udca

[barmar]

I also believe that it applies to discards. Unless you've agreed to a conventional discard system like Lavinthal or Odd-Even, why shouldn't it? It seems like an obvious application of the general logic that resulted in UDCA in the first place: when you're showing attitude, you don't want to waste high cards in an important suit. Shouldn't this reasoning apply just as well when you're discarding as when you're following suit?

[awm]

Agree with Brianshark. Basically:

 

UDCA means that any time my play indicates attitude about the suit I am playing, a small card will indicate positive attitude and a high card negative attitude. Any time my play indicates count in the suit I am playing, a small card will indicate even count and a high card odd count.

 

Obviously, there are many situations where the card I play is not primarily a signal, for example if I am trying to win the trick, or I am leading a suit, or it's late in the hand and I'm not signaling, or I'm intentionally falsecarding to mislead declarer.

 

There are also situations where the card I play is a signal, but does not indicate attitude or count in the suit of the card I play. These situations can include giving suit preference when partner leads the ace of dummy's singleton suit, or discards in some situations, or smith echo if we play smith echo.

 

However, if my general agreement is UDCA, then the presumption is that I will never use a high card in a suit to encourage that suit, or play a high card in a suit specifically to give even count. If you combine UDCA with "attitude discards" (attitude discards are the standard discard agreement where pitching a card in a particular suit gives only attitude about that suit, as opposed to for example lavinthal discards which give suit preference about other suits, or odd/even discards which signal based on parity), then it is presumed that like all other situations where the play of a card indicates attitude about the suit in which the card is played, that low will encourage and high discourage.

[barmar]

I think Adam has summarized it perfectly.

 

One point that I don't think has been mentioned, though: UDCA does not apply when you're leading. In particular, when leading a doubleton, you still lead high-low. There are some partnerships that agree to lead low from two small, but this is a special agreement, not a consequence of UDCA (I'm not really sure what their reason for this agreement is -- I think it may just be to be confusing, like the pairs who play upside-down suit preference).

[awm]

I think Adam has summarized it perfectly.

 

One point that I don't think has been mentioned, though: UDCA does not apply when you're leading. In particular, when leading a doubleton, you still lead high-low. There are some partnerships that agree to lead low from two small, but this is a special agreement, not a consequence of UDCA (I'm not really sure what their reason for this agreement is -- I think it may just be to be confusing, like the pairs who play upside-down suit preference).

I've played this agreement before. The basic intention is to play attitude leads, where you lead high in a suit you don't want returned and low in a suit you want returned. Since a doubleton lead is normally one you want returned, you lead low.

 

Another way to view this agreement is that if you frequently lead from three or four small cards, it's nice to be able to distinguish that lead from a lead from doubleton or a lead from strength. Standard lead agreements don't do a good job of this (fourth best is particularly bad, leading the same card from 542 and KT82). People have come up with methods like MUD for this, but they tend not to help partner much (who sees the high card lead and thinks it's doubleton until after he has mistakenly continued the suit).

[Walddk]

There are some partnerships that agree to lead low from two small, but this is a special agreement, not a consequence of UDCA (I'm not really sure what their reason for this agreement is -- I think it may just be to be confusing, like the pairs who play upside-down suit preference).

Wrong. The reason for this agreement is that by leading low from two and four small and high from three is that you now lead the same way you give count (playing UDC).

 

72

762

 

You lead the deuce and the 7 respectively, just like when you give count. 2 followed by 7 = even number of cards, 7 followed by a smaller = odd number of cards.

 

This makes a lot of sense and is also easy to remember. I don't mind leading high from a doubleton if that is our agreement, but there is nothing that suggests that one method is better than the other.

 

As pointed out by a few, this has nothing to do with UDCA. It's a leading style as per agreement.

 

Roland

[jdonn]

There are some partnerships that agree to lead low from two small, but this is a special agreement, not a consequence of UDCA (I'm not really sure what their reason for this agreement is -- I think it may just be to be confusing, like the pairs who play upside-down suit preference).

Wrong. The reason for this agreement is that by leading low from two and four small and high from three is that you now lead the same way you give count (playing UDC).

