[han]

This is a defensive problem from the Swiss in Philadelphia.

Axx
x
AQ10xx
AQxx

1D - (p) - p - (1H)
Dbl - (2D) - p - (2H)
p - (2NT) - p - (4H)
all pass

You lead the spade ace and see:

Qxx
KQJx
KJx
Jxx

Partner plays the 2 (UDCA). How do you continue?

[ArtK78]

It seems clear to me that ♦A followed by a your highest remaining spade should get the message across to partner that a club shift is needed.

Normally, cashing a side suit ace before continuing a suit indicates that you want a ruff in the initial suit led. Here, however, you have already implied length in spades, so a spade ruff should be out of the question. So the suggested defense should be effective.

I can't imagine that partner would encourage spades without the K. This sequence of plays should make it clear that you want him to win the spade K and return a club.

What seems strange is what RHO's hand is for his 2♥ bid and subsequent raise to game. He has only the ♥A and ♣KJ, and, if partner has the ♠K, only the ♠J. Not much of a hand. Perhaps he has some distribution.

[the_clown]

I think playing the Ace of ♦ would confuse partner. It looks natural for him to switch to a club with KJx of ♦ in Dummy. Theoretically I can have Ax of ♠ if i had doubled with 18-19 balanced but looking at his hand and the bidding, partner will be able to work out that this is highly unlikely. Even if he plays a ♠ back we will still get our 4 tricks for -1.

[phil_20686]

 ArtK78, on 2012-August-08, 08:35, said:

It seems clear to me that ♦A followed by a your highest remaining spade should get the message across to partner that a club shift is needed.

What seems strange is what RHO's hand is for his 2♥ bid and subsequent raise to game. He has only the ♥A and ♣KJ, and, if partner has the ♠K, only the ♠J. Not much of a hand. Perhaps he has some distribution.

Em, what sane partner would consider returning anything but a club here? If he has the spade K, does he know we need a club trick, and that this might be the only way to get one with club K and diamond ace.

Also, I am not sure this is an attitude signal. If you do not usually lead unsupported aces, partner might think this is an obvious switch position, (which it is if you have AKxx and there is Qxx in dummy), and be signalling for a club switch. Obviously this depends on your signalling methods, and your partners tendencies.

[TimG]

 ArtK78, on 2012-August-08, 08:35, said:

I can't imagine that partner would encourage spades without the K. This sequence of plays should make it clear that you want him to win the spade K and return a club.

Wouldn't partner encourage in spades with nothing in clubs?

[Phil]

changed mind

[ArtK78]

 TimG, on 2012-August-08, 08:52, said:

Wouldn't partner encourage in spades with nothing in clubs?

No.

But that doesn't really matter anyway.

[ArtK78]

 phil_20686, on 2012-August-08, 08:52, said:

Em, what sane partner would consider returning anything but a club here? If he has the spade K, does he know we need a club trick, and that this might be the only way to get one with club K and diamond ace.

Also, I am not sure this is an attitude signal. If you do not usually lead unsupported aces, partner might think this is an obvious switch position, (which it is if you have AKxx and there is Qxx in dummy), and be signalling for a club switch. Obviously this depends on your signalling methods, and your partners tendencies.

We were not told what this partnership leads from AK. If they lead the K from AK, then partner already knows that you are leading an unsupported A.

As for the first part of your post, if this were true, then why is this defense a problem?

I am not sure I was really focused on this problem when I made my first response. The goal here is 4 tricks. So, if partner has the ♠K, you have 4 tricks - two spades, and at least two tricks in clubs and diamonds.

Cashing the ♦A could conceivably be wrong if declarer is void. Maybe he has something like this:

Jx
Axxxxx
---
Kxxxx

It is odd, but not inconceivable, that partner did not raise diamonds or bid spades at any point in the auction.

So, going back to the original problem, it makes sense to continue spades at trick 2 without cashing the ♦A. Even if partner returns a diamond (or a spade), you will get 4 tricks in the fullness of time.

[phil_20686]

 ArtK78, on 2012-August-08, 09:19, said:

We were not told what this partnership leads from AK. If they lead the K from AK, then partner already knows that you are leading an unsupported A.

As for the first part of your post, if this were true, then why is this defense a problem?

I am not sure I was really focused on this problem when I made my first response. The goal here is 4 tricks. So, if partner has the ♠K, you have 4 tricks - two spades, and at least two tricks in clubs and diamonds.

Cashing the ♦A could conceivably be wrong if declarer is void. Maybe he has something like this:

Jx
Axxxxx
---
Kxxxx

It is odd, but not inconceivable, that partner did not raise diamonds or bid spades at any point in the auction.

So, going back to the original problem, it makes sense to continue spades at trick 2 without cashing the ♦A. Even if partner returns a diamond (or a spade), you will get 4 tricks in the fullness of time.

I am worried about declarer having Kxx ATxxxx x xxx, in which case ace of diamonds and a spade is a veritable disaster. Obviously its also a disaster if he has a void and can get a loser away on the diamond K.

I am reasonably sure that the point of this problem is a signalling dilemma. We have had these before, partner leads the ace of a suit and there is QJxx in dummy and you want him to switch to a side suit, is your card attitude or SP. I mean if you are 100% sure the spade two is attitude then this is a non problem, you play a spade, and partner returns a club. You doubled, so you must have three spades, so there is not even a real danger of him trying to cash extra spades or anything. Similarly, declarer has 1-3 spades so there is not a lot of danger of him getting discards on the spades. I mean he could have Kx Axxxxx x Kxxx, in which case he is about to endplay you if you dont cash the diamond, but these all feel pretty unlikely.

[TimG]

Quote

Wouldn't partner encourage in spades with nothing in clubs?

