[Wackojack]

Scoring: IMP

South North
1♠ 2♥
2♠ 3♦
3NT pass

---

Here is a deal where I was sitting West and we were playing count signals. I led ♣J from a 6 card suit. It went to the 9, 2 and King. The 2 told me that declarer must have started with AK stiff. I was also sitting with ♥KQJ, so it was easy for me to continue clubs and defeat the contract. At the time I thought "Thank God for count signals"

After reading Ralph's very instructive posts on signalling, I was thinking "What should East play if attitude signals were agreed?" It would seem that East must encourage even with 3 small as she does not see any possible switch that might be better. So thanks Ralph, you have opened my eyes on attitude signals.

However, I still think there might be a price to pay. Take the situation in "Another signal" (contract 4♠)where instead of West leading the ♦K she leads the Ace. You see ♦QJ10x in dummy and you have 3 small. In this situation surely a count signal will give partner the necessary information on whether or not to switch. Whereas an attitude signal is a bit hit and miss. Ofcourse in "signal #356", you could be a victim of the Bath Coup by giving a count signal.

This gets me round to thinking that we should be playing attitude unless partner leads Ace when the signal reverts to count. This is the opposite to what many people play. Of course it should revert to suit preference in situations where count or attitude is obviously inappropriate. e.g. singleton in dummy against a suit contact after Ace lead.

[ralph23]

Here is a deal where I was sitting West and we were playing count signals. I led ♣J from a 6 card suit. It went to the 9, 2 and King. The 2 told me that declarer must have started with AK stiff. I was also sitting with ♥KQJ, so it was easy for me to continue clubs and defeat the contract. At the time I thought "Thank God for count signals"

After reading Ralph's very instructive posts on signalling, I was thinking "What should East play if attitude signals were agreed?" It would seem that East must encourage even with 3 small as she does not see any possible switch that might be better. So thanks Ralph, you have opened my eyes on attitude signals.

You're welcome! We play Zero or Two Higher in my partnerships, so when you lead the Jack at NT, I (I am sitting East as your partner on this deal) know by our lead conventions that you have either led from (1) an interior sequence of AQJ(xx), or (2) from a regular sequence i.e. JT9(xx) or JT8(xx). So immediately I know (because the Queen is visible) that you are leading top of a sequence (although you did it without either the 9 or 8, you bad boy! )

But who cares, I can't even beat the $^%*^ nine here! So it's a case of "attitude doesn't apply because dummy's going to win with a small card" and I would give count in our partnership. I can't possibly have a good attitude if I cannot beat the 9.

[ralph23]

However, I still think there might be a price to pay. Take the situation in "Another signal" (contract 4♠)where instead of West leading the ♦K she leads the Ace. You see ♦QJ10x in dummy and you have 3 small. In this situation surely a count signal will give partner the necessary information on whether or not to switch. Whereas an attitude signal is a bit hit and miss.

Well, if our agreement is that we lead the King from AK, and partner leads the Ace (denying the King), my first thought is something is up for partner to be leading an unsupported Ace. Why is partner doing this in an unbid suit? Could partner have a singleton Ace and is looking for a way to get to me, so we can get a ruff?

Hmmm, this seems pretty unlikely. Declarer would have to have a real fist-full of tiny ♦ in that case, and this seems unlikely. So maybe partner has Ax in diamonds and is hoping I have the King. I don't. So I decide to discouarage.

You must admit that if I had held Kxxx in diamonds, I would be jumping out of my chair giving positive attitude when my partner led the Ace from ♦Ax !!

[ralph23]

Ofcourse in "signal #356", you could be a victim of the Bath Coup by giving a count signal.

Well, the problem is, your partner wants to know whether to keep up with his original suit or not: he wants to know attitude. If you have the Jack, he wants to continue; if you don't, he better quit. If he has the Jack himself, he'll keep it up anyhow. If you're not playing attitude signals, this problem is basically insoluble.

This gets me round to thinking that we should be playing attitude unless partner leads Ace when the signal reverts to count. This is the opposite to what many people play. Of course it should revert to suit preference in situations where count or attitude is obviously inappropriate. e.g. singleton in dummy against a suit contact after Ace lead.

