[kenrexford]

An interesting (to me) defense problem occurred for the opponents last night. The defense did not work, giving me extra trick(s). However, I'm curious if y'all would agree that the wrong person took the fall in the post-mortem:

Scoring: MP

---

The auction was a tad strange, but normal for us. North opened 1♣ ("standard") because 1♦ would promise an unbalanced hand. East-West passed throughout. South responded 1NT, which could be as strong as an 11-count that cannot be "upgraded" to a 12-count. This control-average 10-count with a fifth diamond would be a maximum.

North rebid 2NT, and South accepted.

The lead was a fourth best spade, won per force by dummy. I, as Declarer, then hooked the diamond into the known King. LHO wins the diamond eventually no matter what happens. If he ducks, I keep playing the second-best diamond until he wins.

West, upon winning the diamond, banged down the heart Ace [edit -- oops], giving me a claim. Had West played back a second spade, I'd be held, of course, to nine tricks, assuming East made the obvious unblock. On a passive club back, I'll have a guess for 10 or 11.

West took the fall, but I think West made the right play and East should have taken the fall. Sure, some sort of signalling might have helped, but I think that simple bridge logic is the key here.

Any thoughts?

[mcphee]

I blame Ken

[kenrexford]

mcphee, on Jun 26 2007, 08:38 AM, said:

I blame Ken

I did feel a bit guilty here.

[bid_em_up]

Me too.

Especially for that part about West banging down the heart King when he doesn't have it.

Ok, seriously. You do not say what East pitched on the diamonds or what kind of discarding the opponents are playing.

But surely he could find some manner of discarding to indicate the spade Q, right?

The other logic would be you have shown 7 points in diamonds, and you could have the heart Kxx(x) or the spade Qx(x) but you can't have both. But if you had Qx(x) spades, you would have unblocked the spade Ace earlier otherwise, you would have no entry back to your hand when West holds up the diamond King until the 3rd round and exits a diamond and would be unable to score your 10th trick. However, if this is the case, west cannot prevent you from scoring your 10 tricks, even if his partner has KJ10x of hearts, so the heart switch must be wrong.

If East failed to signal with his pitches, he gets 100% of the blame. If East did signal correctly, and West didn't follow instructions.....well, then it all goes to West.

[jtfanclub]

bid_em_up, on Jun 26 2007, 08:51 AM, said:

But surely he could find some manner of discarding to indicate the spade Q, right?

East could always play the Q of spades on the first trick...he's going to have to decide whether to unblock sometime anyways, and I doubt EW's methods are sophisticated enough that on the second spade East will know for sure whether West has the jack or the ten.

I mean, I wouldn't find it, but somebody would, right?

[Apollo81]

<sarcasm>
There's this thing called "attitude signals" perhaps you've heard of it. This could have been used by East both at trick 1 and on his first discard to indicate the right play. Since you didn't specify what cards East played at these times, I assume EW don't play attitude signals.
</sarcasm>

P.S. West didn't bang down the heart king as he doesn't have it, and you should have specified who held the ♦10. Your post was clear even w/o this information though.

[kenrexford]

The (edited above) King of hearts was, of course, the Ace of hearts.

I did have the diamond 10, as well -- oops again.

However, I specifically did not include what East did on the diamond plays because I think that the point of this hand is to avoid the use of crutches like signals and just think.

jtfanclub got this one right, IMO. RHO should have played the spade Queen at trick one, for three reasons. First, he obviously will unblock now or on the second spade. Second, playing the queen lets his partner know that he has it, so that his partner can continue spades. Third, it lets partner count the hand out better, as noted.

Failure to play the Queen seems, therefore, to deny the Queen. Giving me AQJ in diamonds, and five of them, plus the heart Queen, gives me a full 9-count. It seems, therefore, that I must not have the heart King, and I might not have the Jack, either.

This is MP. If I have four diamonds coming to me, plus three spades, plus three clubs, I have 10 tricks. If the opponents take the diamond King and three hearts, they win the hand. If I have the heart Jack, and not a stiff, the heart switch costs nothing.

BTW -- if the play of the spade Queen is right, then one would play it if one has it, in theory. If so, then not playing the Queen denies the Queen. Assuming that also, then pips need not show attitude, but should be count. In other words, a fourth-best spade lead, with AK-tight in dummy, with a defensive COV in LHO's hand, would seem to create an "honor or count" situation, but that's beyond the scope here.

