[pclayton]

You defend 3N after 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N - 3♦ - 3♥ - 3N:

Scoring: IMP

---

1. Pard leads the ♣6 (4th best, top of nothing, or xXxx); dummy plays small, you show count with the 7 and declarer wins the King.

2. Declarer leads the ♣J from hand, pard plays small and overtakes in dummy with the Queen. Your play?

[FrancesHinden]

I imagine I take it, but partner's count pip on this card will tell me.

Unless you have a very strange partner the 95% likely holding for his lead is 8654. Most sane people don't lead from 3 low clubs in this auction (doubleton club is pretty irrelevant).

I don't understand "top of nothing or xXxx". If it means
- lead top of 3 low, second highest from 4 low, then partner should play the 8 if he started with 4 of them (and the 5, current count if he started with 3)
- lead second highest from 3 or 4 low, then partner should give current count whichever way you have agreed (so playing standard the 8 if he started with 3, the 4 otherwise).

[junyi_zhu]

pclayton, on May 15 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

You defend 3N after 2♣ - 2♦ - 2N - 3♦ - 3♥ - 3N:

Scoring: IMP

---

1. Pard leads the ♣6 (4th best, top of nothing, or xXxx); dummy plays small, you show count with the 7 and declarer wins the King.

2. Declarer leads the ♣J from hand, pard plays small and overtakes in dummy with the Queen. Your play?

C4 and C5 makes a difference here. If partner plays C4, he has three clubs remained in his hand, if he plays C5, he's more likely to hold 654.

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on May 15 2007, 09:12 AM, said:

I imagine I take it, but partner's count pip on this card will tell me.

Unless you have a very strange partner the 95% likely holding for his lead is 8654. Most sane people don't lead from 3 low clubs in this auction (doubleton club is pretty irrelevant).

I don't understand "top of nothing or xXxx". If it means
- lead top of 3 low, second highest from 4 low, then partner should play the 8 if he started with 4 of them (and the 5, current count if he started with 3)
- lead second highest from 3 or 4 low, then partner should give current count whichever way you have agreed (so playing standard the 8 if he started with 3, the 4 otherwise).

Top of Nothing on this side of the pond generally means Xxx.

[pclayton]

Yes, this is the crux of the problem. Did pard lead from 6=5=4? or from 8=6=5=4? With the former, pard follows with the 5; with the latter; pard follows with the 4.

The entire hand:

---

Frances, I don't think a lead from xxx on this auction is impossible. If I held Jxxx of diamonds, and perhaps a stronger intermediate heart spot, I'd want to go passive with a club.

[FrancesHinden]

pclayton, on May 15 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

Yes, this is the crux of the problem. Did pard lead from 6=5=4? or from 8=6=5=4? With the former, pard follows with the 5; with the latter; pard follows with the 4.

If the agreement is top of 3 low, 2nd from 4 low, then why not make matters abundantly clear by following with the 8 on the second round from 8654?

[pclayton]

FrancesHinden, on May 15 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 15 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

Yes, this is the crux of the problem. Did pard lead from 6=5=4? or from 8=6=5=4? With the former, pard follows with the 5; with the latter; pard follows with the 4.

If the agreement is top of 3 low, 2nd from 4 low, then why not make matters abundantly clear by following with the 8 on the second round from 8654?

I guess, although I don't know why the 8 would be any clearer than the 4.

[whereagles]

I belive I would have taken the ace and switched to spades, playing pard for x6xx, on grounds that he's more likely to lead a 4-card suit than anything else

[Fluffy]

Here no need to show any count, partner must be 3334 to lead a club on this bidding or maybe 2434

[bid_em_up]

pclayton, on May 15 2007, 01:02 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on May 15 2007, 09:52 AM, said:

pclayton, on May 15 2007, 06:47 PM, said:

Yes, this is the crux of the problem. Did pard lead from 6=5=4? or from 8=6=5=4? With the former, pard follows with the 5; with the latter; pard follows with the 4.

If the agreement is top of 3 low, 2nd from 4 low, then why not make matters abundantly clear by following with the 8 on the second round from 8654?

I guess, although I don't know why the 8 would be any clearer than the 4.

Because the rule of 11 already tells you the lead was not fourth best. (If it was, the 7 would have held trick 1). So now by following with the 8, you would know he originally started with 4 cards 8654, and by following with either the 5 or the 4, he will only have 3.

