[Fluffy]

---

on ♠A partner plays the ♠4 (std carding) and declarer ♠Q, what next?

[ColdCrayon]

Trumps I think are out of the question.

I'd probably play T♦, since if partner has the A♣, I'd be put in a spot where my queen would be stuck in front dummy's king. So since it's hard for me to see a way to set the contract without throwing partner in with a diamond, you may as well assume he has one. Also, if he's got short, high diamonds, he could put you back in with a spade ruff, and you could squeeze dummy's trumps behind partner's.

Also, if declarer has K♠ as seems likely, you might get two chances to put your partner in, in case declarer has a high diamond that needs to be knocked out; should E decide not to draw trumps immediately, but to lead the K♠, as he's got three at the most, and probably two, he might risk leading it to get rid of his spades so he can trump dummy's. If any of that makes sense.

It's tough though, at least to me. I'd love to see how the hand turned out.

[Hanoi5]

♦9

[SteveMoe]

Seeing ♦ shortness in the dummy, I am more inclined to lead the ♣7 - hoping partner can contribute the A or even better the AJ. If not, declarer will play diamonds themselves on the path to a short hand ruff. Partner's ♦ control should be in play. I do not think declarer will draw trumps first. I like the idea of attacking wher my assets can contribute...no guarantees.

I hope partner can discern I want a ♠ return.

[dake50]

I guess SA intended a S-ruff. Yet we need another trick. I try C4.

[gnasher]

I'd play a club, because partner's card should be suit-preference. There's not much point in giving attitude or count on a singleton lead.

If forced to guess, I'd play a club at IMPs, because it needs less to beat the contract. If declarer has KQ AKxxxx Kxx Ax no switch will beat it, but if he has KQ AKxxxx AKx xx we have four easy tricks on a club switch. I'm not sure what I'd do at matchpoints - matchpoint defence without any useful signals is too difficult.

[ColdCrayon]

Partner's 2s would be attitude, I think, since he doesn't know you have a singleton when you play the ace. So he's not venturing an opinion other than he has no high honors in the spade suit.

I hear the argument that opps are going to open diamonds themselves, and it's a good one, but the thought of having a two-way finessing position is just too appealing should partner wind up short in diamonds - you would essentially be able to cross-ruff in opponent's suit. Whereas if you can put partner in with a club, it means your queen is going to be stuck in front of dummy's king, so it's very hard for me to see how you gain tricks should partner turn up with the Ace.

Just using the old "if something must be possible, assume it is" rule - I don't think we can set the contract unless we find partner with the A or K of diamonds - and not clubs - so I would play him for it.

As for not opening a suit they'll play anyway, 1) they may be saving dummy's diamond for a throw-in play later on, and 2) if partner wants a diamond return, we need to give it to him now, before dummy's stiff winds up as a discard on one of declarer's tricks. Clubs will wait a while, and we risk giving up a trick by breaking them if all four of us have honors - and if we don't, why are we leading them?

Just restating my opinion so that it's more clear. But I've been mucking up on defense a lot lately. Anyway, I really want to see how it turned out.

What makes it even trickier is that if partner gets in, he might abstain from returning a spade because of that weird discard from E.

[the hog]

C7 if I am playing with a bridge player.

[rhm]

gnasher, on 2012-July-28, 01:19, said:

I'd play a club, because partner's card should be suit-preference. There's not much point in giving attitude or count on a singleton lead.

If forced to guess, I'd play a club at IMPs, because it needs less to beat the contract. If declarer has KQ AKxxxx Kxx Ax no switch will beat it, but if he has KQ AKxxxx AKx xx we have four easy tricks on a club switch. I'm not sure what I'd do at matchpoints - matchpoint defence without any useful signals is too difficult.

I think that is right, except that it is not a guess.
When you suspect your partner is leading a singleton it is obvious that you should give suit preference on that lead where your entry is.
It looks like partner holds five spades to the ten and knows at the time he had to play a card that your lead was either Ace singleton or less likely on the bidding from AK doubleton or even less likely AKQ tight, in which case delcarer is void.
Either way it is obvious that if the ace is not ruffed you will have to switch.

Now for the sake of the argument let's assume partner has one minor suit ace, which you likely need to defeat the contract.

Assume it to be the diamond ace.
Now you have 3 tricks by switching to diamond.
But where is the fourth trick?
On the bidding not in trumps. So it will have to come from clubs.
But for that declarer needs 4 cards in clubs, because one of his clubs can be parked on the spades.
This means partner has a singleton club. Even if that is the jack your queen is finessable.
Conclusion: If partner has the ace of diamonds the contract is very likely unbeatable.

In fact if partner has a singleton club your best chance is to play him for the trump ace and switch to a club.

However, if partner has the club ace not much else is needed.
Partner may have the club jack or declarer may well go wrong on the club switch and put up the king to avoid defeat in case partner has the club queen and you the ace.

