[ralph23]

I play with some b/i's who have trouble sometimes with some basic defensive plays. I thought I'd do a series of small problems, mainly on 2nd and 3rd hand play. Nothing fancy at all.

General Assumptions:
"Standard" carding and 4th best length leads.
Scoring is IMPs and the goal is to beat the contract. Overtricks/undertricks can be ignored.

Here's an "easy" one for starters, but be careful how you answer !! And give as complete an answer as you can....

1. You're defending against 3NT. Dummy is on your right and partner is on lead.

Partner leads the 2 of ♥ and dummy contains:

♥A54

You hold ♥QJT.

What do you play and, of course, why?

Adv & Exp pls hide your answers.

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-August-23, 13:42

[Trumpace]

What did dummy play?

[ralph23]

Trumpace, on Aug 23 2007, 02:48 PM, said:

What did dummy play?

Well, that's a good start!

Of course, you can't answer without that information.

Any other information needed?

But anyhow, let's start with two cases and two subparts:

Q1a. Dummy plays low.

Q1b. Dummy plays the Ace.

[PedroG]

Both's answer's is the Ten...

Well partner must be leading from Kxx2...

So if dummy put the Ace I play the T, giving count to p low = odd.

If dummy play low then u take with your smallest of equal honor the Ten

Pedro

[ralph23]

PedroG, on Aug 23 2007, 07:05 PM, said:

Both's answer's is the Ten...

Well partner must be leading from Kxx2...

So if dummy put the Ace I play the T, giving count to p low = odd.

If dummy play low then u take with your smallest of equal honor the Ten

Pedro

Must partner have the King? Could not he be leading from ♥9762? Maybe that is his only 4-card suit.....

Who agrees that if dummy plays the Ace, then third hand should give the count (rather than attitude)?

Note - Pedro assumes (I think) that this is a question about trick one, which wasn't stated, but that's an OK assumption to state and make. Actually, that was a question to ask about the problem....

[PedroG]

ralph23, on Aug 24 2007, 08:31 AM, said:

Must partner have the King? Could not he be leading from ♥9762? Maybe that is his only 4-card suit.....

Who agrees that if dummy plays the Ace, then third hand should give the count (rather than attitude)?

Note - Pedro assumes (I think) that this is a question about trick one, which wasn't stated, but that's an OK assumption to state and make. Actually, that was a question to ask about the problem....

Hummm...

Standard lead, would he not lead second best from nothing? So I assume that if partner has ♥9762 we would lead 7♥ and not the two.

Well I tought that if u don't have any chance of winning trick, then u give count not attitude.

don't see how this would change if it was first or not trick... But yes I was thinking first trick...

Pedro

[1eyedjack]

PedroG, on Aug 24 2007, 01:05 AM, said:

Both's answer's is the Ten...

Well partner must be leading from Kxx2...

So if dummy put the Ace I play the T, giving count to p low = odd.

If dummy plays the Ace you might consider playing the Queen under it. Although the count in the suit is concealed, partner may place you with a sequence headed by the Queen. That may be more useful information to him, while the ten may be ambiguous to partner anyway (in terms of count) as there may be sufficient missing low cards for the count to be unclear (until you play to the second round, of course).

I tend to agree that the lead of the two suggests the King. You cannot be completely sure without the whole hand, whole of dummy and the auction. If you are certain that partner holds the King, then the ten becomes a safer play (under the Ace) (than if the King is in doubt) as declarer would normally run trick 1 round to his Queen if he held it, so rising with the Ace may tell partner that you hold the Queen. Again this is not absolutely certain - for example if there is reason to suspect that declarer does not want you to get the lead early.

[SoTired]

Spoiler

If dummy plays low, you play the 10. Third hand trying to win the trick plays low from a sequence. Think about it... If you play the Q, partner will have no clue how has the J or 10, but if you play the 10 and declarer wins with the king, partner has a better chance of placing you with the Q and J. Sure declarer may be falsecarding, but the 10 forcing the king gives more information than the queen forcing the king.

If dummy plays the A, then you play the Q. This is a standard siqnal. Playing a K, Q or J under the offense's higher honor shows the next lower honor (or two). Of course, you never signal with a potential trick.

[ralph23]

PedroG, on Aug 24 2007, 09:16 AM, said:

Well I tought that if u don't have any chance of winning trick, then u give count not attitude.

Well, what if .... partner leads a low ♠ (e.g. the ♠3) on the opening lead against 3nt, and you hold ♠K72.

Dummy has ♠A54 and declarer plays the ♠Ace from dummy.

Would you play the ♠2, so you can let your partner know that you have an odd number of ♠?

Or would you play the ♠7, to express encouragement for ♠ (assuming you want to encourage those), and to further state your opinion (if it is your opinion) that partner should continue ♠ if he regains the lead?

