[bluenikki]

I led the ♣ king from KQTxx against a 2♠ contract.

Dummy had no ♣ honor.

Partner played the 2, upside down.

I understood this to show the jack (or the ace or a singleton), so I underled. He had 92.

I have played with him for decades, often as a team-mate, occasionally as a partner. I was surprised that he signalled this way. He promised to try to remember to play it my way.

I learned the rule from Eddie Kantar's long-ago big red book: If dummy has no important honor, the signal shows or denies an important honor. He even called it the equal-honor signal. If dummy has the ace, also signal presence of the jack. If dummy has an important secondary honor, the signal is count.

It seemed to me then and seems to me now that this is obviously right. (Five-level contracts may have different considerations.)

What are beginners taught?

[AL78]

Beginners (in the UK at least) are usually taught standard attitude signals on partner's lead, high to encourage, low to discourage, so on your partner's hand, the two would deny anything useful. If you are playing reverse attitude, the nine is the negative signal.

[bluenikki]

AL78, on 2022-March-27, 09:27, said:

Beginners (in the UK at least) are usually taught standard attitude signals on partner's lead, high to encourage, low to discourage, so on your partner's hand, the two would deny anything useful. If you are playing reverse attitude, the nine is the negative signal.

The question is whether they are taught to encourage with small doubleton when the location of. honors in the suit is unknown.

Regardless of the agreement about which card encourages.

[LBengtsson]

bluenikki, on 2022-March-27, 08:17, said:

I led the ♣ king from KQTxx against a 2♠ contract.

Partner played the 2, upside down.

Upside-down count and attitude signals are the opposite of standard count and attitude signals. In a count situation, playing high-low shows an odd number of cards in the suit, while playing low-high shows an even number of cards. In an attitude situation, playing high-low is a discouraging signal, whereas low-high is an encouraging signal.

Given standard leads partner knows you have either KQJxx or KQTxx or KQxxx. If you have KQJxx it does not matter whether he sugnals, but if you have the other combinations, leading again will lose a trick. There is more emphasis on attitude than count here so partner should play the ♣9 discouraging imo.

[smerriman]

I'm not sure why you need special rules about equal honors or hidden honors or.. you encourage if you want partner to continue the suit. Here you don't.

Contrary to your rule, if dummy had Axx, I would encourage if a quick ruff looked necessary on the hand.

[bluenikki]

smerriman, on 2022-March-27, 13:03, said:

I'm not sure why you need special rules about equal honors or hidden honors or.. you encourage if you want partner to continue the suit. Here you don't.

Contrary to your rule, if dummy had Axx, I would encourage if a quick ruff looked necessary on the hand.

So partner will underlead

[Stephen Tu]

It would be normal IMO to encourage with doubleton if declarer won the ace in dummy (looking for ruff if partner gets back in) but discourage without J if declarer ducked the ace.

I don't think "If dummy has an important secondary honor, the signal is count" is universal. Below 5 level, if dummy comes up with Qxx(x) and partner leads whatever honor shows AKx, I only encourage with doubleton, I don't make the same signal with 4; I will discourage with 4 or 3. Otherwise I can't see how partner can get it right if it's reasonably plausible for either you or declarer to be short. Unless I have promised length in this particular suit ...

Certainly on the original problem partner should discourage with 9, if you are playing K shows KQ and denies AKx. (If it shows either, as I sometimes play when not playing Rusinow, then unfortunately one cannot get a reliable signal with this holding, and one assumes partner is signalling as if you held AK)

[smerriman]

bluenikki, on 2022-March-27, 13:30, said:

So partner will underlead

No, my partner would cash the other honor then lead a third one. This works regardless of what I have.

[bluenikki]

smerriman, on 2022-March-27, 14:16, said:

No, my partner would cash the other honor then lead a third one. This works regardless of what I have.

Not if he crashes your jack.

[smerriman]

bluenikki, on 2022-March-27, 15:46, said:

Not if he crashes your jack.

So what? Then he leads a third round, and I get a ruff. Exceeding rare that setting up declarer's 10 on the fourth round so that he could discard something in dummy rather than ruff it is going to make a difference.. and if it did, maybe the suit shouldn't have been continued regardless.

[edit] removed a sentence which didn't make sense

[johnu]

LBengtsson, on 2022-March-27, 12:50, said:

Given standard leads partner knows you have either KQJxx or KQTxx or KQxxx.

Given standard leads, king shows either KQ or AK. You may have an "agreement" to lead ace from AK, but it is a partnership agreement.

[bluenikki]

smerriman, on 2022-March-27, 15:48, said:

So what? Then he leads a third round, and I get a ruff. Exceeding rare that setting up declarer's 10 on the fourth round so that he could discard something in dummy rather than ruff it is going to make a difference.. and if it did, maybe the suit shouldn't have been continued regardless.

[edit] removed a sentence which didn't make sense

"exceeding rare" is a big overbid.

[bluenikki]

Stephen Tu, on 2022-March-27, 14:13, said:

It would be normal IMO to encourage with doubleton if declarer won the ace in dummy (looking for ruff if partner gets back in) but discourage without J if declarer ducked the ace.

I don't think "If dummy has an important secondary honor, the signal is count" is universal. Below 5 level, if dummy comes up with Qxx(x) and partner leads whatever honor shows AKx, I only encourage with doubleton, I don't make the same signal with 4; I will discourage with 4 or 3. Otherwise I can't see how partner can get it right if it's reasonably plausible for either you or declarer to be short. Unless I have promised length in this particular suit ...

Certainly on the original problem partner should discourage with 9, if you are playing K shows KQ and denies AKx. (If it shows either, as I sometimes play when not playing Rusinow, then unfortunately one cannot get a reliable signal with this holding, and one assumes partner is signalling as if you held AK)

Aren't you supposed to guess correctly between 2 and 4?

[Stephen Tu]

bluenikki, on 2022-March-27, 16:30, said:

Aren't you supposed to guess correctly between 2 and 4?

At low levels, no. You are on lead with AKxxx diamonds against say 1s-p-2s-all pass. Dummy shows up with Qxx diamonds. Does partner have 2 or 4 diamonds? Declarer could quite easily have either 1 or 3. Clearly it's easier to just encourage with doubleton only, and discourage holding 3 or more. If partner has 3, against a partial typically you'll have some chance later in the hand to grab the other trick before it goes away, but it will nearly always be wrong to continue diamonds trick 2 whether partner has 3 or 4, setting up the DQ for a pitch either way, and typically disaster if partner had 4.

Against high level (5+), there are usually longer, more revealing auctions, so you are supposed to guess correctly more often, and it's also often more critical to cash the second if you can at trick 2 lest it disappear, so that's why most books recommend switching to count only then.

[mycroft]

One question is "what do we lead from AK?" Because if you know that partner is leading from KQ, you signal one way. If it could be AK, then you have "give me the third-round ruff" vs "avoid the bath coup" - it's a trap.

An argument that "this always means" is appropriate. "This always means I have an honour, you're safe to play the Q" is a great agreement. "Come On = Cash", an agreement that the Granovetters suggest, is also a great agreement - though perhaps giving different responses than the upper one. "Do the right thing" is a great agreement, if you're good enough to know what TRT is, and experienced enough to know that partner will work it out the same way. I'm not, so I don't.

Of course, my most common agreement is "give count, could be from AK or KQ, if it's from KQ, let's hope we can work it out". So I may not be one to talk.