[Trick13]

---

Teams.

Partner leads the K♦ asking for count. Do you still show count after seeing dummy, or show suit preference?

[whereagles]

This situation, A (or K) from AK and dummy has Qxx+, can be confusing.

The theory is 3rd player shows count, even if the lead asks for attitude. However, some pairs agree to show count only when they can ruff the 3rd round.

Showing suit preference is news to me. It can make sense if the suit was supported and both defenders know very well 2nd round will be ruffed by declarer, e.g. you open 1M and partner supports. Now if you end up defending and lead A (or K) from AK, dummy coming up with Qxxx exactly, then 3rd player knows next round (or even this) will be ruffed and can switch to suit preference. But I wouldn't do it without discussing with pard. With your hand in particular I'd just do the agreed-upon signal.

[chasetb]

We show count because that's the agreement. If you wanted suit preference on this hand, then you should have supported the Diamonds. Then, you can show the ♠A, not that I think it's going anywhere.

Besides, on this hand, whether standard or UDCA with the Woolsey addition (partner leads top from AK, dummy shows up with Qxx, we use standard signal Trick 1 ONLY), our high Diamond shows both.

[gordontd]

whereagles, on 2014-October-07, 01:04, said:

The theory is 3rd player shows count, even if the lead asks for attitude. However, some pairs agree to show count only when they can ruff the 3rd round.

How does that differ from showing attitude?

[WellSpyder]

What do you think partner has in diamonds? Although the 2♦ bid is explained as showing 5+ diamonds, I think with no intermediates at all there is a good chance that he has 6. And this views is strongly supported by partner's decision to lead K for count rather than A for attitude. So declarer is very likely to be ruffing the first round. Given that, partner will be able to work out your holding at T1, and if you play your lowest diamond despite having an even number then he might work out that you were trying to indicate suit preference. Taking it a step further, if a low card would be SP, then on a good day partner might be able to work out that a high card was intended as SP, too. This does require you to be able to work out that your holding will be known at T1, and for partner to be able to work out that you will be able to work this out....

[PhilKing]

Showing count just because the queen is in dummy is a really horrible agreement. There are too many situations where you can't tell if partner has two or four.

Here, partner asked for count, so I suppose I have to obey, although if partner has AKxxx, he really should have led the ace to get attitude, imo. And it shouldn't matter since partner should not have an empty five-card suit here - declarer is ruffing unless partner is a non-expert.

Anyway, I show count at trick zero by raising 2♦ to 3.

[whereagles]

gordontd, on 2014-October-07, 01:35, said:

How does that differ from showing attitude?

True, for those pairs it doesn't.

WellSpyder, on 2014-October-07, 03:58, said:

What do you think partner has in diamonds? Although the 2♦ bid is explained as showing 5+ diamonds, I think with no intermediates at all there is a good chance that he has 6. And this views is strongly supported by partner's decision to lead K for count rather than A for attitude. So declarer is very likely to be ruffing the first round. Given that, partner will be able to work out your holding at T1, and if you play your lowest diamond despite having an even number then he might work out that you were trying to indicate suit preference. Taking it a step further, if a low card would be SP, then on a good day partner might be able to work out that a high card was intended as SP, too. This does require you to be able to work out that your holding will be known at T1, and for partner to be able to work out that you will be able to work this out....

That is also true, but what happens is that opening leader will have to guess what his partner's intentitions were at trick 1. I've been in situations like this a couple of times and at least half of the time a mix-up happened. Sometimes the mix-up had no major consequence, but there were occasions where it cost a bunch of imps. I think that in practice it is preferable to have a clear agreement (even if it's a bad one) rather than potentially a random one. You can always discuss a better agreement with partner later on.

Just 1 final thing: when playing nebulous diamond, it pays to tell pard whether you hold the balanced shape or the unbalanced one. That justifies, in my opinion, the occasional frisky butt-in with AKJxx 5th. What I mean is while 6 cards are about par for this situation, a 5 carder should not be excluded. Again, this is just my opinion.