Obviously, you can't signal both count and attitude, right ? So you have to choose in general which one you favor. Like any convention, partner has to know which you are doing....

I think on your theory, --- if you don't have a chance to win the trick, you signal count -- you could NEVER signal your attitude, could you? If you're trying to win the trick, or to establish a later trick for your side by forcing out a large card from 4th hand, you can't signal. Maybe I misunderstand .....

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-August-24, 12:45

[ralph23]

PedroG, on Aug 24 2007, 09:16 AM, said:

Standard lead, would he not lead second best from nothing? So I assume that if partner has ♥9762 we would lead 7♥ and not the two.

It depends on whether the opening leader wants a ♥ returned, or not, doesn't it ??

What if you have 3433 distribution, and you are trying to set up a long ♥? Have you never tried to do that when holding a bad four-card suit? It may be the setting trick!

Note: If I wanted another suit returned, and not a ♥ ... e.g. I held ♦AQT8 ... I would indeed lead the ♥7, if I chose to lead a heart. The nine can be valuable.

[1eyedjack]

ralph23, on Aug 24 2007, 07:43 PM, said:

I think on your theory, --- if you don't have a chance to win the trick, you signal count -- you could NEVER signal your attitude, could you?

I know quite a few good pairs who signal count in preference to attitude throughout. Not a style that I can cope with, personally, but they seem to do OK.

[ralph23]

1eyedjack, on Aug 24 2007, 10:02 AM, said:

If dummy plays the Ace you might consider playing the Queen under it. Although the count in the suit is concealed, partner may place you with a sequence headed by the Queen. That may be more useful information to him, while the ten may be ambiguous to partner anyway (in terms of count) as there may be sufficient missing low cards for the count to be unclear (until you play to the second round, of course).

I tend to agree that the lead of the two suggests the King. You cannot be completely sure without the whole hand, whole of dummy and the auction. If you are certain that partner holds the King, then the ten becomes a safer play (under the Ace) (than if the King is in doubt) as declarer would normally run trick 1 round to his Queen if he held it, so rising with the Ace may tell partner that you hold the Queen. Again this is not absolutely certain - for example if there is reason to suspect that declarer does not want you to get the lead early.

So ..... are you saying, on partner's lead of the ♥2 at trick one, if dummy plays the ♥Ace that:

(1) 3rd hand signals attitude and shows an honor sequence; or
(2) 3rd hand signals count and shows an odd number; or
(3) the type of signal depends on .... whether 3rd hand knows that partner led from Kxx2 or from 9xx2 ?

Sorry I was confused by your answer... ... but doesn't partner need to know what kind of signal you are sending? With as little ambiguity as possible??

[ralph23]

1eyedjack, on Aug 24 2007, 01:52 PM, said:

ralph23, on Aug 24 2007, 07:43 PM, said:

I think on your theory, --- if you don't have a chance to win the trick, you signal count -- you could NEVER signal your attitude, could you?

I know quite a few good pairs who signal count in preference to attitude throughout. Not a style that I can cope with, personally, but they seem to do OK.

That's true, although not very much in the U.S..... Pedro seemed to acknowledge the existence at least of the attitude signal, but I didn't see from his explanation how he could ever use it.....

[PedroG]

ralph23, on Aug 24 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

I think on your theory, --- if you don't have a chance to win the trick, you signal count -- you could NEVER signal your attitude, could you? If you're trying to win the trick, or to establish a later trick for your side by forcing out a large card from 4th hand, you can't signal. Maybe I misunderstand .....

Isn't this passing from your problem, to my convention ???

Well anyhow... On your question sure thinh the 2♠ because the same thing has in your problem... if partner lead low, third hand if possible win the trick if he can't win the trick, gives count, what attitude can you show, you allready by your play stated your attitude, p I can't beat that card, but I have this number of cards here...

Now if your p lead a card and is winning the trick you attitude.

I tought this was pretty standard. But then Novice here. But please tell me how is done....

Pedro

[PedroG]

1eyedjack, on Aug 24 2007, 01:52 PM, said:

ralph23, on Aug 24 2007, 07:43 PM, said:

I think on your theory, --- if you don't have a chance to win the trick, you signal count -- you could NEVER signal your attitude, could you?

I know quite a few good pairs who signal count in preference to attitude throughout. Not a style that I can cope with, personally, but they seem to do OK.

That is true, in my local club here B/I first learn count and 3 and 5

[cherdano]

PedroG, on Aug 24 2007, 02:10 PM, said:

ralph23, on Aug 24 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

I think on your theory, --- if you don't have a chance to win the trick, you signal count -- you could NEVER signal your attitude, could you? If you're trying to win the trick, or to establish a later trick for your side by forcing out a large card from 4th hand, you can't signal. Maybe I misunderstand .....

Isn't this passing from your problem, to my convention ???

