[cherdano]

Here is a very simple signaling situation; for some reason I have never really thought about it, nor would I have a clue what my partners would do here.

1. Standard leads, partner leads K against a suit contract, and it is not a situation where he would make a desperate Kx lead. Dummy comes down with Jxx(x). What does 3rd hand's signal mean?

If she has the ace, then attitude is obviously redundant, as declarer would never duck with the ace there. Is her signal then

• attitude with respect to the full hand (i.e. whether or not she needs a shift)
  
• count
  
• suit preference?

If 3rd hand doesn't have the ace, I would assume a count signal is standard.

2. Similar situation: partner leads the queen, and dummy comes down with ATx(x) and declarer calls for a low one. Does your answer change?

Thanks,
Arend

[mike777]

cherdano, on Dec 17 2005, 01:07 PM, said:

Here is a very simple signaling situation; for some reason I have never really thought about it, nor would I have a clue what my partners would do here.

1. Standard leads, partner leads K against a suit contract, and it is not a situation where he would make a desperate Kx lead. Dummy comes down with Jxx(x). What does 3rd hand's signal mean?

If she has the ace, then attitude is obviously redundant, as declarer would never duck with the ace there. Is her signal then

• attitude with respect to the full hand (i.e. whether or not she needs a shift)
  
• count
  
• suit preference?

If 3rd hand doesn't have the ace, I would assume a count signal is standard.

2. Similar situation: partner leads the queen, and dummy comes down with ATx(x) and declarer calls for a low one. Does your answer change?

Thanks,
Arend

This is the argument that "Obvious Shift" makes. Just play attitude at trick one 99.9% of the time. I see countless magazine expert panels where they seem to:
1) Play all three signals at trick one
2) Assume their expert/world class partner will understand that they signal what partner needs to know!
3) Disagreement then reigns .

"Obvious Shift" of course will not solve 100% of your problems at trick one but try it and see if you like it.

[luis]

I agree a lot with Mike about the benefits of standarizing that at trick one your signal should be attitude except when dummy has a singleton or you are in an obvious cash-out situation where your pd needs the count.

Then even when the position of the ace is clear your pd can signal if he is interested in continuing the suit or not. When he doesn't have the ace showing interest in the suit will imply he is not interested in the most obvious shift, while discouraging when he does have the ace will show a strong interest in a shift.

Low = I'm very interested in a shift
High = No interest in the most obvious shift so you can continue
Unnecesary high card = Please make an unusual shift

[Fluffy]

I can think of a couple of situations where declarer might want to duck with Axx, but they are kinda desperate or double dummy (althou bidding might be quite revealing)

[ArcLight]

>If she has the ace, then attitude is obviously redundant, as declarer would never duck with the ace there.

I'm not so sure I agree.

The declarer may want to retain control of the suit and hold up.
Maybe West can give East a third round ruff?
If Declarer ducks, West can't continue the suit.


If you lead K from KQ you really want to know if pard has the A or not.

[Flame]

in both situations attitude in the suit doesnt matter, most play that when this happend they give count (this is the std), some play differently like the obvious shift guys which always give attitude.

[Winstonm]

The first thing to do is adopt better lead agreements - I don't know anyone who still plays that the K is led from both AK and KQ. This old-fashioned lead convention leads to insoluable problems - such as what do you signal.

Better is to play either Ace from AK or Rusinow leads to distinguish the holdings.

Once that hurdle is overcome, I'm with Mike and have found Obvious Switch to be more constructive information than either count or attitude - when it applies but it does not apply on every hand. When it does not apply we revert to standard signals.

In your given example, if partner has led A from AK and dummy has Jxx then what partner needs to know is whether you hold the Queen or can ruff and want to ruff the third round. This should be an attitude situation.

If partner leads the A from AK and Qxx hits in dummy, this should revert to count as how many cashers we have is what pard needs to know (although there is a reasonable argument here that suit preference is better)

Winston

[cherdano]

Winstonm, on Dec 18 2005, 05:53 PM, said:

The first thing to do is adopt better lead agreements - I don't know anyone who still plays that the K is led from both AK and KQ. This old-fashioned lead convention leads to insoluable problems - such as what do you signal.

Oh, that's what I meant with "standard leads" (i.e. that the K promises the Q). Isn't this standard in the US?

Arend

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Dec 18 2005, 10:53 AM, said:

Once that hurdle is overcome, I'm with Mike and have found Obvious Switch to be  more constructive information than either count or attitude - when it applies but it does not apply on every hand.  When it does not apply we revert to standard signals.

"Obvious Shift" style of defensive signalling, by definition, applies on every hand. .

It also applies deep into the play of the hand, not just at trick one. Example is suit preference when following in the trump suit when possible. An often overlooked signal method.

In fact "obvious shift" applies very often, with very rare exceptions, when there is a stiff in dummy on opening lead per Luis's example. I find STIFF resistance to getting partners to play this method, if you pardon the pun. Everyone wants to play suit preference in this situation .