[kfgauss]

Scoring: IMP

-- -- P P
1H 2N 3H P
P P

---

N/S play UDCA.

♣A, 5, 3, 4.
♣K, 9, 7, 8.
♦K, 4, 3, 6.
♦A, 7, 9, 10.
♣6

Assign the blame.

(For those interested in such things, this is board 10 of the District KO Teams between Tajima (N/S) and Kenji (E/W). N-S is Ino-Teramoto and E-W is Nakamura-Shimamura.)

[Edit: Apologies for the wrong diamond card from declarer on the first trick -- I mistyped 9 instead of 6.]

[paulg]

It's clear that South had shown his minor suit lengths then they would have defeated the contract.

It is very possible that the lead of the ace asked for attitude and not count - a popular method - in which case I'd judge North at fault.

On the other hand, if count was expected then I expect South was trying to prevent a desperate diamond switch, or trying to get his partner to underlead the ♣K so that he could push a diamond through.

However South should realise that partner is pretty strong (given his hand and the fact opponents are not in game) and that partner should not switch to diamonds unless it is safe to do so, so showing length correctly is probably best.

I think that if the lead demanded attitude, there is insufficient reason for South to play differently. Sabine Auken discusses this problem in her recent book (I Love This Game) - essentially the opening leader's partner should not sit and think for ages due to the unauthorised information that it gives: this might be an example, if Ace demands attitude, then a very slow ♣7 would show ♣Q7x. Auken's method is to signal what you are supposed to and let the leader work out the defence unless it is completely 100% clear.

Paul

[FrancesHinden]

I agree with Paul.
If NS were playing a style where Ace asks for Attitude & King for Count (or the other way round) then North should have led the king of clubs.

If not, then South should have given count on the diamond switch; it looks like he discouraged instead.

[kgr]

I'm a bit confused by the two previous posts. If NS play attitude then S needs to play low on both C and D? So we can suppose that NS play attitude.
In my opinion if South encourages D then he says that he likes them more then clubs and N should continue D.
I play that A asks for attitude (also positive with doubleton) and K for count. Looking at dummy North should have play the D K then.

[awm]

There are many reasons south might encourage clubs at trick one:

(1) He has the queen (as here).
(2) He has doubleton.
(3) He just has nothing, and wants to avoid a diamond switch from AQxxx or the like.

However, why would south encourage diamonds? If he has a doubleton club he should surely discourage to get north to go back to clubs. The queen of diamonds isn't even a real reason to encourage since dummy has only two. So I think south has shown doubleton diamond here; there is no other reason to encourage the suit. The blame goes to north.

[Walddk]

I echo Adam's post. South should not encourage diamonds after ♣AK if he didn't want a 3rd diamond. Let's assume that he has Qxx in both minors. Encouraging signals on ♣AK just fine, but he must discourage diamonds next.

Roland

[flytoox]

awm, on May 21 2006, 07:44 PM, said:

There are many reasons south might encourage clubs at trick one:

(1) He has the queen (as here).
(2) He has doubleton.
(3) He just has nothing, and wants to avoid a diamond switch from AQxxx or the like.

However, why would south encourage diamonds? If he has a doubleton club he should surely discourage to get north to go back to clubs. The queen of diamonds isn't even a real reason to encourage since dummy has only two. So I think south has shown doubleton diamond here; there is no other reason to encourage the suit. The blame goes to north.

Very good analysis. Again it shows waht important is logic, not signal.

[FrancesHinden]

awm, on May 21 2006, 08:44 PM, said:

There are many reasons south might encourage clubs at trick one:

(1) He has the queen (as here).
(2) He has doubleton.
(3) He just has nothing, and wants to avoid a diamond switch from AQxxx or the like.

However, why would south encourage diamonds? If he has a doubleton club he should surely discourage to get north to go back to clubs. The queen of diamonds isn't even a real reason to encourage since dummy has only two. So I think south has shown doubleton diamond here; there is no other reason to encourage the suit. The blame goes to north.

