Defensive signals

[xx1943]

Hi all

 

does anyone know a brief summary of aspects of defensive signals in the www?

 

Thanks in advance

 

Al

[Stephen Tu]

I don't think there's anything on the web that has sufficient detail, covers enough situations. Books are better.

 

beginner/int:

Root - How to Defend a Bridge Hand

Kantar - Kantar teaches Modern/Advanced bridge defense (2 vols)

 

int:

Woolsey - Partnership Defense in Bridge

 

adv:

Miles - Defensive signals (out of print)

[Quantumcat]

There's a great book I got as a prize in a youth event last year, called something like "Bridge Defence Complete" or "The Complete Guide to Defence" (or something else with defence and complete in the title) It's a bit less than A4 in size and is fairly thick, coloured light green and white .... if you ever see it you should get it, it's excellent. I haven't seen anything decent on the web about defence, either.

[ArcLight]

>There's a great book I got as a prize in a youth event last year, called something like "Bridge Defence Complete" or "The Complete Guide to Defence" (or something else with defence and complete in the title) It's a bit less than A4 in size and is fairly thick, coloured light green and white .... if you ever see it you should get it, it's excellent. I haven't seen anything decent on the web about defence, either.

 

 

How about listing the author if you can't remember the title?

At least that way we can look for it.

telling us the books color is not quite so helpful in finding it :)

 

 

I will take a guess - what I think you are refering to is:

 

Winning Defense For The Advancing Bridge Player ~ More Constructive Thinking At The Bridge Table by Stewart, Frank

 

Its a GREAT book

 

PS Its got a green cover ;)

[ArcLight]

>Miles - Defensive signals (out of print

 

Stephen,

Pelse tell us more about the book. How is it better / more advanced than the other books?

[kenberg]

Maybe I really am just an intermediate but I regard Kit Woolsey's book as pretty substantial. As to MM:

 

It takes up matters I have seldom seen discussed elsewhere. Here is an example from page 67. He has already recommended udca and is now discussing present count. He recommends that present count be played standard, ie not upside down. Thus (his example) partner leads a heart against a suit contract, you hold A86542. You judge it right to take your ace and switch to another suit. Later you discard a heart. You discard the deuce from your current holding of 86542. Has you started with A6542 you would discard the 6 from 6542. "It is not practical to play upside down current count". Whether or not you call this advice advanced I would say it is advice that is not well known.

 

And of course reading MM is always a kick. At the end of chapter 1 he notes that not everyone plays as he recommends: "But I can say, with a clear conscience, what I have recommended in this chapter is standard practice among a majority of top experts. (Of course, when anyone disagrees with me, I take him off my list of top experts, which may slightly skew the results)."

[skjaeran]

He has already recommended udca and is now discussing present count. He recommends that present count be played standard, ie not upside down. Thus (his example) partner leads a heart against a suit contract, you hold A86542. You judge it right to take your ace and switch to another suit. Later you discard a heart. You discard the deuce from your current holding of 86542. Has you started with A6542 you would discard the 6 from 6542. "It is not practical to play upside down current count". Whether or not you call this advice advanced I would say it is advice that is not well known.

Well known to whom and where?

I think I still have to meet a pair playing udca and upside down current count.

It's standard over here to play current count when playing standard, and original count when playing udca.

The reason for this should be obvious. :)

[kenberg]

He has already recommended udca and is now discussing present count. He recommends that present count be played standard, ie not upside down. Thus (his example) partner leads a heart against a suit contract, you hold A86542. You judge it right to take your ace and switch to another suit. Later you discard a heart. You discard the deuce from your current holding of 86542. Has you started with A6542 you would discard the 6 from 6542. "It is not practical to play upside down current count". Whether or not you call this advice advanced I would say it is advice that is not well known.

Well known to whom and where?

I think I still have to meet a pair playing udca and upside down current count.

It's standard over here to play current count when playing standard, and original count when playing udca.

The reason for this should be obvious. :)

Ok, I stand corrected. Not being a big fan of udca myself, I had not thought it through so it was news to me. It would not surprise me to find it is also news to a lot of folks who ask me to play udca. If we have a mix up I will send them to you for re-education. :)

 

Seriously, I thank you.

 

Anyway, I think Miles' book is comprehensive, which is not quite the same as saying that it is more advanced than, say, Woolsey's book. They are both very good books, in my opinion.

 

 

The poster of course asked for an online source. The silence is deafening.

 

Added: Playing original count you would discard the 5 whether you started with A86542 or with A8652? MM may still have the better of this.

[Stephen Tu]

It's standard over here to play current count when playing standard, and original count when playing udca.

The reason for this should be obvious.

