Signalling Idea

[kenrexford]

Back about 15 years ago or so, I played with a young man where our defensive agreement was "to provide the answer to partner's question." It seemed to work incredibly well in incredibly bizarre permutations.

 

So, maybe 8 years ago, I thought up a defensive signalling strategy that was a tad out there, apparently. The idea was rather simple to articulate but perhaps difficult to employ.

 

The idea. With the exception of multi-purpose signals (dislike this and like that; I have shortness and I can ruff), which sometimes are not really multi-purpose, and with the exception of exotic signals (three odds and an even), the three main signal types are:

 

(1) Count

(2) Attitude

(3) Suit Preference

 

The idea was that one of these three signalling types will answer a question. The question to be answered, in principle, should be known to both partners, if they can defend well. Each sees the dummy, sees his own hand, knows the contract, knows the scoring form, knows the auction, etc. Thus, it seems that the QUESTION should be known by both partners. Sure, there may be many questions, but the priority of importance or the imminence of importance of individual questions seems to be something that good partners can figure out.

 

As a simple example, consider a dummy with a running suit that lacks the Ace, with no side entries. One obvious question for the person with the Ace is how many times to duck. The person without the Ace "knows" to give count for his partner, as this is the obvious question.

 

Or, which suit to return. This is also an "obvious" question, and probably a clear priority question. Or, which suit to save. Or, if you can ruff. Whatever. There seems to often be an obvious question that is recognized as suich on both sides of the table. I know to signal, and he knows to look, or vice versa.

 

My idea was that the obvious priority one question, contextually determined, should be answered. If I signal, I answer that question. If I am seeking the answer, I look for that answer.

 

So far, rather simple. Next step. The answer will be in the form of a count, attitude, or suit preference. That seems easy enough as well. If the question is as to West's length in clubs, the answer is provided with a count signal. If the question is as to East's interest in diamonds, the answer should be attiitude. If the Question is East's preference between the red suits, the answer should be suit preference.

 

So far, rather simple.

 

The idea, however, was that the pip played answered the critical, priority, obvious question regardless of its suit. In other words, suppose that the obvious priority #1 question is how many clubs East has. West should not have to wait until Declarer plays clubs for East to signal his length in clubs. If the question is known to be the priority question at trick one, after a diamond lead, then East should use his diamond pips (if he can, obviously) to give count in clubs, not diamonds, because the diamond count is not the priority question.

 

A Smith Echo is sort of that principle applied as a rule. A smith Echo is an "attitude signal" played with pips in one suit but expressing attitude for another suit. It is also sort of a "suit preference" signal when two suitsare considered, but the point is that the signal jumps suits. So, why not jump suits for all three signals -- count, attitude, and suit preference?

 

A similar concept arises when you have a Lavinthal Discard. You use an available suit to send a signal with regard to suit preference.

 

The existing schemes of defensive signalling seem to establish rules for when you jump across the restrictions of suit. A Smith Echo, for instance, occurs in the opponents' suit. Well, why not a "Smith Discard" if you are void in the opponents' suit? If Smith makes sense when you can follow suit, why not when you discard because you cannot follow suit?

 

I understand the need for rules. Defense is extremely difficult as it is. That said, I wonder which would be superior in the long run, assuming extremely talented defense. The "Predefined Rules" approach has the advantage of lessened risk of miscommunication, although it certainly does occur. An "Answer the Question" approach, which relies upon the ability of both partners, with different information, to both correctly and confidently assess the priority question, seems more prone to error but conversely more flexible, and thus more capable of handling strange and undiscussed, or perhaps discussed but atypical, defense problems.

 

I proposed this idea many years ago, probably not the first to do so. I was then even more of a "who the Hell is that guy?" player, and thus not able to get much in the way of discussion started. Maybe it is a crackpot idea. However, something to think about.

 

This line of thinking, for what it is worth, developed one friend of mine into a better defender, in my opinion. We had a humorous example of what we called an "Embedded Smith Echo." (The word "embedded" was in the news a lot then.) The "Embedded Smith Echo" was essentially an attitude signal for the alternative. If partner made an opening lead that sucked, once dummy hit, and there was a glaring "wonder if that would have worked better" suit in dummy, then the Smith Echo was made with a change of "let's assume you made the right lead." Because that partner usually made horrifying leads, the Embedded Smith Echo came up more than the Smith Echo. :D We also used "Smith Discards" when void or when stiff or when forced to play the internal suits as you did. And, "Lavinthal Discards" when obviously, like pips in your long suit in a squeeze situation, etc.

 

This of course ended up being not so much a matter of "answer the question" as it was a matter of "expand the rules." But, it approached closer to the ideal. The "ideal," of course, being no "rules," just situational application of principles on a case-by-case basis.

