[riverwalk3]

Signals are often useful in defense as it gives partner useful information, but sometimes the information isn't too useful for partner and might instead help declarer. For example, if declarer has KQTx opposite Axx, declarer will probably first cash the King and Ace. Assuming the Jack doesn't drop), if declarer knows that the suit is breaking 4-2, then they will finesse the 10 next. In such a situation, it is better to not give an honest count signal to aid declarer.

When should you give honest count signals? And how should you play if you don't want to give an honest signal? Just play a random spot card?

[PrecisionL]

I love to play against opponents who give frequent count on defense.

There are 5 times good defenders give count:

1. To obtain a ruff with a doubleton when partner leads from A-K

2. At the 6-level after a King lead

3. Against NT after an Ace lead (or King, if you do it that way)
4. Helping partner hold up an A or K
5. When cashing out and the high cards are known

Thanks to the Granovetter's and their Obvious Shift Principle

[jillybean]

Great question thanks. We've been talking about count signals and 1/2 my partnership want to use count, 1/2 don't, I will be keeping a close eye on the answers.

[akwoo]

I think, for learning purposes, it's best to always be giving honest count.

On defense, you should be trying to count out the hand, every hand, and thinking about how to use the count information.

Getting honest count from partner gives you more chances to practice keeping track of the count, thinking about it, and using it to figure out what to do.

Yes it sometimes helps declarer more than your partner. It's not always easy to see when a count signal could actually help partner though (for one thing having the count in one suit helps them infer the count in another suit), and it only takes one wrong count signal at the wrong time to get discouraged about the discipline of counting everything out.

Plus you generally have to learn how to tell the truth before you can learn when to lie.

[mikeh]

I agree with akwoo, subject to a huge caveat

Giving honest count on a regular basis will, against good players, doom you to a series of bad results

But….

Until one learns how to visualize declarer’s hand from the myriad of more subtle clues, having both partners give honest count will, if both pay attention and THINK about what that information is telling the defenders will help. Sort of like training wheels on our first bicycle. Once we’re competent, the training wheels detract from our cycling. So too does giving frequent and honest count detract from our ability to defend well…..once we’ve mastered some of the subtler skills.

What are those skills? Paradoxically, once learned, they work better against good players than against bad ones.

The bidding. Different auctions leak different information but there’s an entire world of information available to an attentive listener. It’s not merely what they bid…it can also be what they didn’t bid.

Declarer play. Good declarers know proper technique. So if a defender also knows that technique then he or she can infer much about the hand. As with the bidding, what declarer did not do is as informative as what he did do.

Simple example. Dummy has KQJxxx in a suit, the hand being declared in notrump. Declarer wins an early trick and doesn’t tackle the KQJxxx.

Where’s the Ace? Unless you’re looking at it, the smart money says declarer has it….since the normal (but as with most inferences, this isn’t 100%) approach is to establish the suit.

So maybe now that you’ve placed those 4 hcp in declarer’s hand, you have a better idea…if only a slightly better informed guess…about whether partner has a useful holding in some other suit.You also ‘know’ that you can’t screw around since declarer will be running that long suit in dummy quite soon.

Partner’s carding. While experts generally signal count infrequently (compared to non-experts) they often try to help partner out by their carding. What’s partner telling us?

Most experts give suit preference when following suit in trump. Many experts give suit preference when following suit as declarer cashes a long suit. This, of course, requires watching and remembering EVERY card, but that’s a learnable skill. If you think you can’t do it, you haven’t really tried (unless you suffer from some cognitive issue, which is an increasing issue in the aging bridge population).

So my advice….if you and partner aren’t yet comfortable drawing inferences and/or giving attitude when following suit then keep giving honest count but make sure that both of you are doing the work required for that to help. Giving count merely because ‘we always give count even though we don’t know why it’s important’ is worse than useless…you’re helping declarer, assuming declarer is better at this than you are, without helping each other at all.