 

Eh? It's not obvious to me. The reason standard present count is recommended, is that when returning partner's suit, from 2 remaining, a present count situation, you often want to lead high to unblock. Using upside-down present count would conflict with that. So high = 2 or 4 remaining. "Present count" applies when leading subsequent rounds of a suit when your first play in the suit didn't indicate count (e.g. you had to lead/play high card for trick taking purposes, or gave an attitude signal). This does not apply when giving count while following suit 2nd/4th hand (where upside-down is used, to preserve high card from doubleton, same as "standard" in the trump suits, just used in all suits now).

 

As for Miles book vs. the others, generally he is targeting an advanced audience not beginners. He covers a lot of situations you don't see elsewhere, he explains what signals should imply in various non-obvious places. Should the signal be attitude/count/suit-pref? Instead of cookbook simple rules he explains an expert approach of which signal should take priority based on dummy, previous play, bidding, how both partners can logically figure this out, when NOT to signal, when certain signals should be just neutral rather than "I really want you to lead/not lead this suit", doing things to prevent partner from erring.

 

Also although it doesn't really focus too much on signalling, I always have to plug Kelsey's Killing Defence at Bridge, a must read for any player, possibly the best book on bridge ever written IMO.

[kenberg]

Very interesting. You (generic you) play udca. You are dealt A86542 in hearts, a heart is led, you win and switch, later you discard a heart.

 

Skaeran discards the 5, original count, Stephen Tu discards the 6 (high, showing an odd current holding, applying udca) and MM discards the deuce (current count, reverting to low shows odd for the later discard coming after a win and a switch). All three regard their approach as standard when playing udca.

 

Any ideas for how we settle this? MM's solution is to remove you two from his list of top experts. I am in no position to be so brash.

 

PS We may have exited B/I territory a while back. Or maybe not.

[inquiry]

Very interesting. You (generic you) play udca. You are dealt A86542 in hearts, a heart is led, you win and switch, later you discard a heart.

 

Skaeran discards the 5, original count, Stephen Tu discards the 6 (high, showing an odd current holding, applying udca) and MM discards the deuce (current count, reverting to low shows odd for the later discard coming after a win and a switch). All three regard their approach as standard when playing udca.

 

Any ideas for how we settle this? MM's solution is to remove you two from his list of top experts. I am in no position to be so brash.

 

PS We may have exited B/I territory a while back. Or maybe not.

I know how to settle this.

 

Discard the 8 or if you can not afford that one,the 6 to show "standard count". Why would you revert from UDCA to normal signals after trick one. Anyone who give original count is making partnerwork too hard, and more importantly, may have to throw away a key card if they held originally three cards and so now must discard their highest remaining card to give count. So, as usual. Stephen Tu is right.

 

However, let me add another confounder. Sometimes you first "discard" will have to be either attitude or suit preference... depending on your agreements and what partner needs to know. So sometimes you might want to discad the HEART 6 or 8 as don't lead this suit, or the hearts 8 or 2 as a suit preference signal. Knowing when (in your partnership) different cards carry different reasons is sort of important.

[Stephen Tu]

Very interesting. You (generic you) play udca. You are dealt A86542 in hearts, a heart is led, you win and switch, later you discard a heart.

 

Skaeran discards the 5, original count, Stephen Tu discards the 6 (high, showing an odd current holding, applying udca) and MM discards the deuce (current count, reverting to low shows odd for the later discard coming after a win and a switch). All three regard their approach as standard when playing udca.

 

That's not what I said. I said "standard present count" which = high from even remaining, low from odd remaining. I am playing the way MM (& Root) recommend.

[Stephen Tu]

Why would you revert from UDCA to normal signals after trick one

 

It's not a reversion. What card you choose to return is a separate decision from how you choose to signal as 2nd/4th hand. Remaining count (subsequent play in a suit you or your partner led) is an independent situation from 2nd/4th hand count following to declarer's play.

 

For example, say you hold QJ2. Partner leads, you play the J, declarer wins. Later on you get the lead & play the Q, which both unblocks & suggests how many you started with to partner. If you played upside-down present count, unblocking conflicts with giving partner the correct remaining count.

[kenberg]

Some of what I said above was stupid. To salvage something, let me note that "Let's play udca"-- "OK" appears to not be an adequate conversation.

 

I have thought a bit more about this and I am thinking original count sounds like the way to go when playing udca. Eg you hold AQxy, partner leads, KJ tight hits, you take two tricks and switch. True you probably hope not to discard at all from this holding but if you must do so it seems better to throw the y than the x. Original count and ud current count give the same prescription here, but the MM reversion has you throwing the x. Not good. So, sorry MM, but it seems to me that original count is better than reversion. I'm still working on ud current and ud original count.

 

Generally if MM and I disagree I cannot think of why anyone would listen to me but this does seem right. I still think highly of his book.

