[wyman]

---

T1: ♦10, 3, A, 7
T2: ♦K, 5, 6, 4
T3: ♦2, 9, ♥2, 8

What's partner's carding mean?

[inquiry]

wyman, on 2011-August-26, 13:05, said:

---

T1: ♦10, 3, A, 7
T2: ♦K, 5, 6, 4
T3: ♦2, 9, ♥2, 8

What's partner's carding mean?

Where NS playing precision? If not, it seems North has to be something like 3♠-4♥-3♦-3♣ or 4♠-3♥-3♦-3♣. The reason being the sequence and cards played. If partner had played the normal ♦K, ♦A and then ♦2 you would have returned a club, thinking partner ♦2 was suit preference. Partner wanted to warn you off of returning a club, and is suggesting a spade return.

The specific rule I use in this situation is: On a suit lead by partner, when we win A from AK and then play the King next we are either asking partner to unblock the suit, or it shows suit preference for a higher suit. A corollary is when we play these honors in normal sequence, we deny S/P for the higher suit.


I have moved this to General Bridge Discussion.

[wyman]

Thanks for moving this to a more suitable forum, Ben. I posted in A/E since I know what this tends to show, but a world class player did this with a hand I didn't expect.

N/S are not playing precision, and north has Q3 / Q95 / AKJ2 / Q1098.

Does north really want a spade shift? Seems to me like there's plenty of room for south to have some cards in his hand here. ♠A, for instance? South returned the ♣4 at trick 4, which caused me further confusion.

[jdeegan]

I'm not following your presentation. You led the ♦ 10 which pard won with the ace. He returned the ♦ six, which you hold. You played the ♦ 5, which you don't have which was won by dummy's ♦ king which it doesn't have????

[blackshoe]

He led the ♦10, his partner won the A and led the K, and then the partner led the ♦2.

[Bbradley62]

jdeegan, on 2011-August-26, 14:53, said:

I'm not following your presentation. You led the ♦ 10 which pard won with the ace. He returned the ♦ six, which you hold. You played the ♦ 5, which you don't have which was won by dummy's ♦ king which it doesn't have????

All cards are shown in the order actually played.

[Bbradley62]

blackshoe, on 2011-August-26, 15:12, said:

He led the ♦10, his partner won the A and led the K, and then the partner led the ♦2.

OP is not South, either.

wyman, on 2011-August-26, 13:59, said:

South returned the ♣4 at trick 4, which caused me further confusion.

[quiddity]

edit: nm

[wyman]

Bbradley62, on 2011-August-26, 17:58, said:

OP is not South, either.

I did not play this hand. North is Dano di Falco, and South is JEC.

This is board 8 from yesterday's (Fri 26 Aug) Cayne match.

All cards are in the order played.
T1: South led the 10 of diamonds and North won the ace.
T2: North continued the DK, which held.
T3: North returned the D2, ruffed by south.
T4: South returned a small club.

[kenberg]

Maybe I take a stab at it.

I agree with the general principle that if partner wins with the A and then plays the king, he is supposed to be trying to send some sort of message. Possibly the message here is "I do not have a quick entry." With a quick club entry he plays K,A, deuce of diamonds. With a quick spade entry he plays A,K,J of diamonds (in practical terms the J and 2 are equal). With no quick entry he plays as he did.

Obviously I am guessing.

[aguahombre]

kenberg, on 2011-August-27, 10:41, said:

Maybe I take a stab at it.

I agree with the general principle that if partner wins with the A and then plays the king, he is supposed to be trying to send some sort of message. Possibly the message here is "I do not have a quick entry." With a quick club entry he plays K,A, deuce of diamonds. With a quick spade entry he plays A,K,J of diamonds (in practical terms the J and 2 are equal). With no quick entry he plays as he did.

Obviously I am guessing.

That looks like an advanced/expert guess to me. Partner cannot have only 3 diamonds on the auction and looking at dummy.

Edit: Also it seems that the takeout doubler had 4 diamonds, as well, since with five partner could have played K then A then middle, trusting partner to see the spots played by declarer and showing no particular interest in the return of either black suit.

This post has been edited by aguahombre: 2011-August-27, 11:43

[1eyedjack]

I realise that it has nothing to do with the question, but am I alone in finding it slightly odd that West would cue 2D with a 4 count, and his partner bid a passive NF 2H bid with a 19 count?

[kenberg]

1eyedjack, on 2011-August-27, 14:07, said:

I realise that it has nothing to do with the question, but am I alone in finding it slightly odd that West would cue 2D with a 4 count, and his partner bid a passive NF 2H bid with a 19 count?

You are definitely not alone. Playing with my peers, I often decide they bid em their way, I bid em mine. Apparently this applies at much higher levels also.

[aguahombre]

anyway, regardless of what the diamond signals meant, it is right to return a club. A Club loser can go away on declarer's long diamond. A spade cannot. Protect pard from himself, in case he has the club ace.

[jdeegan]

Now I get it.
The return of the ♦ deuce calls for a club. But, why did he play the ♦ ace and king in the wrong order? Maybe I should lead the ♣ king? I don't see how that can hurt. Partner opened the bidding, so he must have more than just the ♦ AK. Maybe because he is one of the best players in the world, and you are paying him plenty, he has the ♣ ace and wants to wake you up so that you see that your side needs to cash both clubs before you uppercut dummy with the 4th diamond.

[gnasher]

Partner is clearly saying that he doesn't have a black ace or king, and warning us against underleading an ace.

I think the best (only?) chance to beat it is to find him with Qx AQx AKJx Qxxx, which gives declarer AKJ Jxxx Q109x Axx. In this layout I have to switch to a club whilst my small trump still controls the diamond suit. Hence I play a club.

[wyman]

gnasher, on 2011-August-28, 08:36, said:

Partner is clearly saying that he doesn't have a black ace or king, and warning us against underleading an ace.

I had considered this, and I actually really like it; I think it's more likely to encounter situations where we have a doubleton opposite AKxx(x) than xx opp AKx. In the case where we have length, we can usually afford to play KA-high or KA-low fairly unambiguously. So it's nice to have a "no quick entry" signal: i.e., no A or K. And playing A-then-K seems like a nice way to show that.

[pooltuna]

winning the first 2 tricks in the reverse order suggests leading the higher suit that makes sense IMO that means here lead a ♠

[gnasher]

wyman, on 2011-August-28, 09:18, said:

I had considered this, and I actually really like it; I think it's more likely to encounter situations where we have a doubleton opposite AKxx(x) than xx opp AKx. In the case where we have length, we can usually afford to play KA-high or KA-low fairly unambiguously. So it's nice to have a "no quick entry" signal: i.e., no A or K. And playing A-then-K seems like a nice way to show that.

That wasn't quite what I meant. In isolation, playing ace then king asks for a spade. In isolation, playing the two instead of the jack asks for a club. Making two conflicting signals says that he doesn't want either suit.

[1eyedjack]

unless he only had 3 cards in the suit to start with?