[Shugart23]

I have two questions to see what others might be doing. First, say you are on defense against 4S and you are going to make a lead of a Diamond which you know your partner will take and furthermore, know that your partner will not return a Diamond ( maybe the board is void or maybe your partner trumped your Diamond lead). What method do you use to tell your partner which suit to return ? DO you lead a high diamond to suggest a heart return and a low diamond to suggest a club return ?. Second question . defending a 4S contract with AKQxx on the board and you hold the 8 and 4 of trump. Partner leads something which the declarer takes and then declarer starts to draw trump. so you can play 4 and then 8 or 8 and then 4. Will you use the order in which you play your two cards to suggest a lead (vs count which seems rather useless). Thank you

[Winstonm]

You could do either but IMO an over-reliance on signaling distracts from trying to form a picture of the unseen hand and working out the best defense.

[Shugart23]

Winstonm, on 2022-February-05, 08:37, said:

You could do either but IMO an over-reliance on signaling distracts from trying to form a picture of the unseen hand and working out the best defense.

they are not mutually exclusive. I am not talking about over-reliance, but asking how partners make a lead suggestion when they know partner will take the trick. It's no different than having an agreement to use odd-even discards. If you blindly just over-rely on that, I agree it could be a problem but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have the agreement because you will do better with it, than without

[DavidKok]

In both situations I play Lavinthal, as you described.

[Shugart23]

DavidKok, on 2022-February-05, 09:32, said:

In both situations I play Lavinthal, as you described.

Aren't lavinthal discards ? I am not talking about discards

[DavidKok]

The general scheme "play a low card to show a preference for the lower-ranking remaining suit, and a high card to show a preference for the higher-ranking remaining suit" is commonly called Lavinthal, even if the card in question is not a discard.

[AL78]

The situation which immediately comes to mind is leading a non trump suit in which partner will win the trick and dummy holds a singleton. I play the convention that a high card led indicates interest in the higher of the two other suits, and a low card indicates interest in the lower of the two suits. As with all signalling methods, this is not a substitute for logically working out the best defence based on other inferences.

I have heard that high-low when following in the trump suit shows an odd number of trumps, and vice versa, but I am not sure if any of my partners play that. It can be useful if partner knows I am void in a side suit and gets in on the second round of trumps whether or not he can give me a ruff.

[DavidKok]

AL78, on 2022-February-05, 11:02, said:

I have heard that high-low when following in the trump suit shows an odd number of trumps, and vice versa, but I am not sure if any of my partners play that. It can be useful if partner knows I am void in a side suit and gets in on the second round of trumps whether or not he can give me a ruff.

This is the exact argument in favour of that signal, but I find that suit preference is often more useful. And, as always, do not signal if you think it will help declarer more than partner. If you happen to have three (or more) small trumps you can even send nuanced signals, because you can be somewhat confident that declarer will keep drawing trumps once they started them.

[Shugart23]

DavidKok, on 2022-February-05, 11:25, said:

This is the exact argument in favour of that signal, but I find that suit preference is often more useful. And, as always, do not signal if you think it will help declarer more than partner. If you happen to have three (or more) small trumps you can even send nuanced signals, because you can be somewhat confident that declarer will keep drawing trumps once they started them.

agree. I am not a big fan of giving trump count because most of the time it doesn't make a difference

[mikeh]

DavidKok, on 2022-February-05, 11:25, said:

This is the exact argument in favour of that signal, but I find that suit preference is often more useful. And, as always, do not signal if you think it will help declarer more than partner. If you happen to have three (or more) small trumps you can even send nuanced signals, because you can be somewhat confident that declarer will keep drawing trumps once they started them.

I think the best approach is situation dependent

If you know, and are confident that partner knows, that you have a ruff coming, or have already ruffed once, and partner may have an entry (usually this means a trump entry but maybe you have that and can get to partner’s hand again, then high low to show 3 trump is best.

That’s a rare scenario. More commonly no ruff looms or declarer is obviously about to negate the ruff by pulling trump. Now suit preference is better.

As in all signalling, one has to balance informing partner with avoiding giving declarer a roadmap he might otherwise not find.

So one should not always be robotic in signalling.

Beginners don’t signal because they don’t know how.

Intermediates and advanced often signal too often, telling declarer too much when the information provided was of no or little relevance to partner.

However, I think it best to signal too much than not at all, since one can (if one pays attention) eventually recognize situations in which one either shouldn’t signal or one should consider falsecarding. The better partner is, the more effective that is since a good partner can often infer that your signal was a lie due to the bidding, his hand, and declarer’s line of play.

