blackshoe Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Maybe I should try to learn Vinge again. Last time I read the book I decided it was too complicated. :lol: Nah. I doubt I could convince anybody else to try it anyway. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Does anyone have experience with Slavinski leads (played by Fantoni and Nunes)? Yes -- pard and I really like them. However, for spot cards we use the approach recommended in original book: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~forster/bridge/development/slawinski/ From what I recall F-N combine the parity count in case of spot leads as well (something that was a foot note in the book). IMO, it works very well in conjunction with obvious shift... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurpoa Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 I assume you are referring to North America because in continental Europe (except France) udca is "standard". As far as NA is concerned I believe that most top pairs play udca too. At least that's my impression from watching numerous vugraph broadcasts. As to Rusinow and attitude, it's a bit more complex than choosing between "standard" and udca carding. The latter is simply the reverse of "standard" whereas Rusinow and attitude have more added to it and therefore more difficult to remember. Roland ♥♥♥With all due respect....and I know you have seen much, much more than me...."UDCA, Standard in Europe" is an overstament. Besides, there is no reason they should be... Some experts use them, but at least as many, and more, do not use them. As for those special lead agreements... They are definitively superior.... but really needs expert partnerships to take full advantage of their use.♥♥♥ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 Yes -- pard and I really like them. However, for spot cards we use the approach recommended in original book: http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~forster/bridge/development/slawinski/ From what I recall F-N combine the parity count in case of spot leads as well (something that was a foot note in the book). IMO, it works very well in conjunction with obvious shift...Wow finally an answer, after almost 3 years! :P By now I also play combine leads, but leading with small cards is still 3/5. Is it worth to change that to Slawinski as well? Note: still nobody who has page 39? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 Wow finally an answer, after almost 3 years! :P By now I also play combine leads, but leading with small cards is still 3/5. Is it worth to change that to Slawinski as well? Note: still nobody who has page 39?I think so -- pre-alerting "we lead low from doubletons against suits" alone is worth price of admission B-)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 <Removed duplicated post> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 I'm not a fan of the spot-card leads Slawinski advocates. His analysis, that "proves" that they are best, ignores that not all spots are created equal - in isolation, you'd rather not lead the nine or ten from low cards or from Hh9x. I've been playing odd-even mixed leads [lowest even card from an even number of cards without an honour or an odd number of cards headed by an honour; without a pip of the right parity, we lead our highest pip]. I wouldn't swear that it's better or worse than other methods, but it's good fun trying to explain it to oppo. It is strictly superior to Fantunes leads, as, on average, the same information is transmitted, but we burn fewer high spot cards. At about the same time, we changed our honour leads vs NT - A from AKK for unblock/count Rusinow from four or more cards, standard from three or fewer [but Q from KQx]. This one I am a big fan of, there have been no situations that I remember where we've had to guess whether partner has led from JTx or QJTx. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 I've been playing odd-even mixed leads [lowest even card from an even number of cards without an honour or an odd number of cards headed by an honour; without a pip of the right parity, we lead our highest pip]. I wouldn't swear that it's better or worse than other methods, but it's good fun trying to explain it to oppo. I always wanted to try this out -- does this require time to process in third seat based on dummy's holding and the bidding or is there a shortcut? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhare Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 I've been playing odd-even mixed leads [lowest even card from an even number of cards without an honour or an odd number of cards headed by an honour; without a pip of the right parity, we lead our highest pip]. I wouldn't swear that it's better or worse than other methods, but it's good fun trying to explain it to oppo. I always wanted to try this out -- does this require time to process in third seat based on dummy's holding and the bidding or is there a shortcut? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickyB Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 If you can easily tell whether partner's card is supposed to be "odd" or "even", it's usually best to start by assuming partner has led from an honour. If you can't easily tell then it can take a bit longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.