The simple point seemed to be that if RHO does not play the spade Queen, RHO does not have the spade Queen, giving RHO the heart King and a good heart switch.

[Apollo81]

OK, if I were East here's what I'd be thinking:

I'm not playing ♠Q now as partner may have led from ♠10xxxx. For now I'll encourage, and I'll discard my highest affordable club spot at my first chance. If forced to make additional discards I'll play high-low from clubs. I may be forced to unblock spade later but I'll give both of them a chance to change my mind.

On the actual hand if West wins ♦K at once and returns spade, East then is forced to make a decision. However West *could* duck diamond to help the defense too..following with highest spot then winning ♦K at next chance makes East's spade unblock on the next round clear.

Without signals there is often at least some element of guesswork.

[awm]

It's a common mistake to fixate on some play or signal made early in the hand, where partner could have done something to make the position clear, but where it may not have been obvious to partner what to do or whether the "right" action would be without cost. If east signaled twice for a spade continuation (first by the spot play to trick one, then by the discard to trick two) then I think it's clear whose fault the heart switch was, regardless of the fact that east could have thrown the ♠Q under the king.

To give an example, say my girlfriend asks me to meet her at 6 pm for dinner tomorrow. Then tomorrow morning she calls my cellphone and reminds me, and tomorrow afternoon she leaves me an email message to meet her at 6. Sure enough, I show up at 8 pm. When she complains about this, I blame her because, well, she could've written it down on my forehead with permanent marker...

In bridge, like life, there are many opportunities to signal and you shouldn't ignore what partner's saying just because of the one way she didn't say it.

[mike777]

awm, on Jun 26 2007, 03:56 PM, said:

It's a common mistake to fixate on some play or signal made early in the hand, where partner could have done something to make the position clear, but where it may not have been obvious to partner what to do or whether the "right" action would be without cost. If east signaled twice for a spade continuation (first by the spot play to trick one, then by the discard to trick two) then I think it's clear whose fault the heart switch was, regardless of the fact that east could have thrown the ♠Q under the king.

To give an example, say my girlfriend asks me to meet her at 6 pm for dinner tomorrow. Then tomorrow morning she calls my cellphone and reminds me, and tomorrow afternoon she leaves me an email message to meet her at 6. Sure enough, I show up at 8 pm. When she complains about this, I blame her because, well, she could've written it down on my forehead with permanent marker...

In bridge, like life, there are many opportunities to signal and you shouldn't ignore what partner's saying just because of the one way she didn't say it.

Drop her now!

If she nags you this much at this stage, can you really survive being married the rest of your life. Best reason I ever heard to never buy a cell/email/text phone.
Do you really want to be pestered by your girlfriend, boss, family the rest of your life on every little thing.

[inquiry]

West should take the fall...

Surely EAST signalled "yes" in spades with the queen.

South "accepted" game try with no spade, no real club, no heart A or Q... The Diamond AQJ is not enough to accept. West can "see" the heart king in souths hand. This is matchpoints. He simply can not afford to bang the heart ACE.

At imps, counting 2S, 3C, and 4D, I guess I could have more sympathy for WEST. HE could hold out hope south is a crazy man (and given you were playing it, well.... .... ). But at matchpoint baning the ace is a huge loosing play. I would guess 3NT= is above average and 3NT+2 is a bottom.

[jtfanclub]

inquiry, on Jun 26 2007, 04:03 PM, said:

Surely EAST signalled "yes" in spades with the queen.

From what little I know of Ken, it may not have been that simple. For example, East's spots might be 74 and Ken's the 63...I'm sure Ken would play the 6 by reflex.

I feel confident that a high heart by East on trick 2 would have been read correctly, so I doubt that's what he did. Of course, that could burn a trick....

[Apollo81]

mike777, on Jun 26 2007, 05:02 PM, said:

awm, on Jun 26 2007, 03:56 PM, said:

It's a common mistake to fixate on some play or signal made early in the hand, where partner could have done something to make the position clear, but where it may not have been obvious to partner what to do or whether the "right" action would be without cost. If east signaled twice for a spade continuation (first by the spot play to trick one, then by the discard to trick two) then I think it's clear whose fault the heart switch was, regardless of the fact that east could have thrown the ♠Q under the king.

