[Wackojack]

Scoring: IMP


1♣ DBL P 1♥
2♦ 3♠ 4♦ 4♠
5♦ 5♠ P P
P

---

Sitting south I led 10♣. Partner played A♣ and switched to ♦K. I followed with 2♦ and partner continued with ♦A.... curtains.

My partner is not an experienced player and has been taught to follow suit with count and discard with Mckenney. She regularly attends BIL classes, is very keen and improving and I hope I am helping her. I am not a qualified bridge teacher so hesitate to impose too much my own concepts about signalling. We have did a conversation a few days ago when I said I thought attitude at trick 1 was better and fortunately most of the time an attitude and count signal was the same. I also told her that normally I only give a suit preference signal when I think she would not otherwise know, otherwise it is count.

This was the chat after:
didnt u play a 4 jack?
wackojack: y

wackojack: my raise showed 4 so small was for a club
:i wanted count
wackojack: if i played high you would return a !c?
i wouldnt return what i did
wackojack: i must have 4 for my raise
: sry jack yr level of thinking is higher than mine...a need more time for that.


Your views? Shall I leave it to the bridge teachers?

[TylerE]

If my agreement was to show count I'd give count.

That said, major failing here seems to be partner's failure figure out what's happening with the hand.

[ArtK78]

All signals must be interpreted in context. Here, the context included the following:

(1) South had showed 4-card diamonds support for the raise to 4♦. So, there is no need to give count. Hence, the low diamond must be a request for a club play.

(2) North is not at a level to assimilate all of that information and come up with the desired conclusion. In that context, perhaps the ♦9 would be a better play.

I would play the low diamond at trick 2. But as is obvious in the post-mortem (and this is truly a post-mortem, as the hand is now dead), the play of the ♦4 did not achieve the desired result.

I don't know what more can be said.

[manudude03]

Hmmm some under the table trading of cards? How did the ♦2 and ♦K get played in the same trick?

Anyway, I would agree that a club switch should be fairly obvious, does partner honestly think you can bid 4D with 3 small? Some very fishy things going on if you could have 3. I would have given count anyway in the the very slim offchance that partner only started with 4. Either way, a ♣Q lead should be fairly obvious on the basis that if you have the ♥A, you will always get it.

[jdonn]

I think this is OBVIOUS count. Partner needs to know one thing and one thing only: Will another diamond cash? And there is only one way to tell him this clearly: Tell him how many diamonds you have. These debates always baffle me. Forget the bidding, what do you do after the hand when you say partner why did you raise with 3? And he says who cares I told you how many I had!

[pclayton]

A good agreement is that the King would ask for count and the Ace would request attitude, not only toward the suit, but also in context of the opening lead and the rest of the hand.

I'd shift to the Ace here as North. Partner would discourage and give you your club ruff.

If the King were led, I'd signal count. Partner would still get it right, but for different reasons.

[TimG]

Wackojack, on May 2 2008, 09:55 AM, said:

wackojack: my raise showed 4 so small was for a club

Couldn't your raise be made with five? Yes, I know that this cannot be the case from partner's point of view once she sees declarer show up with a diamond. But, how did you know your partner didn't have four diamonds and want to know whether you had 4 or 5?

I think you presented partner with a tough choice: either play you for strange carding (showing an odd number when you held an even) or strange bidding (raising on three small).

[jdonn]

pclayton, on May 2 2008, 11:34 AM, said:

A good agreement is that the King would ask for count and the Ace would request attitude, not only toward the suit, but also in context of the opening lead and the rest of the hand.

I'd shift to the Ace here as North. Partner would discourage and give you your club ruff.

If the King were led, I'd signal count. Partner would still get it right, but for different reasons.

Let me change the hand around a little.

Wackojack, on May 2 2008, 09:55 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP


1♣ DBL P 1♥
2♦ 3♠ 4♦ 4♠
5♦ 5♠ P P
P

---

Now as south you encourage diamonds in case partner has 4 since you can't ruff a club? Oops? But what if you discourage and east has AKQJxxx A Qx Kxx?

I am not trying to discourage the A - K agreement, but logic dictates situations. I will claim that suggesting attitude should apply in the currect situation rather than count is illogical. If you give partner count he ALWAYS knows what to do here.

Maybe the agreement is fine here since it seems clear given that that north should play the king not the ace, even though you said you would play the ace. But that just goes to show a fancy agreement can't become a crutch for thinking.

