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.