Rainer Herrmann

[Fluffy]

gnasher, on 2012-July-28, 01:19, said:

I'd play a club, because partner's card should be suit-preference. There's not much point in giving attitude or count on a singleton lead.

partner could have 3 small spades, anyway wich club would you play?

[rhm]

Fluffy, on 2012-July-28, 03:58, said:

partner could have 3 small spades, anyway wich club would you play?

Good question.

Probably the ♣4 consistent with second and fourth.
I can see the issue.
It makes it more difficult for partner to give us a spade ruff instead of trying to cash another club.
But partner can deduce that we probably need a second club trick as well as a spade ruff to beat this.
If partner does not have the club jack, he can deduce that we would probably not play small holding QJ in clubs and if declarer has the jack his play indicates that he is worried about a spde ruff.
It is more important to tell him that we have the queen and that the jack will win.
Also if we show the queen of clubs we can hardly have the king of spades as well and we would hardly lead the spade ace from Ax or Axx against this bidding.

Rainer Herrmann

[kayin801]

I'd play the club 4, partner either asked for a switch or for suit preference to clubs, presumably if they're okay with a switch they're prepared for a club switch.

[Fluffy]

---

partner switched to ♣4 and I played ♣8 I even managed to avoid the spade ruff when I won ♦A later for -450, nobody else made game on this board.

[FrancesHinden]

gnasher, on 2012-July-28, 01:19, said:

I'd play a club, because partner's card should be suit-preference. There's not much point in giving attitude or count on a singleton lead.

If forced to guess, I'd play a club at IMPs, because it needs less to beat the contract. If declarer has KQ AKxxxx Kxx Ax no switch will beat it, but if he has KQ AKxxxx AKx xx we have four easy tricks on a club switch. I'm not sure what I'd do at matchpoints - matchpoint defence without any useful signals is too difficult.

And how does partner magically know that we have singleton ace, and want suit preference, rather than, say, AKx and want attitude? With 5 low in dummy, if partner has a doubleton the best way to beat this could be through AK and a ruff and a side ace (or a trump trick).

Even after seeing declarer's card to trick 1, partner could have 5 low (as rhm suggests) and declarer KQ doubleton, or partner could have 3 low and declarer KQ10x.

There are some quite good arguments for playing a club now, but assuming that partner's trick 1 card must be suit preference isn't one of them.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-July-29, 14:44, said:

And how does partner magically know that we have singleton ace, and want suit preference, rather than, say, AKx and want attitude?

Because we'd lead the king from that? But maybe I misunderstood what Fluffy meant by "std carding".

[SteveMoe]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-July-29, 14:44, said:

And how does partner magically know that we have singleton ace, and want suit preference, rather than, say, AKx and want attitude? With 5 low in dummy, if partner has a doubleton the best way to beat this could be through AK and a ruff and a side ace (or a trump trick).

Even after seeing declarer's card to trick 1, partner could have 5 low (as rhm suggests) and declarer KQ doubleton, or partner could have 3 low and declarer KQ10x.

There are some quite good arguments for playing a club now, but assuming that partner's trick 1 card must be suit preference isn't one of them.

Frances, I agree partner's ♠4 is NOT suit preference but is attitude. If standard, this suggests no interest in ♠. Partner won't be holding a doubleton ♠ here because I would not expect a 1-2-4 auction with opener holding 5=6=x=y. So a switch is indicated, and my lead is suit preference.

Even were partner's card an upsidedown signal, the ♣ switch is indicated. In this case the inference that my A is a singleton is much greater.

[rhm]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-July-29, 14:44, said:

And how does partner magically know that we have singleton ace, and want suit preference, rather than, say, AKx and want attitude? With 5 low in dummy, if partner has a doubleton the best way to beat this could be through AK and a ruff and a side ace (or a trump trick).

Even after seeing declarer's card to trick 1, partner could have 5 low (as rhm suggests) and declarer KQ doubleton, or partner could have 3 low and declarer KQ10x.

There are some quite good arguments for playing a club now, but assuming that partner's trick 1 card must be suit preference isn't one of them.

I disagree.
It seems to me sound to assume, whenever you lead a singleton, that your partner will usually be aware of it.
If you ruff your partner's return you also assume that partner was aware that you might going to ruff and that his return is made on the basis of giving you suit preference.
Such assurance does not always exist, but it usually works in practice.

Now look at this deal.
I said previously a good defender would not lead an unsupported ace of a side suit against this bidding, unless the ace was singleton. So the ace should be singleton or from AK(x..), assuming you do not lead the king from such holdings.
I simply assume that partner can tell form his own holding whether I am likely to have the king and whether we are likely to beat this contract based on this assumption.
In this case partner can see at least a 8 cards in spades and possibly many more and any good defender should have been able to tell from the North holding that the king of spades is very likely in declarer's hand and that that assumption greatly increases the chance of beating 4♥.
It was not one of Fluffy's bright moments.

Rainer Herrmann