[pstansbu]

Partner and I couldn't agree on this one so though I'd get some good advice from forum members (NB added full diagram as suggested and slightly amended later play as I'd confused that with a different board)

Defending against 3NT partner leads 10♥, covered by the Queen and I win with the Ace (I don't remember whether the 2 or 5 was played by declarer, which is a bad sign I know...). We play standard present count so I return the 6, partner wins with the 8 and changes to Jack♣ covered by the Queen and I play the 2. Diamonds are played and partner wins with the Queen (I forget if a finesse or drop played for). Partner plays a second club and we are sunk from there.

He switched suits as he believes declarer has the Jack as I haven't played it, the 6 isn't obviously a low card so I might have started with A6 or A6x, hence he felt the Jack was a better card for me to return, whilst I felt the Jack was only right from Jx or J10x.

---

What would people advise here?

[petterb]

So your partner thought declarer would play the queen in dummy with Jxx or Jxxx in hand?

[Zelandakh]

First of all, as already pointed out your partner's logic was faulty here. That said, the issue of interior sequences is tricky enough that a number of methods are available to help. The one I will highlight here is part of a system known as Journalist Leads. For the interior sequences the important parts are:

The jack denies a higher honour, typically from suits headed by JT9 or JT8 (or doubleton).
The 9 shows the ten (if not a passive doubleton lead) and denies anything higher.
The ten promises either the 9 or the jack plus a higher non-sequential honour - AJT, AT9, KJT, KT9, QT9 - or is also led from KQT9x. Partner should unblock the jack if they have it.

In this case, you would know from the ten lead immediately that partner held KT9. If partner was leading from a suit headed by only the T98 they would have led the 9 instead.

You might wonder from this why everyone does not use them. Well the biggest drawback is that not only you but also Declarer also receives the information, which in some cases is extremely beneficial to them. Also, another style of leads (based on the Rusinow idea) has grown hugely in popularity at the highest level and become something of an expert standard in some circles in NT contracts. Finally, they are more complicated than Standard, which not everyone likes. In general though, I personally think Journalist Leads are pretty good at I/A level for NT contracts. They only really lose their appeal at the expert ranks.

Finally, if you do decide to use Journalist Leads, or indeed one of the alternatives, be aware of when they apply. As an example, Journalist Leads are typically off for leads in partner's suit. In the end there is no real substitute for thinking. In this case you and your partner should have gotten it right even without the benefit of extra lead information. On another hand though, it might make the difference so it might be worth looking into the options and discussing with your partner if any of them appeal.

[billw55]

Welcome to the forum pstansbu!

When posting hands for comment, maximum detail is appreciated. Usually this means the full hand and every card played. For example, to evaluate the ♥6 we need to know about the 5 and the 2. Did partner hold either? Did declarer play either on trick one or two?

If playing against good players, petterb's inference is correct. Playing the Q from dummy with Jxx in hand would be a blunder, and so partner can reason that you have the jack. This is not reliable against bad players.

In general I think returning your lowest is normal when unblocking is not needed. However methods may vary. One of a great many things to discuss with a regular partner.

[Kaitlyn S]

I'll let Eddie Kantar tell you.

https://books.google...%20suit&f=false

[pstansbu]

 billw55, on 2016-December-07, 09:10, said:

Welcome to the forum pstansbu!

When posting hands for comment, maximum detail is appreciated. Usually this means the full hand and every card played. For example, to evaluate the ♥6 we need to know about the 5 and the 2. Did partner hold either? Did declarer play either on trick one or two?

Thanks - I have updated accordingly (I hope)

 billw55, on 2016-December-07, 09:10, said:

If playing against good players, petterb's inference is correct. Playing the Q from dummy with Jxx in hand would be a blunder, and so partner can reason that you have the jack. This is not reliable against bad players.

Declarer is a very good player in this case.

[StevenG]

So partner has seen the 2,3,4 and 5 - and doesn't think the 6 is a small card?

[pstansbu]

 StevenG, on 2016-December-07, 11:49, said:

So partner has seen the 2,3,4 and 5 - and doesn't think the 6 is a small card?

When you put it like that I feel embarrassed about posting and even more so for not spotting all of those cards either at the time or in post mortem

Excellent reminder to concentrate!

[nekthen]

Similar to Journalist, strong ten is very easy. Leading a ten promises at least one higher card, excluding the J.
Lets assume you don't play this. Returning the J can get the suit blocked if p lead from 10,9,8 so you did return the right card, but had you known p must have the K when he leads the T, you can confidently return the J. This assumes that p did not choose to lead the T from KT9! TBA

However, there is an element of the defense that you have glossed over. Why did partner continue a second club? You played the 2 on the first round, surely discouraging rather than count? Anyway you can't have the ace. So carrying on with a second club is just surrendering, while a spade switch brings home the bacon.

If declarer did play for the drop, which is usual, you had the opportunity to signal for a spade on the second round, the JS should get the message across. Maybe declarer was canny enough to play the finesse to deny you the opportunity to signal and lose to the less dangerous hand.

