[akhare]

E opens....(1C)..(3N) (presumably balanced 13-15ish and denying a 4 card major)

---

Trick 1: Pard leads a "low from interest" ♠4 spot card (declarer has < 4 spades if it matters). Declarer puts up ♠K at T1 and plays the 3 from hand.

Trick 2: Declarer now plays J♣ off the board and ducks into pard's ♣Q.

Pard holds♠A and needs to know whether declarer has a doubleton ♠ or JXX or QXX (assuming the QC duck was avoidance play).

1) Is the standard treatment at T1 to give present count in this situation?
2) If playing (reverse) Smith echo, should the spot cards played by South at T2 be a signal for ♠Q? In this case assume that you are playing reverse Smith and the C2 is an unambiguous spade encouragement signal.

[Edit]
BTW, the above hand is intended to be an illustration of the problems and not a question regarding a specific hand. It would be interesting to hear about your defensive agreements.

[straube]

The way the hands are presented looks funny. South sits behind East.

[quiddity]

edit: nm

[FrancesHinden]

My agreements are that if dummy has Ax(x) or Kx(x) and plays that card at trick 1, then
- third hand's immediate signal to this trick is attitude (showing the K or Q if the ace was played; the queen if the king was played)
- we then do an encouraging smith with 'extra length' in the suit. Extra length depends on the auction: here we assume declarer has 2 or 3 cards in the suit and I would smith with 4. If you play 4th highest, rather than attitude, leads your definition of extra length may depend on what you can tell about the count at trick 1.

It's possible to play these signals the other way round: count at trick 1, smith to show honour attitude. The reason for honour attitude first for me is that this is usually more important, and you may not get a chance to smith before partner has to decide what to do next. Your sample hand is an example of that: if your clubs were, say, 65 doubleton then the 5 might be from singleton 5, 56, or 53.

If dummy has Qxx, Jxx or AQx and declarer plays the Q or J from dummy we give count at trick 1, then smith gives attitude on the next highest honour.

[dake50]

For those playing UDCA, is this Spade holding: J92 an unblocking exception?

[andy_h]

If declarer had ♠Jxx why did he play the King on the first round?

[bluecalm]

My agreements are: if you don't beat dummy card give count and then smith for possible honour.
I have never analysed it too deeply but it seems to me that most of the time position of honours is more clear from play to first trick and count is more important.
Here declarer played K from Kx so partner knows that declarer doesn't have AJx or Jxx or QTx and probably not ATx.

[Siegmund]

I give attitude T1 if I can't beat an ace or king, and I would assume it is standard to do so. I think there's some question what signal to give if dummy puts up a queen and it holds.

[kenrexford]

bluecalm, on 2011-March-15, 18:52, said:

My agreements are: if you don't beat dummy card give count and then smith for possible honour.
I have never analysed it too deeply but it seems to me that most of the time position of honours is more clear from play to first trick and count is more important.
Here declarer played K from Kx so partner knows that declarer doesn't have AJx or Jxx or QTx and probably not ATx.

This makes a lot of sense.

I wonder, then... Another option might be attitude at trick one, and then "Count Smith." In other words, if the first signal is standard attitude in a situation, then perhaps the card played as what would normally be a Smith Echo could actually be count for the suit you have already stated attitude about.

[Mbodell]

bluecalm, on 2011-March-15, 18:52, said:

My agreements are: if you don't beat dummy card give count and then smith for possible honour.
I have never analysed it too deeply but it seems to me that most of the time position of honours is more clear from play to first trick and count is more important.
Here declarer played K from Kx so partner knows that declarer doesn't have AJx or Jxx or QTx and probably not ATx.

Ditto, when playing some form of smith. And when not playing smith I still give count on T1 in this situation. I'm not saying it is right, but our rule in NT is if you can't beat dummy give count.

And even if playing smith it isn't clear to me if the example hand is sage to smith, partner might want count if deciding to hold up the A to make transportation more difficult.

[FrancesHinden]

andy_h, on 2011-March-15, 18:29, said:

If declarer had ♠Jxx why did he play the King on the first round?

