[kenrexford]

Scoring: MP

---

The auction was 1♣-P-1♥-1♠-2♣-P-P-2♠-P-P-2NT-all pass.

Our expresseed defensive agreements: Reverse Smith Echo (small encourages), 4th Best against NT, with attitude implicit (second highest or highest from several small), standard count/attitude, Rusinow in own suit (and generally against NT), King lead (power) asks for honor or count.

My lead was the spade 3 (sixth best). Question #1: If you agree to lead fourth best and instead lead an obvious sixth best (known long suit), what is this? My personal view was that a sixth-best lead "emphasizes attitude," thereby showing great "body" and asking partner for honor or count. It could also logically be suit preference (here, diamonds) or count (fourth best implying a five-card suit -- no sixth card to lead).

On the small spade lead, everyone followed as Declarer won the Ace, partner playing the 9.

Declarer at trick two sent a club toward his King in hand, which I won, partner playing the 9. The nine could be stiff, or negative attitude from 94, or positive from 109 (Reverse Smith).

Q2: What next? I assumed that Declarer had something like Kx or K10x of clubs, Kxxx/Qxxx of hearts, K(J)x(x) of spades, and, therefore, no diamond Jack. As a hedge, though, my lead was the diamond King, partner encouraging diamonds. (Is this an "obvious shift" situation, and, if so, is the obvious switch spades, or hearts???)

Partner encouraged. So, I cashed the second high diamond, saw a very low diamond, and switched to hearts. This allowed a TON of tricks to be taken (-150), when we could have set this contract several tricks.

Partner held Jxx of spades, Jxxx of diamonds, and 109 of clubs, Qxxx of hearts, possibly with the 10 (cannot remember -- it was moot).

The argument. Partner felt that the club 9 was clear, as Declarer would bid 2NT immediately with K10x of clubs. I disagreed, feeling that 2NT on a 10-count would be sick. Partner felt that this did not call for the spade Jack to be played at trick one, I disagreed. Partner felt that continuing diamonds was sick, notwithstanding the encouragement; I felt that discouragement of diamonds was the only opportunity for clarifying the ambiguous Smith Echo problem. Partner felt that setting up his diamond Jack was a fruitless maneuver; I felt that it decreased the risk of a successful club finesse if Declarer held K10x. Partner felt that Declarer was "marked" for NOT having the spade Jack at trick one; I felt that rising with the Ace was the best action with KJx(x)-Kxxx-xx(x)-K10(x) to reduce the risk of a diamond switch; partner felt that only I and Garozzo might make that play (me because I am twisted).

Comments???

[Kalvan14]

If you had led 4th best, as per agreement, pard would know that opener has just 1 higher card in his hand; there would not be any problem in unblocking the J.

Pard with J9x should unblock in any case, IMO; same with J9: playing the 9 is too ambiguous.

Declarer taking the A on first round holding KJx(x) would be again quite unusual.
Ok, there might be cases where declarer want to keep a communication in spades, but....

Conclusion: try to follow your own agreements

[kenrexford]

That theory might have worked here. However, if I held Q108432, the problem is revisited. Further, the Jack looks silly on the six lead if the layout is:

A2 in dummy,
J5 in partner's hand,
Q98643 in my hand, and
K105 for Declarer.

So, he really would not be able to "work it out" with our agreements in place and the Rule of Eleven, if he lacks the 9.

[joshs]

I would have played the DK (just to tell partner you had it) and then the SQ. You "know" from trick 1 that partner has the J, since declarer would hardly bid 2N without the K and would have run the trick to hand with the KJ, unless really being tricky with diamonds wide open (and the DQ caters to partner having Jx and declarer holding up).

You defense is right only if
a. declarer was really tricky
b. diamonds are wide open
c. partner has the HK also

Thats quite a parley.

[kenrexford]

Scoring: MP

---

This is the layout I visualized. A couple of observation:

1. Partner does not need the heart King. Switching to a heart after cashing the second diamond works equally well with partner having Q10. Plus, establishing running diamonds causes problems for Declarer in finessing clubs -- keep my partner off the lead.

2. The spade finesse gains nothing, as clubs will provide pitches for the now losing spade. More important is avoiding a diamond switch. Everyone who "knows" that partner has the Jack will easily fall for this common trick, anyway, with the spade returning.

3. Diamonds are assuredly "wide open." Declarer, for bidding 2NT, logically has values in spades (stopper to protect) and clubs (trick source is valid). With likely values in his own suit (hearts), he cannot have diamond cards and still only bid 2NT, and only late. If he does have the Jack of diamonds, partner's discouragement of diamonds will clear this up in time to switch back to spades.

