Posted 2012-September-18, 10:25
Let's go really strange theory here. (Why not?)
Partner sees three spades on Dummy. His failure to raise spades suggests not having three spades with partner, especially if he has values for a raise (and thus expects me to work that out). Hence, he presumably is known to have one or two spades.
Partner also can be relatively assured that even with two spades the second one would not be ruffed, as he would not likely expect me to have seven spades.
Thus, his count is actually somewhat irrelevant, notwithstanding the agreements. Granted, I might have only five spades, where I need to know whether Opener has three or four of them, but then how is that information useful? So, again, it seems like count is truly non-essential, despite the agreements.
Because partner will expect me to play the second top spade no matter what he plays, he also knows that I will either know to lead a third round of spades or not by what everyone plays and what I actually have (five or six spades). Thus, again, count seems irrelevant.
If, however, he can work out that I will cash two spades, perhaps expecting a stiff but then being surprised, and then have a decision when I hold six spades, as this problem illustrates, then perhaps partner's cards should really not be count but instead should be suit-preference?
This is of course expecting a lot. If the facts turned up strangely with partner showing 1 or 3 spades but turning out to have two, then the message might be clearer. Hence, it might be possible for partner to make a crafty diamond signal if he has the diamond Ace (or the trump Ace), but less so (with the given methods) a crafty club signal, as the "crafty club signal" would just be normal cards for when partner is just showing count and not being creative.
I mention all of this solely as a curiosity of theory.
"Gibberish in, gibberish out. A trial judge, three sets of lawyers, and now three appellate judges cannot agree on what this law means. And we ask police officers, prosecutors, defense lawyers, and citizens to enforce or abide by it? The legislature continues to write unreadable statutes. Gibberish should not be enforced as law."
-P.J. Painter.