I dont think it should make much difference between the 5 and 4 though, unless he might also have led from 64 doubleton, or is it 65 doubleton?

[mikeh]

Here's an idea:

If one assumes that he did not lead a doubleton: and it is extremely difficult to construct a hand on which he ought to/would have: then we can, I think, agree that he would/should play the 5 from an original 654, leaving him with options from an original 8654.

The 8 can show that he would prefer a ♠ shift, if your hand lacks direction, while the 4 should suggest either no preference between the pointed suits or a preference for ♦s.

Of course, this presupposes not only the non-doubleton lead but also a wide-awake partner

Edit: I tend to play a lot of suit preference and very little count (and a fair amount of non-specific carding) so that this usage seems logical to me

[pclayton]

bid_em_up, on May 15 2007, 12:43 PM, said:

So now by following with the 8, you would know he originally started with 4 cards 8654, and by following with either the 5 or the 4, he will only have 3.

I dont think it should make much difference between the 5 and 4 though, unless he might also have led from 64 doubleton, or is it 65 doubleton?

The 5 can't be from 8654; it can only be from 654.

The 4 can be from either 8654 or 64, but doubletons don't matter.

A doubleton lead would be even weirder than a lead from 654.

[pclayton]

mikeh, on May 15 2007, 12:51 PM, said:

Here's an idea:

If one assumes that he did not lead a doubleton: and it is extremely difficult to construct a hand on which he ought to/would have: then we can, I think, agree that he would/should play the 5 from an original 654, leaving him with options from an original 8654.

The 8 can show that he would prefer a ♠ shift, if your hand lacks direction, while the 4 should suggest either no preference between the pointed suits or a preference for ♦s.

Of course, this presupposes not only the non-doubleton lead but also a wide-awake partner

Edit: I tend to play a lot of suit preference and very little count (and a fair amount of non-specific carding) so that this usage seems logical to me

Very sensible since the 8 and 4 convey the same meanings.

I like it.

[SoTired]

you show count with the 7

The above implies you are playing upside down count. So if partner played the 4 next, I would assume the 654 and if partner played the 5 or 8 next, I would assume the 8654 with the 5 or 8 conveying suit preference.

[jdonn]

I consider the 8 the only correct play for partner in this situation from 8654. Partner doesn't know that a doubleton "doesn't matter" since we could just have longer clubs if he had a doubleton and care what his length is. Meanwhile, the 8 is proof positive he lead from at least four cards since from any shorter holding partner leads high.

BTW I don't understand at all the "you show count with the 7" comment. 3rd hand tries to win the trick, why can't you have 7x? Singleton 7?

[pclayton]

SoTired, on May 16 2007, 07:30 AM, said:

you show count with the 7

The above implies you are playing upside down count. So if partner played the 4 next, I would assume the 654 and if partner played the 5 or 8 next, I would assume the 8654 with the 5 or 8 conveying suit preference.

Yes; ud count. But present count is standard.

[SoTired]

jdonn, on May 16 2007, 10:40 AM, said:

I consider the 8 the only correct play for partner in this situation from 8654. Partner doesn't know that a doubleton "doesn't matter" since we could just have longer clubs if he had a doubleton and care what his length is. Meanwhile, the 8 is proof positive he lead from at least four cards since from any shorter holding partner leads high.

BTW I don't understand at all the "you show count with the 7" comment. 3rd hand tries to win the trick, why can't you have 7x? Singleton 7?

I think it is common that if you aren't trying to win the trick, 3rd hand shows count except in certain circumstances when you show attitude, but this is not one of them. Since 3rd hand played 7 from A73, that indicates the partnership is playing upside down count.

And unless otherwise agreed, count refers to "current count"

I agree that the 8 is the best card and most unambiguous card to play, but mikeh convinced me otherwise

[skjaeran]

pclayton, on May 16 2007, 06:06 PM, said:

SoTired, on May 16 2007, 07:30 AM, said:

you show count with the 7

The above implies you are playing upside down count. So if partner played the 4 next, I would assume the 654 and if partner played the 5 or 8 next, I would assume the 8654 with the 5 or 8 conveying suit preference.

Yes; ud count. But present count is standard.

Quote

And unless otherwise agreed, count refers to "current count"

In Norway present/current count is standard if playing normal count.
Original count is standard if playing ud count.
I'm a bit surprised to learn this isn't standard elsewhere.