 ArtK78, on 2012-August-08, 09:17, said:

No.

Hmmm, I would feel pretty comfortable playing clubs if my partner discouraged in spades. Am I alone in thinking that partner's trick one attitude signal could be chosen based upon something other than just the ♠K?

[TimG]

 phil_20686, on 2012-August-08, 10:00, said:

I am worried about declarer having Kxx ATxxxx x xxx, in which case ace of diamonds and a spade is a veritable disaster. Obviously its also a disaster if he has a void and can get a loser away on the diamond K.

If partner has encouraged without the ♠K and with the ♣K, you are right, this is just a carding problem.

[phil_20686]

 TimG, on 2012-August-08, 10:08, said:

this is just a carding problem.

`just' . In my experience situations like this are among the most difficult defensive problems. So far there is a list of things we don't know about our, and our partners signalling tendencies, which are relevant:

(1) Am I allowed to lead the A from AK, or have I denied the K? Do I play A asks for attitude and K for count, or am I compelled to lead the A from AK?
(2) DO we play obvious switch?
(3) If we do play obvious switch, and we can lead the ace from AK, do we have a specific agreement about when there is Qxx(x) in dummy?
(4) How often do I lead unsupported aces. Do I think that partner will think this lead is unexpected, and cater his defence to me holding AK?
(5) DO play obvious switch, is it the case that a high card asks for a spade continuation, or a diamond, and vice versa for a middle card? ( Not strictly relevant, but interesting anyway)

If you are 100% sure that your partner gives you attitude in this situation, then this is a non problem. My signalling style is more flexible, and it makes this problem much harder, although with my most regular partner I know that:

(1) I almost never lead unsupported aces, partner will expect me to be holding the K.
(2) This is a SP situation for us, specifically listed in the system file. It would also be SP if I led the K and I cannot hold 5 or more cards in the suit.
(3) Partner would play a high card for a diamond and a low card for a club, and a middle card for neither.

Hence it is clear for me to play ace and another club. Obviously, this is not an easy question for a discussion board.

[ArtK78]

I am finding it difficult to come up with a hand which is consistent with the auction and partner's (presumed) encouraging signal in spades at trick 1 where it is wrong to continue spades.

There is even a layout consistent with the auction where we will defeat this hand by going completely passive, and partner has neither the ♠K nor the ♣K. Declarer would hold:

Kxx
AT98x
xxx
Kx

The question then becomes why partner would encourage spades? Perhaps my earlier "no" answer to the question "is there any hand on which partner would encourage spades with neither the ♠K or ♣K" was a bit hasty. Partner could fear that a switch could do more harm than good, and he might be correct.

If I were at the table, I would continue spades. Partner does not seem to want me to switch, and if he has the ♠K it is a sure beat. Even if he doesn't have the ♠K, it may be true that a spade continuation is as good (or better) as anything.

[rduran1216]

This is the kind of problem that I think is easier at the table because you can get a read for whats going on. I'm leading a small club at trick two, don't think id consider anything else.

[r_prah]

If partner has the ♠K, this is a non-problem, he will know to switch to a club. And if he had the ♣K, he would not encourage spades. If declarer has ♠Kxx ♥Axxxxx ♦x ♣Kxx, and we continue spades at trick 2, declarer will draw trump, cash his spades and lead a diamond towards dummy, giving us no winning options; if we win the ♦A, we get endplayed; if we don't, we lose the trick, and declarer can establish a club trick.

To prevent this, we need to cash the ♦A at trick 2 before continuing with a spade.

[phil_20686]

 r_prah, on 2012-August-08, 12:09, said:

If declarer has ♠Kxx ♥Axxxxx ♦x ♣Kxx,

Again we are back to a signalling problem. If you play attitude, partner should discourage here with nothing. For all he knows you have the KQ of clubs and the ak of spades and need to develop a club trick with an immediate switch, before declarer estabilishes a spade trick. Obviously on this hand we know from the bidding that partner cannot have a doubleton spade, but maybe another day declarer is 4-6 in the majors and chose to bid this way. Are you telling me you would signal differently if opener had jumped to 4H over 2d, then he likely could be 4-6 and it is hard for partner to rule out wondering if leader might be wondering about a doubleton spade in his hand. Sorry if that isnt clear.

[ArtK78]

 r_prah, on 2012-August-08, 12:09, said:

If partner has the ♠K, this is a non-problem, he will know to switch to a club. And if he had the ♣K, he would not encourage spades. If declarer has ♠Kxx ♥Axxxxx ♦x ♣Kxx, and we continue spades at trick 2, declarer will draw trump, cash his spades and lead a diamond towards dummy, giving us no winning options; if we win the ♦A, we get endplayed; if we don't, we lose the trick, and declarer can establish a club trick.

To prevent this, we need to cash the ♦A at trick 2 before continuing with a spade.

If declarer had that hand, he would have done something other than 2♥ after his partner's cue bid.

[phil_20686]

i really want to know the answer to this now

[semeai]

I came to the same solution as r_prah: Cash ♦A now so we don't get endplayed later.

If partner has ♠K, we're always setting them.

Partner may well have nothing. The encouraging signal may just be "please oh please don't go looking for strength elsewhere."

[TimG]

 phil_20686, on 2012-August-08, 12:21, said:

Again we are back to a signalling problem. If you play attitude, partner should discourage here with nothing.

I don't think it requires a specific agreement to play "Obvious Shift" to encourage on the opening lead when we don't want partner to go about looking for our strength elsewhere. Think of it as a positive attitude regarding a continuation rather than a positive attitude about high cards in the suit. Now, armed with this information, opening leader should think about what to do next, not blindly continue.