Priority of signal

[cnszsun]

I am thinking of defining my carding agreement. As for the priority of signal, i see a lot of different methods there. For example, usually attitude will the in the first place to show when following your partner's lead or discarding; for obvious shift system, suit preference is played most of the time; i also once read Richard Pavlicek's system notes, he always plays count except some strict defined cases.

Can you give me some advice on this part?

[keylime]

My gut feeling is count signals are becoming overrated. I'm using the O/S system and I feel it works most of the time.

[Free]

I prefer count all over the place, you don't need an OS-principle if it's actually obvious, which it is in 95% of the boards imo... Drawback ofcourse is that declarer can also count the hands, but that's also overrated.

 

Just play what you feel comfortable with.

[mikeh]

I prefer count all over the place, you don't need an OS-principle if it's actually obvious, which it is in 95% of the boards imo...  Drawback ofcourse is that declarer can also count the hands, but that's also overrated.

 

Just play what you feel comfortable with.

I completely, totally disagree :)

 

I wonder what competition you play against... where declarer counting the hand is overrated?

 

The way I look at it is that, as declarer, I LOVE opps who give frequent count: they are so easy to play against!

 

As declarer, there are many hands on which the opps have been silent. The bidding, or lack of bidding, combined with the early play will often afford inferences about location of high cards, but shape is not so easy to discern unless they help you.

 

As defender, otoh, I find it relatively easy to work out declarer's shape: we usually get clues in the bidding and (against a good declarer) we can 'reverse-engineer' his hand from the line of play he adopts. Now, knowing, early in thehand, about the location of partner's limited contribution to our defence is more important than knowing how many small cards he has in a side suit.

[Walddk]

I disagree with my learned friend from Canada. He can explain his views to his disgusting chocolate bars, and perhaps the Canadian seagulls who stay away from Hans Ø :)

 

On a serious note, count is my preferred method. I give attitude on partner's leads and first discard, but the rest of the time I give count when my *partner* needs it.

 

My count is random if I think it will benefit declarer.

 

Roland

[Codo]

I love O/S and hate count, but this is just a feeling.

There had been nobody doing some science about this, or has somebody?

[keylime]

Let me expand upon why my preference is a-sp-c or sp-a-c.

 

There are only a few specific situations where I feel count is needed: when a ruff is needed, against six or seven level contracts with the lead of a king, and couple of other spots.

 

I do though think some form of suit preference has more applications for success than count, which tells declarer a lot more about certain distributions.

 

Roland, it's not chocolate bars, it's Nanaimo bars. Living in Nanaimo for 18 months made me appreacite these wonderful treats in the full. I miss them terribly, along with the great people of the Island.

[Winstonm]

O/S is too restrictive. Count tells too much. I finally settled on this. Upside Down signals. Low card says I see no good reason for a switch - do what appears to be right. A high card says I think a switch is our best defense - work it out. Count is only given in hold up situations - SP only when obvious.