To give an example, say my girlfriend asks me to meet her at 6 pm for dinner tomorrow. Then tomorrow morning she calls my cellphone and reminds me, and tomorrow afternoon she leaves me an email message to meet her at 6. Sure enough, I show up at 8 pm. When she complains about this, I blame her because, well, she could've written it down on my forehead with permanent marker...

In bridge, like life, there are many opportunities to signal and you shouldn't ignore what partner's saying just because of the one way she didn't say it.

Drop her now!

If she nags you this much at this stage, can you really survive being married the rest of your life. Best reason I ever heard to never buy a cell/email/text phone.
Do you really want to be pestered by your girlfriend, boss, family the rest of your life on every little thing.

It's an analogy dude

[kenrexford]

Of course signals work quite well here. The personal signal choice that I have here is actually quite strange, a "Smith" and "Lavinthal" combo-type play that a partner and I described to someone as "embedded Smith Echoes" because the term "embedded" was in the news a lot at the time.

The "Embedded Smith Echo" is a discard in a neutral or disfavored or free suit that indicates attitude for the lead, made when holding a stiff or void in the opposition suit. Thus, East could echo in clubs (reverse Smith style) to indicate attitude as to spades. Of course, East could also recognize that West is waiting for information and must clearly have the Jack of spades, and simply toss the spade Queen as a rather obvious signal, also. Also, the fact that the spade lead was a small card and not some neutral middlish spade. Lots of clues here.

I agree that reading into partner not making the obvious play is dangerous, because partner never makes the obvious play. But, how many times does partner need to not make the obvious play before he cannot have that? If he holds onto the Queen at trick one, then keeps it on the first diamond pitch, then keeps it when partner wins the second diamond trick, can he really have it?

BTW -- East discouraged clubs. That clue #2 also suggests a heart switch, but I left that out intentionally, as it seems that when East does not play the spade Queen (three times), he ain't got it.

[cherdano]

I completely disagree that failure to play the queen denies having it. He can show it with an encouraging signal at trick one, further discarding, etc. Especially as this is MP and we don't want to give an extra overtrick to declarer's ♠Jxx.
West should figure out East's unblock dilemma when he continues spades and play low with the jack and high without. This isn't "sophisticated signaling", it is just understanding partner's problem plus very basic signaling.

[kenrexford]

cherdano, on Jun 26 2007, 11:11 PM, said:

I completely disagree that failure to play the queen denies having it. He can show it with an encouraging signal at trick one, further discarding, etc. Especially as this is MP and we don't want to give an extra overtrick to declarer's ♠Jxx.
West should figure out East's unblock dilemma when he continues spades and play low with the jack and high without. This isn't "sophisticated signaling", it is just understanding partner's problem plus very basic signaling.

He cannot show the Queen with an encouraging signal at trick one if his two pips are low and Declarer in known as a person who would falsecard.

Further discarding is ambiguous. Further, although this hand is nice for having a void, some parallels will not allow the pitch on the void. Had my LHO been thrown in at trick two in hearts, RHO could not signal (unless playing Smith or Reverse Smith, and that might also be ambiguous).

Holding onto the spade Queen for even one round, because partner might have 10xxx(x) in spades, seems frankly absurd to me (possible from laziness but absurd if maintained throughout a post-mortem, I should say). This is absurd on this hand, IMO, because it is excused by an apparent agreement where opening leads against notrump contracts are fourth-best whether headed by the Jack or by the 10. That alone seems strange. Beyond that, though, if you have a general policy of waiting for all types of signals and confirmations before making the play that you know you should make, then you will not just suffer occasionally being caught with pants down. You will also lose inference, such as on this hand.

In other words, the cost of not playing the spade queen at trick one is much more subtle than simply confusion for partner that needs resolution by sufficient signalling styles, which might not be available in time and which might be ambiguous. The cost also is, as with this hand's example, that partner loses immediacy of relevant info and may miss the switch when you have KJxx in hearts, and the decision hits partner too soon or the signals are ambiguous.

[Fluffy]

a good rule is not to win a trick you can duck untill you know what to lpay next. On this example if 1 dscard was not enough, then just wait and it will become clearer.