 

72

762

 

You lead the deuce and the 7 respectively, just like when you give count. 2 followed by 7 = even number of cards, 7 followed by a smaller = odd number of cards.

 

This makes a lot of sense and is also easy to remember. I don't mind leading high from a doubleton if that is our agreement, but there is nothing that suggests that one method is better than the other.

Admittedly I have never played it. But my thought was always that you still have to lead high from honor doubleton to avoid blocking suits, so at some point there is a cut-off (maybe it's Tx or 9x?). It seems this could lead to problems. Like do you lead the T from Tx and Txx? Or do you lead low from 9x and find partner with AQJTx and king in dummy (yes I realize this can also happen if you lead low from 9xx like I would, but somehow it seems more important from a doubleton.)

[Walddk]

There are some partnerships that agree to lead low from two small, but this is a special agreement, not a consequence of UDCA (I'm not really sure what their reason for this agreement is -- I think it may just be to be confusing, like the pairs who play upside-down suit preference).

Wrong. The reason for this agreement is that by leading low from two and four small and high from three is that you now lead the same way you give count (playing UDC).

 

72

762

 

You lead the deuce and the 7 respectively, just like when you give count. 2 followed by 7 = even number of cards, 7 followed by a smaller = odd number of cards.

 

This makes a lot of sense and is also easy to remember. I don't mind leading high from a doubleton if that is our agreement, but there is nothing that suggests that one method is better than the other.

Admittedly I have never played it. But my thought was always that you still have to lead high from honor doubleton to avoid blocking suits, so at some point there is a cut-off (maybe it's Tx or 9x?). It seems this could lead to problems. Like do you lead the T from Tx and Txx? Or do you lead low from 9x and find partner with AQJTx and king in dummy (yes I realize this can also happen if you lead low from 9xx like I would, but somehow it seems more important from a doubleton.)

High from Hx (T included), yes. Low from any other doubleton unless the auction suggests that it may be better to lead high from 9x, particularly against notrumps. You don't stop playing bridge just because you have agreements.

 

Regarding Txx it's normal procedure to lead the T from T9x and middle from Txx. I have played that method in most of my regular partnerships when I was younger, but I need to add that I also led 4th then. I don't any more if I have a say. I much prefer 3rd and 5th, also vs NT.

 

Speaking of "playing bridge", I assume that no one playing 3rd would lead the 9 from KJ93 or even KJ83. Yes, your agreement is 3rd but certainly not if it can cost a trick. That's what I mean by "you don't stop playing bridge".

 

Roland

[jdonn]

High from Hx (T included), yes. Low from any other doubleton unless the auction suggests that it may be better to lead high from 9x, particularly against notrumps. You don't stop playing bridge just because you have agreements.

 

Regarding Txx it's normal procedure to lead the T from T9x and middle from Txx. I have played that method in most of my regular partnerships when I was younger, but I need to add that I also led 4th then. I don't any more if I have a say. I much prefer 3rd and 5th, also vs NT.

 

Speaking of "playing bridge", I assume that no one playing 3rd would lead the 9 from KJ93 or even KJ83. Yes, your agreement is 3rd but certainly not if it can cost a trick. That's what I mean by "you don't stop playing bridge".

 

Roland

I understand, it's all fair enough. I'm sure I would feel differently if I tried it, after all a number of better players than I am use this method, although I can't help but feel it's largely due to regional familiarity more than technical superiority. After all you could easily reverse the procedure, leading high from even numbers low from odd numbers, thereby maintaining the same advantage of distinguishing even and odd holdings but without leading differently from different doubletons. This is the same as playing 3/5 leads, but from something like K752 you lead the 7 not the 5, which is an improvement over 3/5 leads IMO.