[Shugart23]

[q
However, I think it best to signal too much than not at all, since one can (if one pays attention) eventually recognize situations in which one either shouldn’t signal or one should consider falsecarding. The better partner is, the more effective that is since a good partner can often infer that your signal was a lie due to the bidding, his hand, and declarer’s line of play.
[/quote]

Yeah, as declarer I love a road map. Against NT contracts eg 1NT-3NT, I actually have rejected leading 4th down and instead lead a low card if I think it's a suit worthy of attack...could be 4th, could be 5th or even 6th down. With a completely bust hand with no entries, I won't lead a low card

[mycroft]

Attitude leads to NT. A really good system, one that I play with at least one partner, frequently to good effect. Especially against those "As" that are great at counting out hands, maybe not so good at working out anything else. Of course, in that partnership I also play weak 2s as "good 5, any 6, poor 7-card suits" and frequently raise aggressively in competition, which throws off their LOTT calculations and their hand analysis.

But if you play that, the opponents get to know. Not "4th best, except when we lead 5th or 6th best to show a suit we want led back, or top of a suit I want switched from."

I mean, it's hard with signalling. "this is our system, when we do signal; but we try only to signal when partner needs to know, what partner needs to know." (I've griped about people putting the last half of that sentence as their only information, because not only does declarer have to try to work out if that is a signal (which is legal), but what it means if it is (which is not).

.

[Shugart23]

mycroft, on 2022-February-06, 11:17, said:

Attitude leads to NT. A really good system, one that I play with at least one partner, frequently to good effect. Especially against those "As" that are great at counting out hands, maybe not so good at working out anything else. Of course, in that partnership I also play weak 2s as "good 5, any 6, poor 7-card suits" and frequently raise aggressively in competition, which throws off their LOTT calculations and their hand analysis.

But if you play that, the opponents get to know. Not "4th best, except when we lead 5th or 6th best to show a suit we want led back, or top of a suit I want switched from."

I mean, it's hard with signalling. "this is our system, when we do signal; but we try only to signal when partner needs to know, what partner needs to know." (I've griped about people putting the last half of that sentence as their only information, because not only does declarer have to try to work out if that is a signal (which is legal), but what it means if it is (which is not).

.

So, I haven't filled out a convention card in about three years, but when I did, we would put down that leads against NT are attitude leads. But would the following be legal defense against NT contracts ? Lead an odd card if you want to attack the suit. Lead a High even card to suggest attacking the suit higher ranking and lead a low even to suggest leading the lower ranking suit ?

[mikeh]

Shugart23, on 2022-February-07, 05:54, said:

So, I haven't filled out a convention card in about three years, but when I did, we would put down that leads against NT are attitude leads. But would the following be legal defense against NT contracts ? Lead an odd card if you want to attack the suit. Lead a High even card to suggest attacking the suit higher ranking and lead a low even to suggest leading the lower ranking suit ?

Even if legal, I think it would be impossible to play ethically in real life. All too often you won’t hold the cards necessary for this to be used. Moreover, by leading some suit you don’t want, you’ll often be giving up a tempo or a trick, or both, rather than attacking the suit in which you hope to win tricks.

Attitude leads, which I have played a few times, can work well but, in my experience, I’ve found 4th best and a form of smith the most effective. There’s a good reason they’re still the most common expert treatment.

[Shugart23]

mikeh, on 2022-February-07, 08:02, said:

Even if legal, I think it would be impossible to play ethically in real life. All too often you won’t hold the cards necessary for this to be used. Moreover, by leading some suit you don’t want, you’ll often be giving up a tempo or a trick, or both, rather than attacking the suit in which you hope to win tricks.

Attitude leads, which I have played a few times, can work well but, in my experience, I’ve found 4th best and a form of smith the most effective. There’s a good reason they’re still the most common expert treatment.

yeah, 100% agree on loss of tempo, but I have had lots of occasions where I don't have a suit that I want my partner to attack. And when playing 4th down, I throw out a 3 and it is terrible because partner gets in and leads back at my 9 high (sigh) Hence I like attitude NT leads.

But, really I just would like an informed opinion on the legality or lack thereof on my idea. It could be an enhancement to what I already do. If someone who has an informed opinion could jump in, that would eb great ACBL rules though

[DavidKok]

Shugart23, on 2022-February-07, 09:13, said:

yeah, 100% agree on loss of tempo, but I have had lots of occasions where I don't have a suit that I want my partner to attack. And when playing 4th down, I throw out a 3 and it is terrible because partner gets in and leads back at my 9 high (sigh) Hence I like attitude NT leads.

I play Polish leads - fourth best from a suit you want lead back, second best from a suit you do not. It has its own issues but at least addresses this one.

[Shugart23]

DavidKok, on 2022-February-07, 10:09, said:

I play Polish leads - fourth best from a suit you want lead back, second best from a suit you do not. It has its own issues but at least addresses this one.

I'm now wondering rather than here's a suit I don't want want ( your method or mine), I'm wondering if you can also say what suit you do want back at the same time.....legally, that is