Finally, I rarely give count beyond the situation Precision set out…except I think he overlooked an important one. Say declarer has all the rest of the tricks save one. You guard two suits and you need to know, as you come down to one card, which one to keep. Count is essential

[thepossum]

Apparently the answer is to give more count information to your partner than the opps while remaining a semblance of honesty
-maybe occasionally some kind of signal is required for honest versus non-honest (absence of honesty - not dishonest of course) count signals
I would never suggest anything unethical
Occasionally my discards mean something and occasionally not

Honest then a-honest. Not for one moment dishonest

Sorry but I found signalling curious and amusing - sometimes give count - says someone who would call a director if you dared "psych" by a point or a card here or there

Here to learn as always - you may get attitude from me occasionally

[DavidKok]

I hope this doesn't sound too rude, so please disregard the rest if you feel this does not apply to you. In my local circle the people most interested in falsecarding are trying to run before they can walk. A mistimed falsecard can hurt partner more than it will hurt declarer, and the consequences for the partnership are worse when it does. It's simply not very common that declarer relies on the signals of the defenders, and even then good declarers will always consider the possibility that you might be falsecarding. Meanwhile, if you mistime it and try to get clever that one time that partner needed the signal, you've hurt your ability to communicate on defense going forward.

In my opinion it is important to make sure that both 1) the falsecard might hurt declarer and 2) the falsecard won't hurt partner. Neither has to be a certainty, but the tradeoff between the two is steep.

If you are going to falsecard, in particular when deceiving declarer about the count or the likes, I think Kit Woolsey recommends for one defender to falsecard while the other gives an honest signal. This way declarer will know there's something afoot, but won't know which side is honest. Timing it so that you are both falsecarding can be very tricky.

The traditional advice for carding when you don't want to give a signal is "whichever card is closest to your thumb". Some people default to "always lowest". I don't think it matters very much - the important part is having an agreement with partner that sometimes you won't signal.

Lastly I do notice that I've been relying less on signals than most at my local club. Often the distribution around the table and most of the high cards are pretty clear from the auction and play to the first few tricks, and one or two well-timed signals are enough to decide how to defend at the critical junctures. Signaling is a very limited communication channel, and most of the time you don't need agreements about the second discard or distribution in the third suit. And the few times that you do your carding should frequently mean something other than the predefined attitude/count/suit preference. In my opinion most effort on signaling should go towards making sure you and your partner agree what you are signaling in each given situation.

[mycroft]

"You will be taken apart by the top players if you signal honestly". Yes, you absolutely will.

But if you're wondering "when do you give honest signals", you're at a level where "you will be taken apart by the top players" no matter what you do. You're not good enough to falsecard usefully either - and as David says, partner isn't good enough to see what you're doing and follow along rather than giving the game away (at least that someone isn't being honest). And very very quickly, "the top players" are going to work out which of you is the honest customer and which is trying to play games - at which point, you're "signalling honestly" again, at least as far as information leakage to the top players is concerned.

But like a lot of discussions we have here, "beating the top players" isn't always the goal.

Are you playing 60 boards against the #11 seed in the Spingold (or are you the #11 seed in the Spingold)? Fine.

Are you playing the local club duplicate and trying to break 50% consistently? Take advantage of signalling to get your points against the field who won't "take[ you] apart" for it, do your best to get your 35-40% against the top players - and that includes giving them the overtrick from signalling, rather than the three overtricks from fooling partner into thinking it's safe to pitch from 8xxx and letting them run that suit as well.

Are you the best player in the room? Well then you probably know which players don't look at your signals (so you can be honest), which do and can use them (so you "tell partner only what he needs to know"), and which are known for falsecarding games (most of whom assume "all good players" do it. So they'll misread your "honest" signals, as long as you're not "religiously honest"). But then you don't need my help, either.

[mikeh]

Off topic but a few years ago I was playing a team game with a friend with whom I’ve played very rarely…he lives in the States and is a far better player than I am. Our wives were at the other table and the team had struggled so that we were out of contention with two rounds to go. We sat down against a partnership comprised of another friend and someone I didn’t know. We chatted briefly…they had changed partnerships due to doing as badly as we were.

We defended two hands then I got to declare a dicey game contract. I had to lose the lead and hope they erred. I noted that RHO was signalling with a high card but there wasn’t anything I could do so I didn’t ask.

LHO made a terrible switch and the contract rolled home.

LHO asked ‘why did you play (that high card)’ to which RHO said…I thought we were playing standard signals…you needed to lead the suit I signalled in.

LHO shrugged and said he usually played udca

Next board found me in another thin game. Now LHO signalled by playing a high spot and his partner duplicated the first board disaster by switching to a different suit.

At the end, LHO said…I thought you played standard? RHO said…yes, but I assumed you were playing udca.

The moral of the story is that your methods usually don’t matter…but both partners better know what those methods are.

[barmar]

One important time to give honest signals is when you have a very weak hand. If partner has most of the defensive strength, they're mostly on their own in conducting the defense. They usually know that you're broke, so the best you can do is help them count out the hand so they can figure out what declarer's shape is. Give honest count signals as much as possible.