Signalling III

A third category of ways signals can be counterproductive and actually cost a trick is going to be a catch-all grouping, called, well, placing common sense below what you perceive to be a signal, or absense of a signal. Here is one case:

Q 8 5
K 7 6 4 A J 2
10 9 3

West decided this was the suit to beat declarer and so laid down the king of clubs, a daring lead with the queen showing. But it held and . . . he shifted. After all, he got the deuce from his partner! What can one say? It did allow declarer to make his contract! You've got to leaven signalling with a little common sense. Your partner was dealt only so many cards and sometimes cannot signal, hey partner, please continue. It is obvious that if East signals with the jack, the defense can no longer get three tricks in the suit.
Confusing come-ons with suit preference is also very common. I've seen it with a married couple that has played for 40 years, and recently Frank Stewart had such a confusing in his column, which reminded me of the opposite situation of Stewart's example. My partner led a suit against slam where dummy came down with a singleton and a twice-guarded jack of trump, while I held a thrice-guarded king of trump. This was one of the best partner's I ever had, but he read my high card as a suit preference for another suit, when of course, what I wanted was a continuation to make declarer eat up a trump and thus not be able to pick up my king.

In Frank Stewart's column, a player with a void in diamonds against a spade contract, signalled with the jack of hearts on his partner's ace of hearts lead, hoping this would be read as suit-preference, but no, his partner read it as a come-on in hearts. In these last two examples, the signal didn't necessarily cost a trick, for we don't know what the defender would have done without it, but they didn't help.
I'll give you one other case where common sense took a distance second place to a penchant for signalling. In a Swiss tournament, with 8 solid clubs from the top and out, I pre-empted 4 clubs, vulnerable. My partner gave me one trick, so I was down only one trick, doubled. The opponents, we soon saw, had a grand slam at their disposal, albeit a lucky one. We couldn't expect our teammates to find the grand, but they would do us royal if they found the little slam, and give us at least a respectably good board if they bid game. So they came back, one of them very, very unhappy. No, they haven't found grand slam and hadn't found little slam and hadn't found game. They hadn't even found the defense to defeat 4 clubs doubled! It seems that one defender with a doubleton went high-low on his partner's first two leads, and so this worthy continued the suit only to find that his partner had no trump! And so it goes.

For the long run, I would in no way want to limit what you can do with signals. I'm certainly not opposed to signals per se, and if you and your partner can develop a skill that enhances your defensive ability, why, more power to you. In the meantime, however, and for the type of reader I envision, I would suggest the following:
You really should know the two most elementary principles of signalling and offer them to your partner, even a pick-up partner you haven't discussed signals with. They are that a high card says you like a suit, a low card that you have nothing to offer in it. And the second principle is that high-low suggests an even number of cards, while going low to high suggests an odd number. High-low in discards also suggests, Partner, I've got this suit cooled. I mentioned in 4-card suits how one player should have known to save clubs, not diamonds because his partner played the 7 then 2 of diamonds on the 2nd and 3rd rounds of trump.
Now, before anyone gloms onto the above and reads it as gospel, let me hasten to add that there are always exceptions. Further, I might mention that some opponents will reverse the usual meaning of signals, not to mention other specialized uses of discarding, so I'm not saying everyone plays by those principles. But you should know them and play by them. It will be a step forward for some people.

With all the super-sophistication of some players tossing out signals where they don't belong, I'm not a little suprised to find some people on OKBridge don't even signal that much. Or in a case just mentioned, one partner pays no attention to the other's signal. Here's a case in point:

9 5 4
J 7 4
9 3
9 8 6 4 2
Q 8 3 2 A K J 7
Q 8 6 2 10 9 3
2 J 10 8 6
K J 10 7 Q 5
10 6
A K 5
A K Q 7 5 4
A 3

Opening lead was the deuce of hearts, the jack in dummy winning. A good start for declarer. Now if only diamonds will split . . . But they don't. Declarer has no chance without a few more diamond winners, and so continues the suit into East's jack. East lays down the king of spades and gets . . . the deuce from his partner! He switches and declarer makes his contract. I don't know. I thought just everybody knew that basic rule. If you like your partner's lead, you signal high. Keep coming, partner. It's all quite legal. Nor is this the only instance of a defender not knowing that elementary rule.
As for going beyond that . . . I personally think you'd do well to hold off until you've played these basic principles with a partner long enough that there are virtually no misunderstandings. Then you might think of pushing on. But you've seen above how easily people cost tricks, even in two cases valuable slam contracts by the use of signals that could not possibly have helped the defense. You'd do well to nail down the basic principles first.
As for suit-preference signals, well, of course they're easy to see in a newspaper column where we can see all four suits. If you feel such a signal couldn't possibly be misinterpreted, be my guest. But I don't think you'll find all that many hands where this becomes a key factor in the defense.
So let me finish off with a few thoughts:
(1) You've got to presume some intelligence on the part of your partner. If in doubt about whether an 8 or 9 or even 10 will be needed for protecting a suit or informing your partner, I would strongly advocate trusting your partner.
(2) And if you're obligated to presume some intelligence on the part of your partner, you've got to offer the same back. You've often got to apply some common sense in evaluating signals. A low card can be all your partner can spare in a suit he wants you to continue, while a 9 could be, well, a singleton in a suit your partner wants you to abandon. Trust the signals, and yet leaven them with a bit of common sense and a touch of imagination about what your partner might have that would render the common interpretation of that card invalid in this instance.