Well anyhow... On your question sure thinh the 2♠ because the same thing has in your problem... if partner lead low, third hand if possible win the trick if he can't win the trick, gives count, what attitude can you show, you allready by your play stated your attitude, p I can't beat that card, but I have this number of cards here...

Now if your p lead a card and is winning the trick you attitude.

I tought this was pretty standard. But then Novice here. But please tell me how is done....

No this is not standard. Especially against NT, if dummy wins the trick with a high honor, partner really wants to know whether you have a useful honor below that so he can continue the suit when he gets in.

Imagine you lead from Kxxx, dummy wins the trick with Qx. Now you really want to know whether partner has the Jack, or declarer has AJx(x). Or say you lead from QJxx, dummy wins the ace, and declarer sets up a long suit so you have to cash out. You really want to know whether partner has the K (cash out this suit) or not (try another suit).

(It is standard to give count if dummy wins the trick with a not so high card, e.g. to give count when dummy wins the trick with J or lower.)

[ralph23]

PedroG, on Aug 24 2007, 03:10 PM, said:

ralph23, on Aug 24 2007, 01:43 PM, said:

I think on your theory, --- if you don't have a chance to win the trick, you signal count -- you could NEVER signal your attitude, could you? If you're trying to win the trick, or to establish a later trick for your side by forcing out a large card from 4th hand, you can't signal. Maybe I misunderstand .....

Isn't this passing from your problem, to my convention ???

Well anyhow... On your question sure thinh the 2♠ because the same thing has in your problem... if partner lead low, third hand if possible win the trick if he can't win the trick, gives count, what attitude can you show, you allready by your play stated your attitude, p I can't beat that card, but I have this number of cards here...

Now if your p lead a card and is winning the trick you attitude.

I tought this was pretty standard. But then Novice here. But please tell me how is done....

Pedro

Well, here's my suggestion anyway, for novice player; it's not optimal but it's simple and it will keep you out of most trouble:

After you get more experience, you can branch out, e.g. to give count in 3rd hand situation as Arend suggests, but only do it when you're sure you are not confused about why....

A. Use attitude signals as follows:

(1) when partner leads, whenever the card you play is not going to help to either take or establish a trick for your side, or;

(2) anytime when discarding (whoever leads, whether it's partner, declarer or dummy).

B. Use count signals only when declarer leads.

C. Use suit-preference signals (for now only):

(1) When you are leading a suit that you expect partner to ruff; or

(2) When both you and partner know that it is critical for YOU to be on the lead (e.g. you are defending NT and you have a good suit to cash, or partner is void and you need to get the lead so as to give him a ruff .... tell partner where your Ace is!).

Yes, more advanced players have "better" methods, but imho, it's better to have a decent method that you are good at, than a "great" method that you are confused about.

At least for now. It's generally imo a mistake for novice players to try methods that are too advanced for them.... they get discouraged, confused, and make reverse progress.

Or as Gen. George S. Patton said "A good plan, violently executed today, is better than a perfect plan, imperfectly executed tomorrow."

[SoTired]

Edit to remove entire post.

First, my post was unncecessarily harsh. Ralph is trying to help. I apologize for the tone.

Second, I misread your post, Ralph. Actually, I agree with much of it. I have some minor complaint about wording, especially "B. Use count signals only when declarer leads." should remove the word "only," because there are situations when you give count when partner leads.

[cherdano]

SoTired, what's up? Nothing what you said was in contradiction to anything Ralph said, who was just giving general rules when to give attitude or count or suit preference (and pretty standard ones in fact). This is a separate issue from which honor to play in 3rd seat when trying to win a trick, and how to show a honor sequence (for which you gave the standard rules).

[ralph23]

cherdano, on Aug 24 2007, 04:12 PM, said:

SoTired, what's up? Nothing what you said was in contradiction to anything Ralph said, who was just giving general rules when to give attitude or count or suit preference (and pretty standard ones in fact). This is a separate issue from which honor to play in 3rd seat when trying to win a trick, and how to show a honor sequence (for which you gave the standard rules).

Yea, I didn't get it either. ...

I think he's terribly confused, esp. since I agreed with all his examples! Oh, except the last one about the singleton, which is completely WRONG. The answer there is, It Depends. Often, you want partner to continue and make dummy ruff with an honor, or shorten dummy so you can't be finessed too many times. So it's way too simplistic to say "Yea suit preference when singleton...." THIS type of thing is what confuses novices.

He went off into deep space on what to play when dummy plays low, which obviously has nothing to do with signalling per se.

And I can't imagine why he didn't think I was playing the Queen under the Ace...in fact I was hinting to Pedro that playing the ten there was not good....

And yes, my rules are standard, and indeed a subset, as I stated..... I don't know what his story is. He didn't specify one thing I said that was "non standard" except ranting and raving about it being non-standard, but no examples....

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-August-24, 15:33