[OleBerg]

---

Lead ♦K

Capable opponents. On the first trick partner plays the ♦7 and declarer the ♦6.

Your agreements about the signalling is quite clear: Partner must encourage/discourage. Low-high is encouraging. What do you do?

[rhm]

Switch to the ♣T
Declarer could have ♣AKQx, but that looks not very likely.
More likely declarer has ♠Axxxx and the club ace and you need to develop three tricks in the minors, before spades get established.

Rainer Herrmann

[WesleyC]

Really complex hand - I've can come up with layouts where almost any continuations is correct!

Partner's diamond pip is slightly ambiguous - it could be singleton, doubleton 74 or encouraging from a variety of holdings (with declarer concealing the 4). One thing you do know for sure is that declarer has at least 1 more small diamond.

Another inference that partner is more likely to hold the ♦A is that a competent declarer with a fragile club holding and prospects in spades (e.g. [AT9x Kxx Axx Axx]) won't duck the lead. On the other hand, if declarer has a really rotten hand like [Axx Kxx AJ86 Axx] ducking the diamond is probably their only chance so playing another diamond isn't without risk.

Is there any risk of the diamond going away if we switch a club? I think it's a long shot. Declarer needs to hold a hand like [xxx Kxx Jxx AKQx] or [xxx Kxxx xx AKQx] which don't look like 4H bids to me. Also on this layout, partner might work out to overtake and cash another diamond himself. There is also a small risk that a club switch picks up the suit if declarer holds AKxx or AQxx, where they might've otherwise tried to get fancy with an endplay line.

So I think i'm switching to the ♣T, but without much conviction.

[PhantomSac]

WesleyC, on 2015-November-15, 03:33, said:

Really complex hand - I've can come up with layouts where almost any continuations is correct!

Partner's diamond pip is slightly ambiguous - it could be singleton, doubleton 74 or encouraging from a variety of holdings (with declarer concealing the 4). One thing you do know for sure is that declarer has at least 1 more small diamond.

Another inference that partner is more likely to hold the ♦A is that a competent declarer with a fragile club holding and prospects in spades (e.g. [AT9x Kxx Axx Axx]) won't duck the lead. On the other hand, if declarer has a really rotten hand like [Axx Kxx AJ86 Axx] ducking the diamond is probably their only chance so playing another diamond isn't without risk.

Is there any risk of the diamond going away if we switch a club? I think it's a long shot. Declarer needs to hold a hand like [xxx Kxx Jxx AKQx] or [xxx Kxxx xx AKQx] which don't look like 4H bids to me. Also on this layout, partner might work out to overtake and cash another diamond himself. There is also a small risk that a club switch picks up the suit if declarer holds AKxx or AQxx, where they might've otherwise tried to get fancy with an endplay line.

So I think i'm switching to the ♣T, but without much conviction.

With AJ86 of diamonds they have a very real shot of making by winning the diamond and trying to set up diamond tricks, eg if the 7 was from 97x, T7x, T7, etc. They basically always make unless we have KQT9(x) of diamonds.

[PhantomSac]

rhm, on 2015-November-15, 02:50, said:

Switch to the ♣T
Declarer could have ♣AKQx, but that looks not very likely.
More likely declarer has ♠Axxxx and the club ace and you need to develop three tricks in the minors, before spades get established.

Rainer Herrmann

Why would declarer duck the diamond if that was his hand? He can win and duck a spade unless he has only 2 hearts somehow.

[rhm]

PhantomSac, on 2015-November-17, 00:45, said:

Why would declarer duck the diamond if that was his hand? He can win and duck a spade unless he has only 2 hearts somehow.

I never claimed declarer has the ♦A. I only claimed we might need 3 tricks from the minors

For example he could have ♠Axxxx ♥Kxxx ♦6 ♣Axx

But he could have the ♦A. For example

♠AT9xx ♥Kxx ♦A6 ♣Kxx

He would have reason to duck, though it is not the winning line here against perfect defense. Declarer does not know where the black honors are.

Rainer Herrmann

[WesleyC]

rhm, on 2015-November-17, 15:34, said:

For example he could have ♠Axxxx ♥Kxxx ♦6 ♣Axx

But he could have the ♦A. For example

♠AT9xx ♥Kxx ♦A6 ♣Kxx

He would have reason to duck, though it is not the winning line here against perfect defense. Declarer does not know where the black honors are.

On the second hand, ducking the ♦A seems careless. Then again playing for declarer to have made a careless mistake on a hand where your play is otherwise unlikely to matter, is quite reasonable.

Also the hands you've constructed require partner to have played the 7 from AJ74 or AJ874, which seems impossible (at least in my opinion).

PhantomSac: Are you suggesting that playing a second diamond is better than switching to a club?

