3 or 4; in other cases we should signal 2 (high), or 3+ (low). I think he may have a good point, but am pretty sure this is not what experts do. What are we missing here?

 

Thanks,

 

ahydra

[akwoo]

One of the things you are missing here is that experts are capable of using count in one suit to infer counts in other suits. In other words, partner might not care whether you have 3 or 4 diamonds, but by signalling in diamonds, he can figure out whether you have 4 or 3 spades later in the play when he or she has to make a decision prior to getting any count information from you in spades. (This is particularly important in pseudo-squeeze situations.)

[Vampyr]

 

Partner thinks we should save this for a suit which has been supported so we know it's 3 or 4; in other cases we should signal 2 (high), or 3+ (low). I think he may have a good point, but am pretty sure this is not what experts do. What are we missing here?

 

 

I am pretty sure that this is what experts do.

[kenberg]

i have usually thought of this count/attitude dichotomy as at the five or more level where there may be less ambiguity about overall strength. Doesn't your partner sometimes lead the K from KQx(x) or KQT(x) and spots hit the dummy? It seems to me he would be less interested in your count, more interested in whether you have a useful honor card after it goes spot-spot-spot. I don't use Rusinow leads, but maybe you have to, and maybe you do, using this count/attitude agreement. That way, if the K is led and xxx hits the dummy, you agree that you will now scrap the plan to give count and give attitude, positive if you have the Q, negative if you have the Jack. Defending against a five level contract, this problem is less frequent (not non-existent though).

[Finch]

I am pretty sure that this is what experts do.

 

Is it?

[lamford]

Is it?

I think this is a complex area. I do not want to misquote gnasher but I believe he agrees that one should only show an even number with a doubleton, not with four. He can correct me if I am wrong. However, another strong team-mate of his and yours, Mike Scoltock, believes one should give true count with four. I think one should decide which is appropriate for each hand, and each dummy, but in general I agree with gnasher.

[Siegmund]

Partner thinks we should save this for a suit which has been supported so we know it's 3 or 4; in other cases we should signal 2 (high), or 3+ (low)

 

...in other words, partner wanted an attitude signal from you. He either needs to not lead the king, or, better yet, needs to take ace-attitude-king-kount off the card.

[Vampyr]

...in other words, partner wanted an attitude signal from you. He either needs to not lead the king, or, better yet, needs to take ace-attitude-king-kount off the card.

 

We play Ace and Queen for attitude, which sometimes results in ambiguity as to the location of the King. I think that the old-fashioned Ace for Count King for attitude is probably superior.

[ahydra]

We play Ace and Queen for attitude, which sometime results in ambiguity as to the location of the King. I think that the old-fashions Ace for Count King for attitude is probably superior.

 

Playing A-count, K-attitude, partner leads K, would you encourage with a J? Or only with Q or doubleton? Figure it has to be the latter, but that may not work well in no-trumps.

 

ahydra

[kuhchung]

Playing A-count, K-attitude, partner leads K, would you encourage with a J? Or only with Q or doubleton? Figure it has to be the latter, but that may not work well in no-trumps.

 

ahydra

 

I have never understood this system sans Rusinow for precisely this reason. I do it at the 5 level only since we are more likely to bang dry ace.

[fromageGB]

We play count as you do, but haven't had a problem big enough to give up the benefits of learning the total distribution. With (say) K lead and Qxx on table we give count. Are you playing second highest from 4? If from the first card declarer plays partner can see that your play is consistent with 2nd from 4, then he will not continue. Of course you may not be 4, but if the bidding hasn't ruled out opener having the number of cards a doubleton from you would imply, then partner plays as if 4.

[whereagles]

If I recall Kantar's book on defense correctly, he says something like this:

 

"Pard leads A (from AK) and dummy comes down with Qxx(x): 3rd seat gives count."

 

He discusses a lot more situations like this in the book. Here's another one I recall:

 

"Pard leads K (from KQ) and dummy comes down with AJx(x): 3rd seat gives preference." (This one actually is debatable, but ok, you see the point.)

[lowerline]

There was an instructive topic recently where most people agreed that, against a suit contract, when partner leads A (from AK) for attitude, holding 5 to the Q with 3 in dummy you shouldn't encourage because declarer will ruff.

 

What about count signals? We lead A for attitude, King for count and play standard signals. Partner and I have had a couple of disasters where he leads K from AKxxx, Qxx or similar appears in dummy, I play high (even) from xxxx and partner then tries to play K thinking he can give me a ruff. Also the case where he leads K from KQxx(x), Jxx in dummy, declarer wins with Ace while I signal even number, partner then gets in and tries the same thing but declarer is the one who's short in the suit.

 

Partner thinks we should save this for a suit which has been supported so we know it's 3 or 4; in other cases we should signal 2 (high), or 3+ (low). I think he may have a good point, but am pretty sure this is not what experts do. What are we missing here?

 

Thanks,

 

ahydra

 

If I understand correctly, this is about telling the difference between a doubleton and a 4crd suit? From a 4crd suit usually the 2nd highest is played. So if there is only one higher card remaining, the distribution is known. If there are two higher cards remaining and declarer plays one of them, there is still ambiguity.

 

S.

[Vampyr]

Playing A-count, K-attitude, partner leads K, would you encourage with a J? Or only with Q or doubleton? Figure it has to be the latter, but that may not work well in no-trumps.

 

I'm not sure, because I haven't yet decided to play it, but a big advantage is that when the Q is led, partner knows you don't have the K.

[fromageGB]

From a 4crd suit usually the 2nd highest is played. So if there is only one higher card remaining, the distribution is known.

Not true. Say the cards 87654 are available, and of those 3rd seat plays 7 and declarer 5. They could be split 8764 and 5, or 76 and 854. In both cases there is only one card higher than 7 remaining.