[Fluffy]

---

I played a tournament with Lantaron this weekend and we had a signaling disagreement. Let's see what you think

South is declaring 1NT. Wins the red lead and cashes 4 clubs Ending in dummy. Then he plays a low spade towards the queen. East shows 4 spades by playing ♠2. And West shows 3 by playing ♠10 (it is clear declarer has no 4 spades from the auction)

Next comes another spade whcih West wins with ♠A.

At this point one of us though that the signals should be:

♠9 = heart preference
♠5 = diamond preference
♠8 = no preference.

While the other though:

♠9= play a spade
♠8 = play a heart
♠5 = play a diamond.

What do you think?

[cherdano]

I'd go with:

Fluffy, on 2015-April-17, 04:23, said:

♠9 = heart preference
♠5 = diamond preference
♠8 = no preference.

Obviously, you'd play ♠8 also if you want a spade continuation.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree with Cherdano

[mikeh]

I agree with Frances

More deeply:

Assuming that the play and the auction showed that declarer couldn't have 5 spades, West already knows the spade lie. He can work out for himself that leading the 3rd spade will establish a winner for partner, if partner has an entry. We don't need to tell partner that which he already knows.

Secondly, there are two ways to look at East's needs here.

Playing that the spade 9 relates to spades, a 'top-down' approach means that every card East plays carries a positive message.

However, it is far more useful for East to be able to send a positive message about a red suit AND a message that says I have no preference.

A good West will be able to read the no preference as either 'I have stuff in both....look at your hand and defend accordingly' or 'I have no help in either red suit.....look at your hand and defend accordingly'.

It would be an unusual auction wherein West wouldn't know which situation was being signalled. And, of course, if East can see that a spade is best, then he can give the ambiguous signal even with a good red card.

So we need more than having to choose which of 3 suits to play. It is better to be able to say: yes to one or other of the reds and 'work it out', and that means that the 9 should be hearts, the low one diamonds, and the middle: 'work it out'.

[wanoff]

I'd say neither to start with since we don't know declarers hidden spade.
So ♠8 or 9 = heart pref. and ♠5 = diamond pref.

[Aardv]

I agree with wanoff - I don't see that how we can get more than two meanings for our choice of card in this position where declarer has a hidden spot card. If we divide the four missing spot cards into two pairs, then partner will always have at least
one card in each pair, so will be able to give either signal. But if we divide them into one pair and two singles, half the time declarer will hold one of the singles and partner will be unable to send that signal.

[benlessard]

I think that if you know declarer doenst have 4S than the first spades shouldnt be a count card. Declarer rarely tackle a 2-3 suit unless its late in the hand wich mean that you should have others info anyway. Im a strong proponent of SP first count later/never.

[gnasher]

I think you should still allow East to signal "no preference", even if it risks introducing uncertainty. For any pair of cards that you see, there are only a few combinations of layouts, East's intended meaning, and South's objective in choosing his card.

eg South played the 5 and East played the 8.

9 7 3 are missing
The possibilities are:
- East signalled for hearts from 873; South played 5 from 95 to discourage a heart.
- East signalled neutrally from 987; South played 5 from 53 to discourage a diamond.
- East signalled neutrally from 983; South played 5 from 75 to discourage a heart.

From looking at your own hand it will often be possible to tell which of these is most likely.

South would have done better to lead the second spade from dummy, because then he would have seen the 8 before deciding what to play, allowing him to play randomly from the last two holdings.

[wanoff]

gnasher, on 2015-April-18, 13:40, said:

I think you should still allow East to signal "no preference", even if it risks introducing uncertainty. For any pair of cards that you see, there are only a few combinations of layouts, East's intended meaning, and South's objective in choosing his card.

eg South played the 5 and East played the 8.

9 7 3 are missing
The possibilities are:
- East signalled for hearts from 873; South played 5 from 95 to discourage a heart.
- East signalled neutrally from 987; South played 5 from 53 to discourage a diamond.
- East signalled neutrally from 983; South played 5 from 75 to discourage a heart.

From looking at your own hand it will often be possible to tell which of these is most likely.

South would have done better to lead the second spade from dummy, because then he would have seen the 8 before deciding what to play, allowing him to play randomly from the last two holdings.

As you say, unless the top or bottom card is played, no signal is now clear.

What makes me laugh, are the defenders who play out of tempo thereby telegraphing to all that it's a preference signal.
Worse still, he might go neutral and lo and behold, we have the perfect signalling system. Nice.

[kgr]

After the Heart lead, declarer already played 4 rounds of clubs.
If we still have to signal anything, then it depends on the signals we gave when Clubs were played and the discard(s) on the last clubs and dummy.