I agree with most of this logic, and Roland's post as well, but NS play UPSIDE DOWN count and attitude. Therefore if South was given attitude, he encouraged the opening lead (he had the queen, looks like an excellent choice). He then either discouraged the diamond switch or showed an ODD number.

We all seem to agree that he should have encouraged the switch or shown an even number, both of which involve playing the 3 on the first round.

South knows the third club is not cashing.

[kfgauss]

FrancesHinden, on May 22 2006, 09:57 AM, said:

He then either discouraged the diamond switch or showed an ODD number.

I mistyped declarer's 6 as the 9 on the first diamond trick (I've edited it, but it used to read K, 4, 3, 9) so you were probably confused by the two 9's. Sorry about that.

An amusing note on the rest of the hand: the club switch at trick 5 actually gained a trick, as declarer played for hearts 4-1 and, after cashing ♥A, crossed to ♠A and hooked the heart, whereupon the defense got their diamond ruff as well.

Andy

[FrancesHinden]

Didn't see the edit. Now I understand why all these intelligent people seemed to be on a completely different page!

In that case South signalled corrected in diamonds and North mis-defended.

[Wackojack]

What hasn't been mentioned is why North chose an opening lead of [C]A and the first diamond lead was the King. Surely North can take the view that the only way to get a 5th trick, is for South to be able to ruff either a club or a diamond. South with Qxx in either minor will be no good. So he needs to ask for count in both suits. Am I missing something?

[ochinko]

South encouraged both minors, so North was left to guess. If South was dealt ♥632 and was doubleton in both minors, ♣6 would be the right card as South would be unable to overruf the dummy if a ♦ was played instead.

OTOH, if North starts with ♣K showing three honors, it would be safe for South to play his ♣Q first, showing either three clubs or singleton, and revealing the exact count at the next trick.

So, at the end both North and South defended badly.

[mikeh]

For me, North is 100% to blame.

S should encourage ♣: he has the Q, and he cannot stand a ♦ switch unless N's ♦ are strong enough to make the switch independently.

North should, at trick 2, cash the ♦K. This allows South to clarify the first signal: it is crucial to understand that the initial signal was a 'relative' message: while it ostensibly said I like the ♣ lead, that 'liking' may be relative to S's attitude towards a switch. This approach is explicit when playing 'obvious switch' methods, but implicit in any expert partnership.

So when N cashes the ♦K, S encourages ♦... which is a message about relative likes for the minors. Had S a stiff or doubleton ♣ (both live possibilities on this auction and dummy), he would discourage ♦...

Had S been 5=3=4=1, the discouragement in ♦ would get a second and third round of ♣ and a ♦ back and yet another ♣, leading to -2 so long as S's top trump beat dummy's... almost certain looking at dummy's spots.

As the hand is, S encourages ♦ and it is routine for North to continue with a second ♦ and a 3rd, leaving the ♣K in his hand in the unlikely event that S has 6=3=1=3 and W is 1=5=5=2... again, not impossible.

BTW, I was interested to read the suggestion that North could chose what message he wanted to get on the opening lead: A for attitudde and K for count (or reversed). I have never played that and would need to think about it. My preliminary reaction is that I don't like it: my choice of A or K against a suit partial shows different combinations in my hand: the lead of the K denies the A...

[cherdano]

mikeh, on May 23 2006, 06:13 PM, said:

BTW, I was interested to read the suggestion that North could chose what message he wanted to get on the opening lead: A for attitudde and K for count (or reversed). I have never played that and would need to think about it. My preliminary reaction is that I don't like it: my choice of A or K against a suit partial shows different combinations in my hand: the lead of the K denies the A...

I dont understand either how one can lead K both from AK and KQ. However, the above agreement is my favourite part about Rusinow leads. Since K will always be from AK, and A usually too, it makes sense to give them different meanings. (I like A for attitude, since this will sometimes happen to work well too when leading a bare ace.)


Arend

[Fluffy]

I love mike's idea of cashing ♦K before ♣A, still wonder if it will solve anything since both the 7 and Q can be a doubleton. My opponents normally solve this kind of problems touching 2 cards on the second club