I really don't know which method is better or best. I've always played attitude primary; if attitude can apply it does apply; if it doesn't apply then count applies, unless count is obviously irrelevant, in which case SP applies. IMO this is the predominant method in the United States. Maybe other Americans have a different idea; I admit I'm sort of provincial. But the method I describe is the method taught by both Eddie Kantar and the late Bill Root, who I think are our two pre-eminent bridge teachers in the US, winners of National titles, authors of best-selling bridge books etc etc.

I also don't know methods outside the US except via BBO. I know a lot of people play count as primary. I've never played that so don't know its merits/demerits from experience. I've not done any empirical studies to try to determine which is superior and frankly have never seen any such study.

But let's face it: whatever method you select in bridge, in any situation --defense or bidding --, there are always hands where you wish "Damn, I wished we played X here instead of Y." There are times I wish we didn't play transfer or super-acceptance, or even Stayman! You just have to make a value judgment.

[1eyedjack]

BTW, even when playing primarily attitude signals it is common to revert to count where dummy is shown to hold all material honour cards which might otherwise in your hand have justified encouragement.

So if you are signalling on the basis that partner has led an honour from AK, and Qxx(x..) appears in dummy, you would (with the above agreement) give count signal when you might have given attitude had dummy held xxx.

Vinje had another twist on this. He would choose (v suit) between A v K on the basis of whether the *leader* had an even v odd holding. On that basis the leader's partner would give count if Qxx(x..) appears in dummy (as above) but otherwise echos (or not) to distinguish between the ability of the defence as a whole to take an even v odd number of tricks off the top in that suit, should leader continue the suit, and ignoring dummy's ability to ruff in that calculation.

It had at least one drawback: that leading a speculative Ace without also holding the King, then if declarer holds the King, which is then invisible to leader's partner he may give the trick-count signal under false pretence. If third hand actually holds the King he would give an attitude signal (low to encourage), which would be ambiguous to leader who cannot distinguish it from a trick-count signal as described above. However, if third hand plays a high card, that would be unambiguously a trick count signal based on the assumption of leader starting with AK, and while that may not be the most useful signal it may still have value (ie known not to hold the King).

[ralph23]

1eyedjack, on Oct 9 2007, 10:51 AM, said:

BTW, even when playing primarily attitude signals it is common to revert to count where dummy is shown to hold all material honour cards which might otherwise in your hand have justified encouragement.

So if you are signalling on the basis that partner has led an honour from AK, and Qxx(x..) appears in dummy, you would (with the above agreement) give count signal when you might have given attitude had dummy held xxx.

Yes indeed, and you might even revert to SP when dummy shows up with good honors; e.g. partner's overcalled in ♠, you've raised ♠, partner leads the Ace of ♠ and crap! dummy turns up with ♠KQ2. Clearly you can't have a good attitude now, and count's silly; so use SP to tell opening leader how we are going to get our tricks.

On the hand where opening leader leads a high honor from AK, and dummy appears with Qxx in that suit, check out the "Eddie Kantar" headed-posting ... see if you can do better than he did on this hand !

[jdonn]

ralph23, on Oct 9 2007, 09:06 AM, said:

I can't possibly have a good attitude if I cannot beat the 9.

Then why were you arguing strongly that a signal was attitude in the other thread when partner leads K from AK and dummy has QJT9? Just wondering

[Stephen Tu]

Why wouldn't it be attitude? Attitude doesn't mean "I have high cards in the suit and want you to continue", it merely means "I think it's a good idea for you to continue this suit". This is usually because you think you can ruff the third round, holding a doubleton, in which case it would happen to be congruent with a count signal, but there are examples where you might not want to echo with a doubleton (because you really need a switch), or echo with a tripleton (because you want partner to try & cash, and switching might be fatal). It makes more sense to simply call all of these attitude signals rather than "it's a count signal, but I'm going to selectively lie about the count in order to manipulate partner to do what I want".

Certainly it makes more sense to call it an attitude signal than a count signal, since you said you aren't usually going to show high-low from 4 to show an even number.