 

So, insanity or intriguing???

[pclayton]

I've thought of a similar signal. I call it 'critical count'. Say there's a side suit in dummy in a trump contract where a critical decision will have to be made. Tonight I held the D AQ6xx over dummy's KT7xx. Pard led the J (I had made a lead director), King, Ace., 9. I shifted and I could not tell if declarer started with stiff 9 or 98 dub.

 

Declarer (incorrectly) drew trump. Wouldn't it be nice if pard's trump signal gives count in a side suit where the count is critical?

[helene_t]

I think this is a very good idea. In fact if I were to build on a serious partnership in the future I would suggest we go for something like this. Since I never understood standard defensive methods anyway I might as well start from scratch. And the way you explain it makes it make sense to someone like me, for whom bidding theory feels more naturaly comprehensive that defensive methods.

 

Tx for posting this, Ken, it's food for thoughts.

[ASkolnick]

While I do understand the principle you are looking for, to answer the question that is needed, I am not sure how you do it in practicality.

 

There will be many hands where more than 1 question will need to be answered and which one will take priority. I guess you can come up with a bunch of rules to indicate what is priority and what is not, but I am not sure you will be able to do everything. And once you do, my guess is you will be not much different than normal signals or the "obvious shift" principles.

 

For example, let's say you see a long running suit missing the Ace, you are not holding the Ace, but he doesn't want you to continue the suit, what does he do? Tell you not to continue, or tells you he doesn't have the Ace?

 

But, if you can figure it all out, more power to you. Unlike certain people in this forum, I am definitely open to new ideas even if they are differing from the "expert" norm.

[kenrexford]

The very idea of having more complicated rules is contrary to the theory but perhaps consistent with the spirit.

 

Obviously, implementation of the theory would require extremely gifted defenders and intuitively complementary defenders. As noted, the "priority" can sometimes be elusive. Further, it is often the case that two different answers might address the question, in a sense, and this is where difficulty seems greatest. As a simple example, consider that "obvious switch" principles and Smith often involve what could be viewed as an "attitude" signal that carries "suit preference" implications. This typically occurs when one suit has some sort of preference default and an alternative a preferential status as primary alternative, such that a negative attitude as to one suit is a positive for the other, which is akin to suit preference but with a weird twist.

 

Of course, these issues need worked out.

[dake50]

From How the experts win at bridge(book by ??) a chapter on 5 lines of defense, a signal to say 'wrong line -- try this' or here is where I help your intent. Old partner had a signal for what to do on 'right' defense. Eg started for a ruff, but both see that won't work. Now passive so lead D.

 

 

BUT how to give opponents 'full disclosure' without quite detailed notes on the non-rules? ? Heaven help any break in tempo suggesting THIS signal may be uber ordinary.

[gwnn]

intriguing but i think i'm too dumb to ever implement such a method

[helene_t]

That shouldn't be a problem to a phycisist, Csaba. If you implement the answer as a q-bit you can solve the problem without knowing the answer.

[dake50]

Another thought. Since partners are 'complementary styles' how close to a private understanding are you? ? I'm thinking of the old 'style' question: does knowing partner deviates (psyches) in this given situation constitute unauthorized info??

 

More, how do you defend this 'style' on appeal without documented 'non-rules'?

[Codo]

We had been there before.

 

We agreed count and needed OS. We agreed pos/neg. and needed count.

 

There is no perfect solution.

 

But your sysdtem isn´t either.

 

Your system has the following disadvantages:

1. You must be on the same wavelength in not clear situations.

F.e. Bidding 1 NT 3 NT

 

PD leads the King of Spade and you see in dummy:

 

Jx, xxxx,KQJxxx,A

 

What is your signal? Do you show/deny the ace of Diamond? Do you show/deny the ace or ten of spade? Do you show your length?

 

You of course play the eight, declarer ducks.

What shall pd continue?

Was the 8: Great, continue spades, I have the ace we can cash out?

Or: I have the diamonds stopped, no problem, continue spades?

Or: I have the diamonds stopped, but please play club to take the entry away?

 

And how do you explain this to the opponents? They ask about the 8 and you say: He has or hasn´t the ace of spade and he has or has not the ace of diamonds?

 

will find rules to make this easy, but I doubt that this will improve your method.

 

2. You need a lot of brain work and memory for this which may be more useful in other areas.

 

3. There are solutions for some of the problems you named. Every pair has its lists of signals:

F.E. 1. priority attitude but with a long suit in dummy count and with a singelton in dummy suit preference. And if you lead the ace I give you att. but count if you lead a king. This is far from idle, but good enough (With a little deeper discussions) for most experts I played with/against or watched.

 

4. There IS an UI problem like with italian signals. There are problem hands where the tempo in which you signal has a significant information for your pd.