[TimG]

jdonn, on May 2 2008, 11:58 AM, said:

Wackojack, on May 2 2008, 09:55 AM, said:

Scoring: IMP


1♣ DBL P 1♥
2♦ 3♠ 4♦ 4♠
5♦ 5♠ P P
P

---

Now as south you encourage diamonds in case partner has 4 since you can't ruff a club? Oops?

I agree with jdonn about the carding issue and do not mean this post to suggest otherwise.

But, I think it's already curtains on this hand when north wins the club lead and plays the ace of diamonds. Though the diamond continuation will certainly make it easier on declarer.

[cherdano]

I would also take K as asking for count and A for attitude, and I would most definitely switch to the K with the North hand. Why give count on partner's A lead when he surely would have switched to the K from AK? What if partner has ♦Axxx and has to decide between playing you for a club ruff or ♦Kxxx?

[jdonn]

I should mention that I think the A attitude K count 'agreement' should be reached by normal logic anyway, using the following chain of reasoning.

If partner has AK he needs to know count to know if the other one will cash.
Therefore partner should always play the K from that so I know he has AK.
Therefore when partner plays the A I know he doesn't have AK, so I should give him attitude.

Tim, how does east make if north switches back to clubs after KD on my example hand?

Edit: Never mind I see it now. Nonethless declarer would have to do it, and anyway the 9 of diamonds might not be in dummy next time.

[mcphee]

I regret to say that I believe the defence on this hand is mostly the fault of the N player really. Look at the bidding, you see dummy and can almost bank on partner leading a stiff C. It would strike me far more logical to be lead a D from Q4th if I did not have a stiff C, or I could lead a Hi D from nada and 4 with a 2 card C holding. D is the most likely trick to be lost and I do have nothing for my raise. I also can see partner has nothing of HCV what reason did they have for bidding 4D? So my feeling is that if you failed to think the lead was from 1, and you intended to hope for a H trick from partner, you should not continue another D regradless of the card they played. I think your partner should blame themselves for being forced to lead from what might have been 2 card C because the have the stiff 10. Bottom line to me is I need my partner to hold a stiff C to beat this hand, I do not seriously consider they have a natural trump trick. All my votes go toward returning my lowest C at trick 2 and end up beating it 2 tricks.

As for carding, this is and agreement position and to me it is not a count position if I want a C ruff. I prefer low NO more D and a higher D when showing count is of more importance or my best hope for another trick is to try and get our next D trick.

[han]

jdonn, on May 2 2008, 12:15 PM, said:

I should mention that I think the A attitude K count 'agreement' should be reached by normal logic anyway, using the following chain of reasoning.

[skip]

Agree.

[xcurt]

TimG, on May 2 2008, 12:05 PM, said:

But, I think it's already curtains on this hand when north wins the club lead and plays the ace of diamonds.  Though the diamond continuation will certainly make it easier on declarer.

Tim (and Justin with his comment about transfer squeezes) beat me to it but on the alternative layout suggested by josh it is already over after the opening lead. To beat this layout the defense needs to go DA, H->A, SAK, DQ->A, Cx! and then south can win the second club and lead the HQ to destroy the red squeeze against him.

The opening club lead attacks south's late entry.

[TimG]

xcurt, on May 2 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

To beat this layout the defense needs to go DA, H->A, SAK, DQ->A, Cx!

The ♦Q gets played at trick one.

[xcurt]

TimG, on May 2 2008, 10:43 PM, said:

xcurt, on May 2 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

To beat this layout the defense needs to go  DA, H->A, SAK, DQ->A, Cx!

The ♦Q gets played at trick one.

Barf I transposed two lines. Fix:

DA, H->A, SAK, Sx->9, Cx-x!.

After

DA, H->A, SAK, Sx->9, C->A, C->K, C ruff, DJ-A-ruff-x, trumps south is crushed.

If south leads anything but one of the smaller diamonds, or north does not switch to hearts, or north goes up on the club, declarer can make the hand.

A heart lead blows trick 11,

A club lead attacks souths later entry.

A spade lead also lets it make since declarer can win one of the first two spades on the table and play a club immediately. The first heart lead has to come from north, since he won't have a second heart to play later.

[jdonn]

I can't believe this has gone from the important signalling issue that many advancing players get wrong, to pointing out obvious typos in completely off topic squeezes from a hastily chosen example hand. Sorry for including the 9 of diamonds, thanks all for being able to overlook that to see the actual point!