[PhantomSac]

rhm, on 2015-November-17, 15:34, said:

For example he could have ♠Axxxx ♥Kxxx ♦6 ♣Axx

But he could have the ♦A. For example

♠AT9xx ♥Kxx ♦A6 ♣Kxx

He would have reason to duck, though it is not the winning line here against perfect defense. Declarer does not know where the black honors are.

Rainer Herrmann

As wesley has said these hands are impossible because partner would not play the D7.

Quote

PhantomSac: Are you suggesting that playing a second diamond is better than switching to a club?

I would have to think more seriously about it, but I have not been convinced by the arguments for a club shift. In particular I don't think any possible hand has been given where a club shift is correct (based on declarer playing correctly and partner signalling correctly). A club shift is certainly a very natural and intuitive play though, I doubt I would ever not do that IRL lol.

[rhm]

WesleyC, on 2015-November-17, 21:16, said:

On the second hand, ducking the ♦A seems careless. Then again playing for declarer to have made a careless mistake on a hand where your play is otherwise unlikely to matter, is quite reasonable.

I might agree double dummy. But Bridge is not played double dummy and in my opinion the best declarers are those who give their opponents scope for errors. I am pretty sure I would duck at the table and would consider a club switch at trick two unlikely. If the club switch does not come at trick 2 I am in better shape.

Quote

Also the hands you've constructed require partner to have played the 7 from AJ74 or AJ874, which seems impossible (at least in my opinion).

PhantomSac, on 2015-November-18, 00:18, said:

As wesley has said these hands are impossible because partner would not play the D7.

I beg to differ.
I do not mind attitude signals. However most players seem to assume, when we lead partner knows our holding and can direct the right defense.
Sometimes partner does, but more often he does not.
If declarer has the ♦4 partner has encouraged.
If declarer has the ♦8 and not the ♦4 partner has discouraged.
And if partner has both the ♦4 and ♦8 has partner made a mistake?
What is partner supposed to do if he does not know what is best?
Let us assume for the sake of the argument declarer got ♠Axxxx ♥Kxxx ♦6 ♣Axx
This gives partner ♠xxx ♥xx ♦AJ874 ♣KQx
Now please tell me from partner's perspective when we lead a diamond honor why declarer could not have ♠AQx ♥Kxxx ♦96 ♣AT9x instead of ♠Axxxx ♥Kxxx ♦6 ♣Axx
Now the right defense is continuing diamonds to partner followed by a spade switch.
Partner can not tell what the right defense is at trick two.
Please enlighten me what diamond spot partner should play under those conditions if not the ♦7.

Rainer Herrmann

[PhantomSac]

I thought only beginners equated "I am not 100 % sure what the right thing for partner to do is" with "I will play MIDDLE from 3 spots" lol. I mean yeah, that will solve your problems. Let's cut a baby in half also while we're at it because we aren't sure what to do.

[rhm]

PhantomSac, on 2015-November-18, 05:03, said:

I thought only beginners equated "I am not 100 % sure what the right thing for partner to do is" with "I will play MIDDLE from 3 spots" lol. I mean yeah, that will solve your problems. Let's cut a baby in half also while we're at it because we aren't sure what to do.

And some people consider the world black and white when in fact the reality is shades of grey.

Rainer Herrmann

[WesleyC]

rhm's method of 'subjective attitude signals' isn't wrong and it might even works better in some cases. However, it simply isn't the way that most people play attitude signals on the opening lead. I'm surprised you haven't picked this up from the signalling of your opponents?

[Phil]

PhantomSac, on 2015-November-18, 05:03, said:

I thought only beginners equated "I am not 100 % sure what the right thing for partner to do is" with "I will play MIDDLE from 3 spots" lol. I mean yeah, that will solve your problems. Let's cut a baby in half also while we're at it because we aren't sure what to do.

Rosenberg has been quoted as saying that

[rhm]

WesleyC, on 2015-November-18, 09:04, said:

rhm's method of 'subjective attitude signals' isn't wrong and it might even works better in some cases. However, it simply isn't the way that most people play attitude signals on the opening lead. I'm surprised you haven't picked this up from the signalling of your opponents?

PhantomSac, on 2015-November-18, 05:03, said:

I thought only beginners equated "I am not 100 % sure what the right thing for partner to do is" with "I will play MIDDLE from 3 spots" lol. I mean yeah, that will solve your problems. Let's cut a baby in half also while we're at it because we aren't sure what to do.

Phil, on 2015-November-18, 09:41, said:

Rosenberg has been quoted as saying that

Neither of you has bothered to answer the questions I raised.
This is not about unclear signals.
What problem is solved by encouraging, when in fact you need a switch and to discourage when you need a continuation, simply because you can not tell?
What is subjective about refusing to do so?
It is not that I am fond of playing an unclear card if I can help it. I am aware they are hard to read. But giving a clear but wrong signal is even worse.

Rainer Herrmann