[luckyloser]

MP, E opens 3♣, W bids 3NT.
P leads ♥2 (you play length signals throughout, so low from odd) and you see this dummy and your hand:

♠AQ
♥xx
♦x
♣AT98xxxx

♠J32
♥J9
♦AKT987
♣64

dummy plays low and you the ♥J which declarer wins with the Q. now decl plays the♣J which p covers with the Q and dummy wins the A.
Whats your plan?

[mycroft]

3NT, ♥2 lead (low from odd), small, J, Q.
T2, Declarer leads ♣J,Q,A.

---

[manudude03]

I know the problem says we play count signals throughout, but will partner likely understand if I give false count here that I'll have a diamond card, or at least do something non-standard? Count's use seems limited here with such extreme length in clubs (and if declarer had a doubleton club, they would surely duck the first from partner's perspective).

I doubt this trick will be the determining factor in how many tricks will be made unless low-high can mean something other than odd number of clubs.

[nige1]

LuckyLoser's deal, rotated to make South declarer. Thus, you are East. MP. North opens 3♣. South replies 3NT. West leads ♥2 (low from odd) to your ♥J and declarer's ♥Q. Declarer continues ♣J ♣Q ♣A
++++++++++++++++++++
(Reverse) Smith Peters can be useful in this kind of context. e.g. You might play ♣6, if you've agreed that a peter shows dislike of partner's lead and asks for a switch. After cashing ♦AK, you can switch back to ♥.

---

[luckyloser]

manudude03, on 2020-September-01, 15:43, said:

I know the problem says we play count signals throughout, but will partner likely understand if I give false count here that I'll have a diamond card, or at least do something non-standard? Count's use seems limited here with such extreme length in clubs (and if declarer had a doubleton club, they would surely duck the first from partner's perspective).

I doubt this trick will be the determining factor in how many tricks will be made unless low-high can mean something other than odd number of clubs.

p surely has the c K. in fact partner was waiting for a clue. declarer´s hand is totally unknown, it can be a monster or maybe below average. his 3nt call tells very little. so it may well be that he has to cash the h A before it gets lost. oviously a count signal is useless since p will know the exact c count on the next trick, there simply are no more c out. playing the low card shows interest in the lower suit, so p can switch to d with very good results. a high c would normally show s but here it simply shows no d interest.

[FelicityR]

I could see the world class women's player Rixi Markus answering this forum question along these lines. Keep it simple. Without any obvious inferences or reverse peters to show specific holdings it is obvious that declarer has a singleton ♣J and your partner ♣KQ. So what's the point of signalling to show a doubleton by petering? A switched on partner should interpret a small ♣ followed by a higher one as to lead the lower suit ♦s next.

By doing the opposite to what is usual is signifying something. A partnership that is consistent with their signals and defensive discards should be able to work out what's going on here, in my humble opinion.

[mikeh]

I couldn’t get past seeing dummy. This is an expert-level game in which dummy opened 3C with AQ xx x A1098xxxx?

And a presumably expert partner bid 3N with, one assumes, the stiff club Jack, at most KJ in spades and QJ in diamonds? Declarer may be as bad a player as his partner is, but even really weak players would usually not play the heart Queen if holding AKQ, so it looks as if declarer has something like a KJxx AQxx QJxx J at best. Bidding 3N is weird unless, of course, a 3C preempt promises 8 winners😊

And our partner’s lead was uninformative about his interest in hearts?

The question of what to play has a little interest, but the context is simply silly.

It’s pretty obvious that declarer is going to play a club after winning the Ace, and that partner will be on lead.

Partner knows the heart situation, and he knows that dummy has a spadeventry. He should infer that declarer almost surely has the spade King for his 3N.

Therefore partner should know that a spade is futile, so should play a diamond in any event. However, we can encourage him to do so, assuming that he pays attention to our carding. Fortunately, we have a simple binary message: lead spades or diamonds. Play up the line, to show you want the lower of the two alternatives.


However, partner would have to be very bad not to play a diamond anyway.

[manudude03]

luckyloser, on 2020-September-01, 23:59, said:

p surely has the c K. in fact partner was waiting for a clue. declarer´s hand is totally unknown, it can be a monster or maybe below average. his 3nt call tells very little. so it may well be that he has to cash the h A before it gets lost. oviously a count signal is useless since p will know the exact c count on the next trick, there simply are no more c out. playing the low card shows interest in the lower suit, so p can switch to d with very good results. a high c would normally show s but here it simply shows no d interest.

More or less matches up with what I'm saying (I didn't bother mentioning partner had the ♣K- obviously the case), except West should already know you're doubleton before you even play one (if declarer has a doubleton club, then playing the ace seems strange). I was answering under the assumption you weren't playing Smith Peters or Smith Echos.

[johnu]

mikeh, on 2020-September-02, 08:01, said:

Partner knows the heart situation....

Declarer could have added a little suspense to the play by winning ♥K which is consistent with East having ♥QJ(x) (or J(xx) instead of ♥Q because if East had ♥KJ(x) they would have played the king.

[msjennifer]

Perhaps "Next to impossible" to ask for a diamond switch.Yes,declarer should win the King and not the Queen.This may not fool the defenders as a play of club 4 first and then the six next should make it clear that it is declarer who holds the Queen,The ♦ switch then becomes more attractive and obvious.Winning the queen first APPARENTLY makes the defence much much easier.Anyway an excellent poser . IF, and only IF,declarer DECIDES, for reasons which he alone can tell, that a 2/2 club break is necessary then if he ducks the the first club lead the defence gets harder.Thanks.

[johnu]

msjennifer, on 2020-September-05, 10:00, said:

Perhaps "Next to impossible" to ask for a diamond switch.Yes,declarer should win the King and not the Queen.This may not fool the defenders as a play of club 4 first and then the six next should make it clear that it is declarer who holds the Queen,

Mikeh says playing up the line in clubs says you want a diamond switch. Apparently you are saying that playing up the line in clubs shows ♥Q, assuming declarer won the king.

If declarer actually had their bid, they should have something more like

---

East would have a different hand, but still the same club holding.

and you should be signalling partner to cash out (this is MP) because you have nothing. I don't have any answers, but there are a lot of potential legal signals that could be sent, so which one applies?

[nullve]

nige1, on 2020-September-01, 16:40, said:

(Reverse) Smith Peters can be useful in this kind of context. e.g. You might play ♣6, if you've agreed that a peter shows dislike of partner's lead and asks for a switch.

I play it as encouraging the Obvious Shift.

[johnu]

johnu, on 2020-September-05, 12:14, said:

Mikeh says playing up the line in clubs says you want a diamond switch. Apparently you are saying that playing up the line in clubs shows ♥Q, assuming declarer won the king.

If declarer actually had their bid, they should have something more like

---

East would have a different hand, but still the same club holding.

and you should be signalling partner to cash out (this is MP) because you have nothing. I don't have any answers, but there are a lot of potential legal signals that could be sent, so which one applies?

Also, as Nige1 pointed out, there is Smith and Reverse Smith Echos. IIRC, there was a poster who always had the perfect convention or card signal that solved the current particular problem.