This is a good hand for Italian signals. On the club switch you can play the 8 for a spade switch. An odd card would be encouraging (though it is hard to imagine a holding that would want to), even cards are suit preference.

Even so with minimal agreements, a spade switch seems clear, when you win the QD.

[pstansbu]

 nekthen, on 2016-December-08, 05:50, said:

Similar to Journalist, strong ten is very easy. Leading a ten promises at least one higher card, excluding the J.

This seems worth consideration - along with Zelandakh's post on the variations

 nekthen, on 2016-December-08, 05:50, said:

However, there is an element of the defense that you have glossed over. Why did partner continue a second club? You played the 2 on the first round, surely discouraging rather than count? Anyway you can't have the ace. So carrying on with a second club is just surrendering, while a spade switch brings home the bacon.

Aberration independent of the original problem (we never got as far as discussing this) - my 2 is effectively both - our approach is to give count when you can't cover the card from dummy - so this, in effect, discouraging showing the 8 as my highest possible card.

 nekthen, on 2016-December-08, 05:50, said:

If declarer did play for the drop, which is usual, you had the opportunity to signal for a spade on the second round, the JS should get the message across. Maybe declarer was canny enough to play the finesse to deny you the opportunity to signal and lose to the less dangerous hand.

This is a good hand for Italian signals. On the club switch you can play the 8 for a spade switch. An odd card would be encouraging (though it is hard to imagine a holding that would want to), even cards are suit preference.

I'm now sure declarer finessed as I don't recall being able to signal - we've just adopted Italian discards so I would have been highly relieved and surprised to see an odd spade and an even card in both minors all available. I wondered before as I couldn't think of much reason for declarer to go against the odds but you give good enough reasons.

[jogs]

Although the standard return is original 4th best from this holding, wouldn't the ♥J have clarified the situation for partner?

[nekthen]

 jogs, on 2016-December-08, 18:07, said:

Although the standard return is original 4th best from this holding, wouldn't the ♥J have clarified the situation for partner?

See above.

You do not know that partner has the K♥. The lead could be from T,9,8; in that case the return of the J♥ fatally blocks the suit. It is not always wise to lead from your longest suit.

[msjennifer]

I have all the sympathies for this gentleman EAST.Perhaps he could have played the Club 8 instead of 2 and hoped partner gets the hint.

[pstansbu]

 msjennifer, on 2016-December-09, 04:11, said:

Perhaps he could have played the Club 8 instead of 2 and hoped partner gets the hint.

That wouldn't help us sadly - playing standard count and attitude, and agreement to give count when unable to cover. Suit preference would only apply where count wouldn't make sense, and I think it still makes sense here.

[msjennifer]

 pstansbu, on 2016-December-09, 08:51, said:

That wouldn't help us sadly - playing standard count and attitude, and agreement to give count when unable to cover. Suit preference would only apply where count wouldn't make sense, and I think it still makes sense here.

If you play the attitude and count then certainly the 2of clubs shows no interest in the suit as there was no reason to give count .Firstly ,as has been pointed out ,only a fool will play the HQ if he held the Jack in his hand unless he wanted to double cross (?)the opponents.which not even a beginner will fall for.Any beginner (not a novice) would have backed Hearts at the very first opportunity.You were unlucky I must say.!As has been pointed out the lead might have been from K109 only ,for reasons best known to himself ,so backing the Jack at trick two will block the suit.

[billw55]

 pstansbu, on 2016-December-07, 06:45, said:

Defending against 3NT partner leads 10♥, covered by the Queen and I win with the Ace (I don't remember whether the 2 or 5 was played by declarer, which is a bad sign I know...). We play standard present count so I return the 6, partner wins with the 8 and changes to Jack♣ covered by the Queen and I play the 2. Diamonds are played and partner wins with the Queen (I forget if a finesse or drop played for). Partner plays a second club and we are sunk from there.

Actually, looking at the full hand and the sequence of plays, it looks like you should still set 3NT. Even after the defense twice fails to cash out, declarer only has 8 tricks. You could have put him -2 instead of -1, but I would not usually call that "sunk".

[jogs]

 billw55, on 2016-December-07, 09:10, said:

If playing against good players, petterb's inference is correct. Playing the Q from dummy with Jxx in hand would be a blunder, and so partner can reason that you have the jack. This is not reliable against bad players.

You convinced me. Most bad players would play small with Jxx(x) in hand most of the time. West erred on this board.

[pstansbu]

 billw55, on 2016-December-09, 14:33, said:

Actually, looking at the full hand and the sequence of plays, it looks like you should still set 3NT. Even after the defense twice fails to cash out, declarer only has 8 tricks. You could have put him -2 instead of -1, but I would not usually call that "sunk".

My omission - forgot to say Matchpoints, we did set the contract but -2 the norm, only kept off rock bottom by one pair settled in 3♦ making. A fitting reward for our silliness .