 

Of course the problem with any detailed system is that you only get full value from it if partner is playing it also. I have had very little luck in convincing partners we should each buy the same book, both read it, and accept it in total. Everyone has his own ideas.

[Quantumcat]

Defensive Bridge Play Complete, by Bill Root.

 

http://www.marchand.be/gestion/photos/Rdbpc.gif

 

This is the book I was thinking of, it's perhaps a bit late now. As a beginner player reading this made defence actually make sense ... everything is put so clearly and concisely.

[skjaeran]

Very interesting. You (generic you) play udca. You are dealt A86542 in hearts, a heart is led, you win and switch, later you discard a heart.

 

Skaeran discards the 5, original count, Stephen Tu discards the 6 (high, showing an odd current holding, applying udca) and MM discards the deuce (current count, reverting to low shows odd for the later discard coming after a win and a switch). All three regard their approach as standard when playing udca.

 

Any ideas for how we settle this? MM's solution is to remove you two from his list of top experts. I am in no position to be so brash.

 

PS We may have exited B/I territory a while back. Or maybe not.

I'm dealt ♥A86542, win the 1st ♥ with the ace and switch. When I later give count in the suit, I play the 2. Originally I held 6 cards in the suit, giving count from an even number I play the lowest.

 

If I'm discarding, and this is my first discard, I play attitude - thus I'll discard the 6 (or 8). B)

[skjaeran]

I know how to settle this.

 

Discard the 8 or if you can not afford that one,the 6 to show "standard count". Why would you revert from UDCA to normal signals after trick one. Anyone who give original count is making partnerwork too hard, and more importantly, may have to throw away a key card if they held originally three cards and so now must discard their highest remaining card to give count.  So, as usual. Stephen Tu is right.

 

However, let me add another confounder. Sometimes you first "discard" will have to be either attitude or suit preference... depending on your agreements and what partner needs to know. So sometimes you might want to discad the HEART 6 or 8 as don't lead this suit, or the hearts 8 or 2 as a suit preference signal. Knowing when (in your partnership) different cards carry different reasons is sort of important.

Partnerwork hard? How come you think this is hard? It's not hard at all, very simple in fact. I've played both standard count and udca, and this has never been any problem to handle at all. Switching to udca after playing standard count for 10+ years never was any trouble.

 

I don't know where the discarding issue came up. I never said anythin about discarding in my first post here. Discarding, as you say, you might not give count at all in the suit (attitude/suit preference/discard elsewhere).

 

The basic reason for giving original count is that it's easy to distinguish between a 3-card and a 4-card suit. Look at K942 and K94. You win the first trick with the king and then returns what? I return the 2 form the first holding and the 9 from the second. Giving present count I'd have to return the 4 from both holdings. Seems stupid to me (putting it mildly). And playing the highest from a present two-card holding might be a needed unblock.

[jmc]

This is a .pdf all about signals leads and discards by Marilyn Hemenway, a grand life master and multiple national champion. Its free and can be found at:

 

http://www.omahabridge.org/MHemPubs/L_S_D2.pdf

 

It is probably not as good as some of the books mentioned but it is very good for a free web publication.

 

jmc

[Stephen Tu]

I have thought a bit more about this and I am thinking original count sounds like the way to go when playing udca. Eg you hold AQxy, partner leads, KJ tight hits, you take two tricks and switch. True you probably hope not to discard at all from this holding but if you must do so it seems better to throw the y than the x. Original count and ud current count give the same prescription here, but the MM reversion has you throwing the x. Not good. So, sorry MM, but it seems to me that original count is better than reversion. I'm still working on ud current and ud original count.

 

Ken, if this is vs. a suit contract, with dummy void in the suit I can't think of any situation where it could ever really matter whether you throw the x or the y. If declarer has the remaining suit length, you'd never discard from the suit at all, if partner has the remaining length it wouldn't matter. & certainly taking tricks always takes precedence over signalling, so if you manage to find some situation where it does matter, just give the "wrong" signal. Present count comes into play more in NT contracts, where as I said unblocking & upside down present count conflict, when starting with 3 cds & returning partner's suit.

 

Quantumcat, that's interesting, I've never seen that cover before. I believe it is the same book as "How to Defend a Bridge Hand", just title changed for the UK.

[Stephen Tu]

I'm dealt ♥A86542, win the 1st ♥ with the ace and switch. When I later give count in the suit, I play the 2. Originally I held 6 cards in the suit, giving count from an even number I play the lowest.

 

So from what skaeran wrote, he, I, Miles, & Root are all recommend the same thing, & there is no disagreement. Skaeran is giving "upside-down original count", which works out exactly the same as standard, non-upside down present count (aka current count).

 

& it's all for the same basic reason, from 2 left you often have to play the highest, so you might as well make playing high congruent with the truthful signal.