[cherdanno]

A formerly frequent forum poster had this problem yesterday:

Scoring: BAM

1♦ (X) 1♥ (1♠)
2♥ (3♥) 4♥ (P)
P (4♠) all pass

---

Partner leads the Ace of heart. Your play to trick one?

[jillybean]

What signalling are you using?
I want partner to plonk down A♣ next

[Hanoi5]

♥2

[Fluffy]

♥K

[Tomi2]

Fluffy, on Aug 1 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

♥K

and find partner with x - axx - kqxxx - qxxx or so?
i signal my count in hearts and trust hat partner has his brain turned on

[pooltuna]

When the distribution of a led suit will become clear at the finish of the trick there is a good argument for suit preference signals so I play the 2♥. It appears we need to ruff ♣ to beat this contract

[Fluffy]

Tomi2, on Aug 1 2009, 03:22 PM, said:

Fluffy, on Aug 1 2009, 10:13 AM, said:

♥K

and find partner with x - axx - kqxxx - qxxx or so?
i signal my count in hearts and trust hat partner has his brain turned on

My partner's do never raise me on 3 cards, but I understand this is not standard.

No decent partnership raises on 3 cards when there is a support double avaible.

EDIT: My partners also never lead unsupported aces when they have KQ outside.

I might be influenced because this is a problem, but the more I think of it the more I am convinced ♥K is right.

It might not be risk free (I don't find a consistent hand yet but there sure is), but the advantage of being so clear in te signal overweights it.

when partner its 90% sure that we have club shortness we will put the contract 2 down when it is possible, signalling anything else will end on partner playing a diamond and only 1 down then.

[MFA]

Did 2♥ show 4 (with support X)? I would have bid 4♦ instead of 4♥. It would let partner bid 5 over 4♠ with a singleton spade and concentrated red values, which is what we want him to do.

I play here:

♥2 encouraging (low card, UDCA)
♥J discouraging + signal for diamonds (high odd)
♥9 discouraging + signal for clubs (high even, but in absence of such a card, a lower high odd would be that signal).

Since partner (with 4 hearts as I assume we play it) knows exactly what heart spots I have, he will always be able to read my signal.

I'm not going to signal for clubs. With my diamond support strangely hidden, partner will surely underlead his ace in a flash. Which is just about the only defense that seems to let the game through if declarer has something like xxxx, x, Qxxx, QTxxx. A trump would also be fatal.

I don't think it's realistic to get him to lay down the ♣A. Ok, Fluffy's ♥K might work but then he really should have the brilliancy prize for himself :-)

[gnasher]

This is the sort of hand where you gain from playing 3♥ over 1♠ as an unbalanced minimum. If we knew that partner were unbalanced, it would have been clear to bid 5♦.

Even opposite a balanced hand, it might well be right to bid 5♦ as a two-way effort, so I'd certainly either consult partner with 4♦ over 3♥ or just unilaterally bid 5♦ over 4♠. Either 4♠ or 5♦ is likely to make, and it will not be obvious to partner to bid 5♦ with xx AQxx Kxxx Kxx.

Regarding the defence to 4♠, when both partners know that declarer is about to show out, isn't it normal to play suit preference? ♥2 would ask for a club, ♥J would ask for a diamond, and ♥9 would (on this deal) ask for a trump switch.

As MFA says, asking for a club is too dangerous, because partner will switch to a low one rather than the ace. One option is to ask for a diamond and then switch to a club myself, but it seems better to play ♥9 and try to cut down their ruffs. Nothing will be lost by doing this - if partner has ♣A, they can't make more than nine tricks without allowing the club ruff anyway.

If partner doesn't have a trump to switch to, we've probably already lost the board.

[the hog]

I would play the 2 of H which in this instance should be a suit preference for Ds. The 9 of H would be a neutral card.

[wclass___]

♥2 denying ♣Q and A

[MFA]

gnasher, on Aug 3 2009, 01:34 PM, said:

Regarding the defence to 4♠, when both partners know that declarer is about to show out, isn't it normal to play suit preference?  ♥2 would ask for a club, ♥J would ask for a diamond, and ♥9 would (on this deal) ask for a trump switch.

I believe it's right to have an encouraging signal available even when dummy or declarer is known to be able to ruff the second round of the suit. The force is very often the right defense and also it gives much more legitimicy to a signal for a switch.

Quote

As MFA says, asking for a club is too dangerous, because partner will switch to a low one rather than the ace.  One option is to ask for a diamond and then switch to a club myself, but it seems better to play ♥9 and try to cut down their ruffs.  Nothing will be lost by doing this - if partner has ♣A, they can't make more than nine tricks without allowing the club ruff anyway.