[MrAce]

Trick13, on 2014-October-07, 00:44, said:

---

Teams.

Partner leads the K♦ asking for count. Do you still show count after seeing dummy, or show suit preference?

If pd is asking for count you need to show count. Because this is what he will think you showed. Don't worry pd will figure you have 4 if he pays attention to auction. Declarer is not jumping like that to 4♣ with shortness in his pd's suit and Jxx or xxx in our suit. He did not even make any attempt to seek 3 NT which is very weird with those clubs. Suit preference for what? We don't even know which defense is right. Declarer is likely to have something like 3217. Pd has a lot of options depending on who has the ♥A

Imo if you do not try to do something weird such as trying to give another msg other than what pd is asking, you will be ok and pd will find the defense.

[MrAce]

Imo, if pd has ♥ A our defense will be to play spades now and duck by us. Assume declarer has something like

KQJ
xx
x
AQJxxxx

KQx
xx
x
AQJxxxx

If he does not have the ♥A, i am not sure if we can set this unless he has Kx ♠

[Trick13]

whereagles, on 2014-October-07, 06:16, said:

Just 1 final thing: when playing nebulous diamond, it pays to tell pard whether you hold the balanced shape or the unbalanced one. That justifies, in my opinion, the occasional frisky butt-in with AKJxx 5th. What I mean is while 6 cards are about par for this situation, a 5 carder should not be excluded. Again, this is just my opinion.

Even more so in our case I think as the balanced option is 14-16. North had AK532

MrAce, on 2014-October-07, 06:50, said:

...

KQx
xx
x
AQJxxxx

If he does not have the ♥A, i am not sure if we can set this unless he has Kx ♠

West had

KQx
x
x
AJT8xxxx

[MrAce]

Trick13, on 2014-October-07, 14:18, said:

West had

KQx
x
x
AJT8xxxx

Then pd plays a spade, as I said in previous post, we duck. Declarer can play club A and another, we score 1 trick from each suit for down 1. If declarer tries to play a ♥ foolishly we take him down 2.

[WellSpyder]

WellSpyder, on 2014-October-07, 03:58, said:

I think with no intermediates at all there is a good chance that he has 6. And this views is strongly supported by partner's decision to lead K for count rather than A for attitude.

PhilKing, on 2014-October-07, 06:10, said:

if partner has AKxxx, he really should have led the ace to get attitude, imo. And it shouldn't matter since partner should not have an empty five-card suit here - declarer is ruffing unless partner is a non-expert.

Trick13, on 2014-October-07, 14:18, said:

North had AK532

Oh!

[helene_t]

When declarer ruffs, partner will know that we knew he would ruff, and that we knew he would know that .... so we can show SP here.

OK, I see that 2♦ didn't show six. If p misunderstands my signal I will tell him that I forgot that agreement.

[Trick13]

PhilKing, on 2014-October-07, 06:10, said:

...partner should not have an empty five-card suit here ...

It's precision style bidding and we've opened the "nebulous" 1♦. Partner's 1♠ is likely to be limited, but he might be waiting for us to clarify our hand type. 2♦ could be bid with weaker diamonds. With ♦AKJxxx, a 3♦ rebid is possible.

PhilKing, on 2014-October-07, 06:10, said:

... Here, partner asked for count, so I suppose I have to obey, although if partner has AKxxx, he really should have led the ace to get attitude, imo. ...

This (should have led the ace to get attitude) I don't understand at all. I've played K asks for count for 25+ years and it gets tested several times every session (and there have been a lot of sessions). With AKxxx you almost always choose to lead the K, and occasionally you cannot tell if partner has 2 or 4. AKxx you usually lead the A. Perhaps one difference is that when partner leads the Ace we don't encourage with a doubleton on the basis that if partner wanted to know about our doubleton he would have led the King; this means we can safely underlead our King a trick two.

PhilKing, on 2014-October-07, 06:10, said:

... Anyway, I show count at trick zero by raising 2♦ to 3.

This would be too much for us vulnerable opposite a likely 11-13 hcp 5-carder. The K♣ has depreciated in the bidding.