Giving count (udca)

[bluecalm]

I was wondering what's the best method to give count using udca carding from 4 cards. There is often a problem on the first trick (but also to declarer play but this is rare) to distringuish xx from xxxx.

I tried to do simple analysis comparing 2 methods (pitching the lowest, pitching 2nd lowest from xxxx). Here is simple example:

 

Dummy --->>>>> QJ4

 

We-> AK532

 

We lead A and partner gives count (let's say it's obvious that he should give count or that it's our agreement).

His possible holdings are:

 

xx : 67, 68, 69, 6T, 78, 79, 7T, 89, 8T, 9T (10combos)

xxxx: 6789, 678T, 679T, 689T, 789T (5 combos)

 

1)Partner always pitches the lowest:

We will for sure now about xx seeing an 8 or a 9. Only 3 combos.

We also have a shot to know for sure if partner plays a 7 and declarer doesn't pitch the 6 but other card (possible 3 combos)

 

2)Partner always pitches the 2nd lowest:

Here comes the problems beacause it depends what declarer pitches.

We will know for sure seeing a 6 (4combos). We will also know for sure if partner pitches a 7 and declarer lazily plays a 6 (3combos). If partner pitches an 8 it again depends on what declarer plays (this time he needs to play a low card). 9 is again clear.

So overall we will instantly know about 4 possible doubletons and have a shot to know about 7 more if declarer doesn't falsecard correctly (against our method).

 

From this simple example it seems that pitching 2nd lowest from 4 cards is superior. Thoughts ?

Any other ideas about giving count signals using UDCA ? (I've heard about something like only playing the lowest from xx or xxxxx etc.).

 

Any comments appreciated :huh:

[hanp]

1)Partner always pitches the lowest:

We will for sure now about xx seeing an 8 or a 9. Only 3 combos

 

How do you know that it is xx and not xxx? the 8 could be from 876 and the 9 could be from 976, 986 or 987.

 

In general I'd say that partner can often guess between xx and xxxx and that you should make it as easy for partner as possible to read that you have an even number. That means playing the lowest from 4.

[Fluffy]

you should sometimes play highest from xxxx to make partner think you have 3 cards and there is no future here

[bluecalm]

How do you know that it is xx and not xxx? the 8 could be from 876 and the 9 could be from 976, 986 or 987.

 

Yeah sure. It can be. My problem is how to distinguish 2 from 4. There is no solution I believe to cases you gave. (edited and removed nonsense i wrote).

 

you should sometimes play highest from xxxx to make partner think you have 3 cards and there is no future here

 

Sometimes we need to know if another trick is cashing. Basically if declarer preempted or showed two suiter (9+cards overall) we give count to an A. Now the problem is how to give the count in most clear way. Unfortunately it's often difficult to say if declarer is say 5-3-1-4 or 5-1-3-4 because both layouts are plausible.

[manudude03]

I would occasionally play third from xxxx if I think the precise count is needed now and there is no chance of partner taking me for 3 (there shouldn't be). I'd play low if the precise count isn't immediately needed.

 

Similarly I would occasionally play second highest from xxxxx incase partner needs to distinguish between 3 and 5, though there is more margin for confusion here.

[jdonn]

I think you should play the (second?) highest from xxxx. I have seen too many times someone can't distinguish between xx and xxxx when the lowest is played, and xx tends to be the holding where you most often want to continue the suit so it's the one where you should do something differently from the others. I say just think of it as an attitude situation, with xxx or xxxx you are discouraging partner from continuing.

[bluecalm]

I think you should play the (second?) highest from xxxx

 

We play that way in most cases (low = please play K and next, usually xx, sometimes Qxx if we are sure it's the best defence) but in situations where declarer preempted or showed two suiter we feel count is more important most of the time.

Example hand :

 

[hv=d=s&v=n&n=sakq3h72dq942ct72&w=st82h54dakt3cq983]266|200|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

Biding goes :

4♥ - pass - pass - pass

 

We lead A♦. Now it's important to distinguish 3 and 4 as well as 2 and 4.

Solution of always dropping the highest (which is very good in other situations) just doesn't do it here I believe.

[nigel_k]

I think you should play the (second?) highest from xxxx. I have seen too many times someone can't distinguish between xx and xxxx when the lowest is played, and xx tends to be the holding where you most often want to continue the suit so it's the one where you should do something differently from the others. I say just think of it as an attitude situation, with xxx or xxxx you are discouraging partner from continuing.

I agree with this.

 

Strangely enough, I actually had an almost identical situation two nights ago. Partner had AKxx, dummy QJxx and me xxxx. I played a high one on the ace lead and he later tried to cash the king.

 

Playing high works when it's always right for partner to switch unless you have xx.

 

Playing low works when it's always right for him to continue (whether at trick two or later) unless you have xxxx and he is able to differentiate xx and xxxx, but not xxx and xxxx. And if he really does need to continue when you have xxx, setting up dummy's suit, then declarer probably has enough tricks anyway that it doesn't matter if he also continues when you have xxxx.