Since declarer is marked with 5+♣, I would be very worried that a trump shift will not do the job. If his clubs are as good as QTxxx, we need to force or he could easily cash the whole suit.

[Phil]

A lot of you know I play Obvious Shift with Harvey. I'm not saying obvious shift works in every situation, but it really helps here:

1. An discouraging card (9; udca) shows the ♣A or the ♣Q.

2. An encouraging card (2) tends to deny the ♣A/Q.

3. An 'unusual' card J or even the K would suggest the non-obvious shift, which is in this case diamonds.

Using these methods, I would play the 2, although the J would work too. Partner knows I have four hearts, so trying another heart is nullo. Partner also won't try a fancy underlead of the ♣A either.

Playing standard methods, I would play the J. Here, suit preference applies (we do play support doubles don't we?), and pard knows we aren't cashing any more hearts, so I want a diamond shift, club (hopefully) over to pard and a club ruff.

By the way, I think declarer is 1=2 or 1=3 in the red suits. I considered what happens if we try to start tapping the closed hand, but this seems wrong to me. I can expound if you want.

[Fluffy]

but Phil dummy has 3 heart losers and not many inmediate entries, partner might try to pull trumps hoping you have ♣Q unless you make it very clear.

[Phil]

Fluffy, on Aug 3 2009, 10:30 AM, said:

but Phil dummy has 3 heart losers and not many inmediate entries, partner might try to pull trumps hoping you have ♣Q unless you make it very clear.

Gonzo how many clubs do you think declarer has?

[Fluffy]

I think he's got 5 or 6, but partner might think he is 4144 or 4153

[Phil]

By the way if we don't play support doubles, I think this becomes a much tougher problem. Its quite possible pard does have a 3 card raise since pard has 0-1 spades. Nevertheless, the heart trick cannot go anywhere unless declarer unexpectedly is 4=2=1=6, although this possible with declarer seemingly bidding on air.

So playing non-support x's, I would still encourage hearts, because he knows I know his heart length isn't determined. Whatever continuation is needed pard needs to work it out.

This becomes a harder hand for OS not playing support doubles, although now I have the choice of showing a club card (if I held it). So I'd still encourage. When pard has four hearts, his choice is easy (see other post) and with three hearts, I'd get the heart continuation.

[Lobowolf]

Phil, on Aug 3 2009, 09:54 AM, said:

A lot of you know I play Obvious Shift with Harvey. I'm not saying obvious shift works in every situation, but it really helps here:

1. An discouraging card (9; udca) shows the ♣A or the ♣Q.

2. An encouraging card (2) tends to deny the ♣A/Q.

3. An 'unusual' card J or even the K would suggest the non-obvious shift, which is in this case diamonds.

Using these methods, I would play the 2, although the J would work too. Partner knows I have four hearts, so trying another heart is nullo. Partner also won't try a fancy underlead of the ♣A either.

Playing standard methods, I would play the J. Here, suit preference applies (we do play support doubles don't we?), and pard knows we aren't cashing any more hearts, so I want a diamond shift, club (hopefully) over to pard and a club ruff.

By the way, I think declarer is 1=2 or 1=3 in the red suits. I considered what happens if we try to start tapping the closed hand, but this seems wrong to me. I can expound if you want.

Great obv. shift hand, and with my o.s. partner, I would play the jack to eliminate any potential club disaster by playing it from my side (after partner switchces to the non-obvious diamond).

[cherdanno]

I heard about this hand at the bar. A couple of comments (some of them just relayed from what others said at the bar):
- Yes 2♥ does show 4.
- If partner has the ♦K, you can and want to beat it two tricks (it IS BAM, after all). So we want to shift partner to the club ace immediately.
- If you give some kind of suit preference signal, partner still won't know declarer has a 5+-card club suit, and is likely to play a trump at trick two, which is fatal if declarer has ♣QTxxx or ♣Qxxxxx (his actual club holding).

It seems to me Fluffy's ♥K is right (and was also the winner at the bar, obviously).

[Phil]

cherdanno, on Aug 3 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

I heard about this hand at the bar. A couple of comments (some of them just relayed from what others said at the bar):
- Yes 2♥ does show 4.
- If partner has the ♦K, you can and want to beat it two tricks (it IS BAM, after all). So we want to shift partner to the club ace immediately.
- If you give some kind of suit preference signal, partner still won't know declarer has a 5+-card club suit, and is likely to play a trump at trick two, which is fatal if declarer has ♣QTxxx or ♣Qxxxxx (his actual club holding).

It seems to me Fluffy's ♥K is right (and was also the winner at the bar, obviously).

Did declarer have five spades? If four, this becomes a more interesting hand.