Defensive Signalling Theory

I played at the evening duplicate at Honors Bridge Club in NYC with Gail Greenberg on January 25, 2008.  The opponents bid to 2©, after a forcing 1NT sequence, and I led the ªA (ace from ace-king+) on opening lead.  What should Gail signal at trick one?

Take your time to consider the situation.  This play at trick one is the entire discussion for this hand of the month.

Normally when partner leads an ace against a suit contract, we play upside-down count and attitude.  And when dummy has the queen and length, then we give upside-down count.  Gail wanted to show a 3-card suit at trick one, so she played the ª9.  That was certainly a normal play.  But my question is, considering these circumstances, since declarer is marked with at most 2 spades in his hand, is count the most important signal here?

Gail and I play that we usually follow the normal plays, but we also give partner the information that he needs, and the needed information takes priority over the normal play.  It is very early in the play, however, so it is difficult to know for sure what information partner needs. 

There are many times where it is vital for partner to know the count at trick one in a situation like this.  He might need to know if he can cash his other spade honor.  My question is, since dummy showed a 5-card spade suit and declarer is marked for at most 2 spades and the contract is a low-level part score, is it vital for partner to know your count at trick one?  Partner would never consider cashing his second spade at trick 2, before it might get discarded away, perhaps on the diamond suit.  Is there some other information that partner desperately needs to know?

Why is partner leading a high spade, to potentially set up dummy's spade suit?  Partner must not have a good lead in a minor suit, and is hoping that upon seeing dummy and your signal at trick one, that he will find the best continuation at trick 2.

What do you want partner to lead at trick 2?  You have a clear preference for clubs.  Does partner know that?  Don't you think that partner really needs a suit preference signal more than count at trick one?  If you and your partner agree to be flexible in your signaling so you play suit preference in situations like this, then partner can find the club shift at trick 2. 

At the table, I judged that Gail's ª9 was probably a discouraging count signal, and that she probably didn't hold great clubs as she might have judged to play a small spade if she wanted a club shift.  So I guessed to play her for the ¨Q, and shifted to the ¨K.  This was the entire hand:

Declarer won the ¨A, cashed the ©A, ruffed a spade, and led another heart to Gail's ©J.  Declarer ended up making 9 tricks, losing 1 spade, 2 hearts, and 1 club.  We got a bad score.  If I had known to shift to a club at trick 2, then we would have gotten another trick - declarer would have lost a second club trick, or wasted dummy's heart ace ruffing a club.

When I shifted to the ¨K, I had hoped to find Gail with the ¨Q, and score a diamond ruff.  The problem was that I didn't get the information that I needed. 

I think it is very valuable for serious partnerships to discuss hands like this, and what they would signal.  It is easy to not be fully concentrating and not fully appreciate partner's problem, and make the standard signal at trick one.  Indeed, you have to discuss if you are willing to trust partnership judgement and ability to envision partner's problems, before you are willing to treat hands like this as non-standard signaling situations.

What would your partner signal at trick one?