[FrancesHinden]

In your long list of defensive agreements, you haven't told us what partner's signal on the ace of spades means at trick 1.

If it's standard attitude, he's got the Jack and life is easy.

[hatchett]

I don't think declarer has 3 clubs he would bid 3♣ not 2NT in the pass-out, after his partner has shown 6♣ The layout you visualise is impossible since that hand has a clear invitational 3♣ call.

Personally I think your defence is highly obscure. Even without telling us what your partner's trick one signal is, declarer with KT of clubs will probably finesse the J. Granted that partner's encouragement in diamond's looks strange I think you should have played partner for the ♠J

[Kalvan14]

kenrexford, on Mar 13 2006, 11:29 AM, said:

That theory might have worked here. However, if I held Q108432, the problem is revisited. Further, the Jack looks silly on the six lead if the layout is:

A2 in dummy,
J5 in partner's hand,
Q98643 in my hand, and
K105 for Declarer.

So, he really would not be able to "work it out" with our agreements in place and the Rule of Eleven, if he lacks the 9.

Come on, Ken! if pard has J5, he knows that there are 2 higher spades in declarer's hand, and so he does not unblock the J.
So back to square one: either you have an agreement, and follow it, or better not to have agreements.

The hand you constructed (KJx Kxxx xxx KTx) would still make 2N, even misguessing the clubs (4 clubs, 2 hearts and 2 spades). IMHO, it is much less likely than the real one (no J♠ with declarer).

[kenrexford]

Standard carding.

However, the 9 could be stiff, of course.

At MP, I am not sure of the relevance of whether 8 tricks are available on my line. Nine are available (-150) if the club finesse is successfully taken. -120 beats -150.

I agree that my line might be "obscure" in that I expected brilliance from the Declarer. But, the diamond King play allowed partner to be brilliant or simply not sloppy, and it allowed me to find the perhaps 2% defense with wat should be 99% reliability, no?

Further, if this really an assured 2NT raise? Adding the spade Jack in merely ensures enough values to bid 2NT and be set when diamonds are 5-3, under this theory.

[Kalvan14]

Expecting brilliance from declarer is not the best policy, as a rule.
But the issue is another: you disregarded your own agreements on the lead (and it would have helped a lot in this hand); then you went for "miracle cards", plus the above mentioned brilliancy. Where you trying to demonstrate something to this particular declarer?

[kenrexford]

In case you are interested, I sent an email to Eddie Kantar asking his opinion. His initial reaction was that my partner should have tossed the spade Jack at trick one but asked why my lead was sixth best. When I explained my particular theory, he agreed. He also felt that the diamond encouragement induced the play I made.

The point to all of this? Playing with or against mere mortals, perhaps my line expected too much. Even Eddie Kantar was confused by my lead. However, after discussion, he agreed with the line. I suppose that I erred by tossing partner an undiscussed problem and was as fault for this.

But, perhaps as well this should become a neat treatment for the future, after discussion. When you are marked for a six-card suit, the unusual lead of sixth best, an obvious sixth best, should indicate a semi-solid position, asking for honor or count.

I held Q1086xx. The same principle would apply with KJ97xx. The fourth best could be lesser (Q108432 or KJ9432) and the play works.

[cherdano]

I still don't get it. Holding ♠9x, partner should certainly discourage by following small in your methods?

Arend

[kenrexford]

IF partner understands that a sixth-best lead asks for honor or count, lacking an honor he gives count (the 9). If he held the Jack, he should play it. Hence, you cannot give attitude for a card you would have played.

Look at the problem from this perspective. Suppose partner holds J2 or J9. Obviously, if Declarer has Kxx, partner will be forced to play whatever pip he holds. Hence, attitude is VERY unreliable. Further, the pip could be a stiff, right?

Look at the problem, also, from the perspective of the lead. Fourth best from Q1086xx would be the same from Q986xx, right? This translates to Opener having K10x or K9x. Playing the J immediately works if Opener holds K9x but is bad if Opener holds K10x. Hence, Partner needs to know what to do with his Jack.

What if partner holds J9x or J10x? Playing the Jack works, but would the opening leader know this? Might he suspect the Declarer has a third spade, not Kx?

In this situation, it appears that fourth-best leads and reciprocal attitude is ineffective. However, sixth-best leads from solidity (calling for honor or count) and fourth-best from weakness solves the problem. Seeing sixth-best, you simply play honor or count, trusting partner to be able to deal with the jettison or to need the count. After a fourth-best lead, you maintain the honor or discourage, and hope that a (Reverse) Smith Echo or attitude signal later will clear the matter up, or that you gain the lead.