 

So I think that playing high with xxxx is right much more often. This was precisely what happened on the hand - declarer ruffed but had enough tricks regardless.

 

Another benefit is you normally show attitude on the ace so it isn't necessary for you both to agree on whether dummy's holding creates an exception on the particular hand.

[ArtK78]

I think you should play the (second?) highest from xxxx. I have seen too many times someone can't distinguish between xx and xxxx when the lowest is played, and xx tends to be the holding where you most often want to continue the suit so it's the one where you should do something differently from the others. I say just think of it as an attitude situation, with xxx or xxxx you are discouraging partner from continuing.

Assuming this is a suit contract, I consider this to be an attitude situation.

 

The only time it would be a count situation is if it is absolutely clear that we should be cashing out. It may not be possible to distinguish between 2 and 4, but that is life. If you don't play the lowest card from an original holding either 2 or 4, you may be able to distinguish between 2 and 4, but you may lose the ability to distinguish between 3 and 4 or 2 and 3.

 

By the way, the signalling method used should not be relevant to solving the problem. Only the types of problems encountered may be different.

[shevek]

I think you should play the (second?) highest from xxxx. I have seen too many times someone can't distinguish between xx and xxxx when the lowest is played, and xx tends to be the holding where you most often want to continue the suit so it's the one where you should do something differently from the others. I say just think of it as an attitude situation, with xxx or xxxx you are discouraging partner from continuing.

I agree with this.

 

Strangely enough, I actually had an almost identical situation two nights ago. Partner had AKxx, dummy QJxx and me xxxx. I played a high one on the ace lead and he later tried to cash the king.

 

Playing high works when it's always right for partner to switch unless you have xx.

 

Playing low works when it's always right for him to continue (whether at trick two or later) unless you have xxxx and he is able to differentiate xx and xxxx, but not xxx and xxxx. And if he really does need to continue when you have xxx, setting up dummy's suit, then declarer probably has enough tricks anyway that it doesn't matter if he also continues when you have xxxx.

 

So I think that playing high with xxxx is right much more often. This was precisely what happened on the hand - declarer ruffed but had enough tricks regardless.

 

Another benefit is you normally show attitude on the ace so it isn't necessary for you both to agree on whether dummy's holding creates an exception on the particular hand.

Tempo is an issue. I like to play pure count quickly and leave partner to guess. As the leader, I can read a slow high card as "I've got 4 of these & I've worked out it's okay if you think I've got 3."

It is often crucial to distinguish 3 from 4.

With AKxx looking at Qxx in dummy, it is often right to clear the suit when it's 4333. Maybe any switch is dangerous or the Q will become a late entry.

If partner has 4 small, a switch may be needed.

[gnasher]

Tempo is an issue. I like to play pure count quickly and leave partner to guess. As the leader, I can read a slow high card as "I've got 4 of these & I've worked out it's okay if you think I've got 3."

The answer to that is to make a habit of pausing before playing to trick one.

[shevek]

Tempo is an issue. I like to play pure count quickly and leave partner to guess. As the leader, I can read a slow high card as "I've got 4 of these & I've worked out it's okay if you think I've got 3."

The answer to that is to make a habit of pausing before playing to trick one.

and tricks 2, 3 etc

 

I hate when pd plays a quick 8 from 8-6-3 then spends ages working out suit preference next time.

A big gain for a count defence is in minimising tempo breaks. The guy with the thinking problem is the one leading to the next trick.

[nigel_k]

Aren't we choosing between pure attitude and pure count? Surely either can be done quickly. And if dummy's cards were different you might have Qxx where you need to choose between showing attitude and count while I am just showing attitude all the time.

[shevek]

Aren't we choosing between pure attitude and pure count? Surely either can be done quickly. And if dummy's cards were different you might have Qxx where you need to choose between showing attitude and count while I am just showing attitude all the time.

On ace leads, we give count if dummy has Qxx & attitude if dummy has xxx.

Problem with attitdue is the conflict between "I don't have what you need in this suit" and "whether or not I have what you need, I think you should switch". This latter style sometimes requires a deal of revealing thought.

Our attitude is a crude "equal honour signal, you go figure"

[Jlall]

Yeah just play attitude and not count here. Tell partner you don't want a ruff and then let him figure out what to do.

[Fluffy]

I feel dumb, I play attitude signals when partner leads Ace, but our only exception is to play count when dummy appears with the Queen.

 

We play stand count though, so with 4 cards we will play third wich might be 3 cards.

[gnasher]

I feel dumb, I play attitude signals when partner leads Ace, but our only exception is to play count when dummy appears with the Queen.

I do that too, and I don't feel dumb. If you make the same signal from three or four cards, you swap occasional ambiguity between 2 and 4 cards for frequent ambiguity between 3 and 4 cards.