 

I have always led 9 from KJ9x and 8 from KJ8x, as does everyone I have ever met who plays 3/5 leads to my knowledge, with the exception if they try the jack sometimes. And expect I always will B)

[Walddk]

I have always led 9 from KJ9x and 8 from KJ8x, as does everyone I have ever met who plays 3/5 leads to my knowledge, with the exception if they try the jack sometimes. And expect I always will B)

I congratulate you and am very impressed if you select the jack when leading blindly and find this layout:

 

[hv=n=sa62&w=sq85&e=s1074&s=skj93]399|300|[/hv]

A surrounding play on opening lead. Wow, great stuff, Josh B)

 

Roland

[jdonn]

I have always led 9 from KJ9x and 8 from KJ8x, as does everyone I have ever met who plays 3/5 leads to my knowledge, with the exception if they try the jack sometimes. And expect I always will :)

I congratulate you and am very impressed if you select the jack when leading blindly and find this layout:

 

[hv=n=sa62&w=sq85&e=s1074&s=skj93]399|300|[/hv]

A surrounding play on opening lead. Wow, great stuff, Josh B)

 

Roland

Kranyak did at least once, on opening lead, in a national event. It was published in a bulletin at a relatively recent NABC. Please don't make me remember which one and find it B) I have never done that one in particular, although I did once lead A from AJxx and find QTx in dummy and Kxxx with partner, leading to an inevitable misguess and a sad declarer. Not sure why I did that, I'm pretty lucky I guess :)

[pclayton]

I have always led 9 from KJ9x and 8 from KJ8x, as does everyone I have ever met who plays 3/5 leads to my knowledge, with the exception if they try the jack sometimes. And expect I always will :)

I congratulate you and am very impressed if you select the jack when leading blindly and find this layout:

 

[hv=n=sa62&w=sq85&e=s1074&s=skj93]399|300|[/hv]

A surrounding play on opening lead. Wow, great stuff, Josh ;)

 

Roland

Kranyak did at least once, on opening lead, in a national event. It was published in a bulletin at a relatively recent NABC. Please don't make me remember which one and find it :blink: I have never done that one in particular, although I did once lead A from AJxx and find QTx in dummy and Kxxx with partner, leading to an inevitable misguess and a sad declarer. Not sure why I did that, I'm pretty lucky I guess :)

It was in Dallas.

 

I held the hand from from the other direction and had the chance to shift to the suit at T2.

[Walddk]

I have always led 9 from KJ9x and 8 from KJ8x, as does everyone I have ever met who plays 3/5 leads to my knowledge

In that case you blow a trick on a layout like this:

 

[hv=n=sq5&w=s742&e=sa1086&s=skj93]399|300|[/hv]

 

Now declarer (East) can develop a second trick if you lead the 9. He can't if you lead the 3. There are other examples where leading the 9 (and the 8 occasionally) may turn out to be costly.

 

Roland

[jdonn]

I have always led 9 from KJ9x and 8 from KJ8x, as does everyone I have ever met who plays 3/5 leads to my knowledge

In that case you blow a trick on a layout like this:

 

[hv=n=sq5&w=s742&e=sa1086&s=skj93]399|300|[/hv]

 

Now declarer (East) can develop a second trick if you lead the 9. He can't if you lead the 3. There are other examples where leading the 9 (and the 8 occasionally) may turn out to be costly.

 

Roland

I agree, I would never deny that. But of course it can be costly to mislead partner to your length as well, especially in a situation that usually breaks even. For example, even in the layout you propose the 4th round is very often irrelevent in a suit contract.

 

Anyway all I'm stating is an observation. Living in an area where virtually everyone leads 3/5 against suit contract, the day I meet the person who leads the 3 from KJ93 will be the first.

 

One more thought though:

 

[hv=n=sq5&w=s742&e=sa1086&s=skj93]399|300|[/hv]

If declarer were able to figure out to play low on the small card lead, that would cost a trick as opposed to the 9. I know I know he wouldn't really do that, but regardless these things can work both ways.

[ceeb]

Anyway all I'm stating is an observation. Living in an area where virtually everyone leads 3/5 against suit contract, the day I meet the person who leads the 3 from KJ93 will be the first.

When playing 3/5 I have always led 3 from KJ93. I consider it a routine application of the principle that you don't signal with a card you can't afford.

 

Good to meet you (and to be met).

 

Charles