A Remarkable Case


A 10 3 2
------
A 10 9 6
K Q 9 7 6
6 4 9 7
J 9 7 3 A K 8 6
K J 7 Q 8 5 4 3 2
J 10 8 3 4
K Q J 8 5
Q 10 5 4 2
------ Contract: 7 spades
A 5 2 Opening lead: 6 of spades, K of diamonds

Two defenders allowed declarer to make the grand slam here. One of them did so by splitting his club honors on a lead to the K Q 9. There's really not percentage in splitting two honors when you see two honors sitting over them. Even with a shorter holding, when declarer takes your J (or 10) and later leads toward K 9 and you play a lower card, he just might read you for just that, having split your honors. Here it's academic. East shows out! So declarer now has a marked finesse on the third round of clubs, to run 'em. And need one count winners? Five spades in the long hand, five clubs, the ace of diamonds. That's eleven. And two heart ruffs in the short trump hand.
The other pair handed over the contract in a different manner. Opening lead a spade, continued to the second round, a club now to the A, club to the K, East sluffing the 8 of hearts, Q of clubs, ruff a club. East sluffing the 8 of hearts?
I have often advised keeping the same number in a suit as dummy's showing. But that's not the same as saying get down to dummy's number, particularly when you have high trump that can be ruffed out and particularly when you've got other cards to spare. For in advising to keep the same number as dummy, I have often pointed out that the same holds for keeping the same number as the closed hand holds -- with the acknowledgement that you can't see the closed hand's number. Nevertheless, if you can't see the closed hand, you first of all don't have to save excess cards in another suit, and secondly oftentimes are giving some strong hints in the bidding. Here declarer opened the bidding a spade and over two clubs by North, rebid hearts! So how difficult is it to figure out that South has at least 4 hearts?
On top of which East began the hand with two more diamonds than dummy. So why are those cards held onto so as to shorten the heart holding in a suit where declarer figures to have at least four? You can't think that you're gonna grab the lead through some mischance by declarer and run diamonds out to the sixth round! Can you?
Now at that point, there are only two trump in dummy and East has 3 hearts and those guys are in a grand slam. So in other words, the discard of the 8 of hearts hasn't killed the defense. I'm aware of that. But . . well, to put it this way, you can't sluff the second heart spot until you've sluffed the first. On the third round of trump, East sluffed a diamond. Hooray! And then on the fourth round, the club that declarer's going to ruff, East sluffed another heart! He has saved five diamonds, when dummy's only showing four, so as to bring his heart holding down to A K -- when there are two trump left in dummy. You go figure.
And the funny thing is, I knew that other defender, West on the other declarer's play, had flushed the defense down the toilet by splitting his club honors. And now in tying this up, I looked to see what East had discarded, and sonuvagun, yes, it was the 8 of hearts! Six diamonds in his hand back of four in dummy, and he thinks he oughtta play the 8 of hearts? . . . this declarer also having rebid 2 hearts! Of course, that didn't do the defense any harm. That'd been done by the splitting of honors. Still . . . the penchant for signalling a good holding in a suit at the same time you deplete the hand of a key card is unsettling. (Yes, in this case the 8 wasn't the key card, but its discard was a start.)
Could East have been squeezed? He's the only one to protect the hearts and could be the only one to protect the fourth round of diamonds. When only one person can protect two suits, either by length or by certain high cards, you have the making of a squeeze. Yet here jell. There's just something lacking. For one thing, West can protect the second and third rounds. So declarer has to ruff at least one diamond in the closed hand to take West out of the running (as long as another ruff is available). Now if he ruffs two diamonds and ruffs a club to establish that fifth club and draws two rounds of trump, how many trump is he going to have in the closed hand? The closed I can come is this four-card ending:

10
------
10 9
9
------ ------
J 9 7 3 A K 8 6
K Q 8
------ ------
K
Q 10 5
------
------

On the lead of the 9 of clubs, East might think he's squeezed and throw a diamond. Now declarer ruffs out the diamonds and claims a good dummy. But East can spare a heart. Declarer could enter the closed hand and ruff out East's last heart honor, but he'd have no access to the established heart and would have to lose a diamond.
I'm really buffaloed by the frequency with which players signal their partners of their good holding, thereby taking away a significant part of that good holding. Here, as mentioned, the 8 discard doesn't harm the defense, but the second one does.
And to what purpose? Oh, so partner will know? And what purpose does that serve? I would say of these all too common signals of a good holding, 99% don't anything positive for the defense and perhaps half that number does outright harm. I surf the tournaments a lot and have amassed a substantial number of hands displaying defensive goofs, but so few where the defense went down the drain because of the OMISSION of a signal that I can think of only one or two. Seriously.
I once had a partner who said "our" signalling was substandard, meaning mine, for I knew he considered himself infallible. So I asked what I thought was the most reasonable request, which was: Would you give me some examples of where we've missed something by way of faulty signalling so I can get a feel for your logic. And I neverheard from him again on that score. Suggesting that he was more interesting in carping than in improvement.
And my last comment on this extraordinary penchant for signalling away a valuable card: when you're declarer, how many times is it primarily your task to work that uphill battle to a majority of the tricks, by chancing finesses, using your trump in the most effective way, watching the splits and discards, and how many times when the defense hands you a gift is it failing to cover an honor when necessary, leading from an honor to your advantage, discarding valuable cards, and how many times does the defense depend on an astute signal? Or would have been advantaged by an astute signal
I really think that ratio is about 100 to one. A hundred times you've got to work out the best line as declarer or the gifts given by the defense either have nothing to do with signalling or involve a totally unnecessary high signal. That's the way I see it, that's what my surfing has led me to believe.