The way I learned it from Root, Kantar, Woolsey, is that if partner leads K from AKx and the Q shows up in dummy, it's an attitude situation, except if the contract is at the 5 level +, in which case they suggest giving count, with partner supposedly being able to make a decent guess about 4 vs. 2 based on previous bidding, hopefully more informative than vs. lower contracts.

[ralph23]

jdonn, on Oct 9 2007, 07:48 PM, said:

ralph23, on Oct 9 2007, 09:06 AM, said:

I can't possibly have a good attitude if I cannot beat the 9.

Then why were you arguing strongly that a signal was attitude in the other thread when partner leads K from AK and dummy has QJT9? Just wondering

It's a good and instructive question and a good distinction comes from it.

There, remember, partner led a HIGH card (King of ♦? I think) against a suit contract, a card that was going to win the trick. There was no chance in that example of my playing any card that could possibly win or help establish any trick. So, therefore, whatever card I play must be a signal.

This situation is not the same, because my first priority when partner leads low is not to signal, but to try to win the trick (or -same diff -- to play high so as to help partner establish his suit and win a later trick).

In the instant situation, in this post, partner has led a LOW ♣ and dummy has topped it with the paltry 9. If I could beat the dummy I would. I can't. So therefore, I can (must, by default) signal. Something I could not do if I were playing "third hand high" to try to win a trick.

So what kind of signal am I giving? Clearly it can't be attitude. That is inconsistent with the idea of my signalling at all !! If I had a good attitude I would not be signalling, I would be playing a big one.

In the other situation all I can do is signal. Partner led a winner. So all three kinds of signal are logically open to me.

There, I want to encourage partner to lead the suit again, so I can "ruff" the third round. That's what he will think, anyhow. So it is there, an attitude signal. If attitude can possibly apply, then it is attitude. At least, that's the Root/Kantar rule.

[ralph23]

Stephen Tu, on Oct 9 2007, 08:05 PM, said:

Why wouldn't it be attitude?  Attitude doesn't mean "I have high cards in the suit and want you to continue", it merely means "I think it's a good idea for you to continue this suit".  This is usually because you think you can ruff the third round, holding a doubleton, in which case it would happen to be congruent with a count signal, but there are examples where you might not want to echo with a doubleton (because you really need a switch), or echo with a tripleton (because you want partner to try & cash, and switching might be fatal).  It makes more sense to simply call all of these attitude signals rather than "it's a count signal, but I'm going to selectively lie about the count in order to manipulate partner to do what I want".

Certainly it makes more sense to call it an attitude signal than a count signal, since you said you aren't usually going to show high-low from 4 to show an even number.

The way I learned it from Root, Kantar, Woolsey, is that if partner leads K from AKx and the Q shows up in dummy, it's an attitude situation, except if the contract is at the 5 level +, in which case they suggest giving count, with partner supposedly being able to make a decent guess about 4 vs. 2 based on previous bidding, hopefully more informative than vs. lower contracts.

Oh crap, yes of course it is attitude, I was all the time thinking that partner led a small ♣ and the 9 was going to win. Partner led the Jack of ♣ and dummy just played low.

LOL never mind, cancel everything I said, I must have been on drugs the earlier time through ...

Sure, third hand could still have a good attitude here, especially with the Queen still in dummy and third hand may be guarding her, so it is attitude and not count. Arggg. It helps to read the question first before you answer!!! Mea culpa.

PS If you re-read my erroneously-assumed posts with the thought that I thought partner led the 2, not the Jack, then they will make more sense, I think !!

This post has been edited by ralph23: 2007-October-09, 18:28

[ralph23]

Stephen Tu, on Oct 9 2007, 08:05 PM, said:

The way I learned it from Root, Kantar, Woolsey, is that if partner leads K from AKx and the Q shows up in dummy, it's an attitude situation, except if the contract is at the 5 level +, in which case they suggest giving count, with partner supposedly being able to make a decent guess about 4 vs. 2 based on previous bidding, hopefully more informative than vs. lower contracts.

Root advocates A from AK at suit contracts, (one of the two "defensive conventions" he believed every competent partnership should adopt), with several exceptions, one of which is -- We are defending a suit contract at the 5 level or higher; here, partner leads King from AK. And third hand gives count, not attitude, on that lead.