At the point when you signal on the first trick you don't know that partner has the ace. Your partner might be looking at the ace and he'll know that declarer has the queen.

[FrancesHinden]

kenrexford, on 2011-March-15, 19:29, said:

This makes a lot of sense.

I wonder, then... Another option might be attitude at trick one, and then "Count Smith." In other words, if the first signal is standard attitude in a situation, then perhaps the card played as what would normally be a Smith Echo could actually be count for the suit you have already stated attitude about.

Unfortunately the difference between 2 and 4, or 3 and 5 cards actually matters and partner might well not be able to read it. I'd rather stick to saying if I've got "lots of extra length" or not.

[FrancesHinden]

p.s. one thing which it is possible to prove, is that you cannot get every possible situation right. Sometimes a guess is unavoidable.

[TWO4BRIDGE]

kenrexford, on 2011-March-15, 19:29, said:

This makes a lot of sense.

I wonder, then... Another option might be attitude at trick one, and then "Count Smith." In other words, if the first signal is standard attitude in a situation, then perhaps the card played as what would normally be a Smith Echo could actually be count for the suit you have already stated attitude about.

I like Ken's idea...
If dummy wins the 1st trick, 3rd hand shows ATTITUDE.

Then 3rd hand uses Smith to show COUNT.

Partner ( opening leader ) will still use Smith to indicate "likes or dislikes" his opening suit.

( Admittedly though, I have not thought about it much ) .

[dake50]

Looks to be another "have an agreement is wa-a-ay better than no agreement". SO WHAT.!
While no intent to show "what agreement is best" in an ADVANCED & EXPERT blog.
This is the "buffet" style of bridge - pick what you like.
I detest no activity to answer "WHAT IS BEST".!
EG. Are sims sufficient to compare 4th best leads to attitude leads vs. 1N:15-17?
Is Flannery > weak 2D? > 3-suiter(Roman)? > natural 5+suit 13-17?
Does 1N:15-17 beat 12-14? 10-12? 13-15? 14-16?
.
I absoltively guarantee 1C forcing beats "prepared 1C".
Guarantee xfers in competition win.
Guarantee some generally forcing response freeing many others for "picture" bids wins.
I can produce those sims.

[han]

We give attitude here at trick 1. I cannot guarantee that it is best.

[bluecalm]

Quote

then perhaps the card played as what would normally be a Smith Echo could actually be count for the suit you have already stated attitude about.

Martens discusses this idea in his "watch dog" books.
I hope one day to play with someone willing to go that far in defensive carding agreements.

I feel that solution given by FrancesHinden is probably better than mine if a lot of situations are discussed. I am more comfortable with simple solutions though as risk of misunderstanding is minimized then and loses not that big (I think). Again I hope one day I will be happy to play such agreements and be comfortable with them (ie. positive about risk of misunderstanding being close to 0).

[Fluffy]

Give count only when we are unable to beat dummy's Queen or lower. So over the King attitude is the default signal.

Seems this treatment is kind of standard from what I am reading.

[MrAce]

kenrexford, on 2011-March-15, 19:29, said:

This makes a lot of sense.

I wonder, then... Another option might be attitude at trick one, and then "Count Smith." In other words, if the first signal is standard attitude in a situation, then perhaps the card played as what would normally be a Smith Echo could actually be count for the suit you have already stated attitude about.

Yes u can use this, i also like the idea of Francis.

Smith... Don't get me wrong, smith is a good tool to have, but i think it is being over used. And good opponents can easily manipulate defense if they know what info your smith signal sends to partner. There are several ways to do it depending on situation, but i don't wanna hijack the topic.

Here is one i like from another site http://www.bridgewin...ing-the-defense

[Vampyr]

dake50, on 2011-March-17, 03:50, said:

Is Flannery >

Having an agreement not to open 2♦, ever? Maybe.

bluecalm, on 2011-March-17, 09:18, said:

I feel that solution given by FrancesHinden is probably better than mine if a lot of situations are discussed.

Yes, I play as you do but am always keen to have another look if Frances plays something different.