Count

Some players place greater emphasis on the 'count' of the cards in each suit than they do on attitude. They would extend the petering concept so that a peter would show an even number of cards in that suit ( 2, 4 or 6 etc ) while a non-peter shows an odd number of cards (1, 3 or 5 etc). This often enables an accurate count of the suit at trick one,---great value in terms of judging how to defend a particular hand. Suppose you hold   S A K 6 5 4 and lead the ace against a contract of four hearts. Dummy shows up with Q 8 and partner plays the 2. What is the position?

If partner has one only, then declarer started with five and would most likely have bid them. Partner might have five with you, but the most likely scenario is that she has three. This is not a good suit to pursue, partly because dummy will ruff in on the third round, but also because you do not know who has the jack.

Take a different situation. You have led the queen from a holding of        H Q J 10 8 6 4 against a contract of four spades . You find a dummy of H A 7 5 3 and partner plays the 2. Declarer takes the trick with the king. Who has the remaining card in this suit?

Clearly declarer holds the remaining card, as partner is promising you an odd number.

The major disadvantage of this method of playing the cards is the ambiguity of the peter. It can be a doubleton but it may also be from a holding of four cards in the suit (rarely is it six ). So, if you lead the ace from S A K 8 6 against a contract of four hearts, and find a dummy of    S 7 4 3, what do you know if partner plays the 9?

It looks like a peter but has she two or four? If it is two, we can give her at least one ruff. If it is four, then we do no harm by continuing the suit since declarer will only be ruffing in her own hand.

You may think that all this is pretty esoteric and maybe you are thinking of taking up canasta. A very dull game! To me, the information obtained from an accurate count overrides any information I may obtain through attitude. It helps me to build a picture of declarer's hand which is so often the key to accurate defence. But I know that this may be my own foible. Perhaps my defence would be better if I disregarded 'count' in favour of 'attitude'.

Some experienced defenders try and get the best of both worlds by using 'attitude' on partner's lead and 'count' on the opponent's lead. Very sound if you can handle the complexity!

When you've tried this for a while---or rejected it---the next element of signalling you need to consider is that of 'promise of an honour'.