offsuit signal

[inquiry]

Last night, I cleverly used an offsuit signal to help partner out. Partner didn't pick up on it, and when I asked about it after the session, he said "what the heck is are offsuit signals". I don't remember seeing it discussed in the forum so I wonder, how many people play them, and since my partner was rather experienced and never heard of them, I wonder how common they are?

 

An answer of "NO" means you know what they are, but do not play them.

[akhare]

Last night, I cleverly used an offsuit signal to help partner out. Partner didn't pick up on it, and when I asked about it after the session, he said "what the heck is are offsuit signals". I don't remember seeing it discussed in the forum so I wonder, how many people play them, and since my partner was rather experienced and never heard of them, I wonder how common they are?

 

An answer of "NO" means you know what they are, but do not play them.

 

My guess is that it's probably a method to signal parity in another suit by discarding, but an education will be greatly appreciated...

[Siegmund]

I wouldn't be surprised if I've heard of them or even experimented with them under another name -- but never heard the term before.

[mtvesuvius]

Never heard of 'em

[Tomi2]

my father once lead the 2 of hearts in the second trick, and later when I misdefended, because I did not know the count in clubs he told me, that he needed to play a heart but the small card he played was a count signal in clubs. I did not find tat out at the table, but I think it was a very good idea...

 

is that such a signal?

[mtvesuvius]

Is it similar to an off colour joke?

[inquiry]

Ok, at the time I am preparing this reply the vote is 9 = "what the heck" and none on yes or no's. So I guess this is a signal not used because forum members are quite knowledgeable as a group.

 

Offsuit signals was written up the Bridge World in the late 70's to early 90's. I don't remember the author, but it was one of those one or two page new idea kind of things they publish. The concept was that if dummy was pretty much unreachable, except in one suit, and your partner would NEED to know your count in that suit before the suit is lead, you signal "count" in that suit in other suit. It can be normal or UDC depending upon what you normally play. This is "partner needs to know" kind of signal. There were several restrictions on when you can use if. Obviously if you had to try to win an earlier trick, you can not signal (I can think of exceptions where you might try from a sequence but that is hard to read). I will thumb through the old bridge worlds later and see if I can find the article, but here is the hand from last night.... I will show dummy and my hand....

 

[hv=pc=n&n=s432h98dkqt65c764&e=sqj86hj3d8432ct83&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp2cp2d(promises%20some%20values)p4np5d(0%20or%203%20%22aces%22)p6hppp]266|200|Opening lead was the CLUB 9 (second best leads, so partner has one of A K Q or J since we hold the TEN)[/hv]

 

What does partner need to know, and how are you going to tell him.

 

This is where offsuit signals are used... they are RARE but when you need them, you need them.

[kenrexford]

Many years ago, I wrote up a thesis for myself, where I decided to male signals cater to what is needed rather than what a prior agreement said. One of the three basic signals (count attitude or suit preference) was shown at the critical point for the critical suit at that point, with whatever suit you happened to be playing.

 

This specific situation (show count in the critical suit by using whatever suit you are playing to show that count) was one of the examples. Another example was, for instance, what is effectively a Lavinthal discard of sorts, meaning showing suit preference between X and Y with whatever cards you happen to play, even if in suit Z. Smith Echo is another example.

 

I sent a write-up to the Bridge World, and they thought it was too difficult for the average partnership to handle. So, it died. I am pleased to see that one of these ideas was not all that new after all. I am also convinced that a more expansive defense theory, from which the "off suit signal" would be but one example (with situation-specific Smith and situation-specific Lavinthal and the like) of an approach that probably could be mastered by a really good partnership. The trick is to have both players capable of knowing what the critical question is, know when the critical question has arisen, and know that partner is on the same page. so, it should in theory work with two world-class defenders.

[inquiry]

Found it.. It was in March 1988 Bridge World. I messed up it's name, the article was entitled "Side-suit signals" and was by Jeferry Sapire.

 

This was the full hand. I played the Ten (standard signals) Declarer won the KING and lead the ♦Jack. My partner ducked, and that was that. My club ten was suppose to show even count in diamonds..... :(

 

 

 

 

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa5hakq7654djcakq&w=skt97ht2da87cj952&n=s432h98dkqt65c764&e=sqj86hj3d9432ct83]399|300[/hv]

[JLOGIC]

Yes a signal would have helped but your partners play is horrible. He played declarer to have driven to slam with not only Jx of diamonds but also another side suit loser.

[Phil]

I've discussed a similar idea before our idea was to use pips in trump to signal count in a 'side suit'. I think its difficult to try to craft a signal around when 3rd hand is just 'playing bridge', which could well be the case if we held ♣Qxx, although I agree it would be a good time to have this agreement.

 

I'm missing several years of the BW. Since I was married in March, '88, its not surprising I don't have this issue :)

 

Agree with Justin that your partner missed a baby inference.

[inquiry]

Yes a signal would have helped but your partners play is horrible. He played declarer to have driven to slam with not only Jx of diamonds but also another side suit loser.

 

I said he was rather experienced, I didn't say he was any good. He knows a lot of theory and terms, he not that good of a player. It was his not hearing about it and my realization that I haven't seen it here in the forum that lead me to ask about it. I actually thought he would know it, but that he would take the club ten as please continue them.

[whereagles]

I heard something about "prisma signals". Anyone got a link to that?

[Phil]

Prism signals are totally different than what Ben is discussing.

[gwnn]

http://prismsignals.com/PDFonline.pdf

[mtvesuvius]

http://prismsignals.com/PDFonline.pdf

Would never play them, I'm very simplistic on defensive signalling, but was a fun (and very interesting) read... Thanks.

[gwnn]

It would almost surely improve my defence since I'm sloppy with tracing all four suits, but I'm too lazy and not persuasive enough to convince anyone to play them. and I haven't played bridge in a while :)

[whereagles]

Prism signals are totally different than what Ben is discussing.

 

yeah I know. I was just too lazy to open a new topic :) (sorry ben)

 

and, thx gwnn

[whereagles]

hmmm... refraction, prisms, parity. Sounds like physics. Shd be fun :)

[gwnn]

If we ever form a partnership, we'll adopt prism signals and rule the world.

[fann4]

I wrote the article - It's interesting that 22 years after I wrote the article 'Side suit signals', discussion appears here. I'm working on some more complex variations of the signal now, but as it was originally postulated, it's not particularly difficult. The key factors are; 1) Dummy has a long dangerous suit with no side entry 2) It is clear to both defenders that if declarer plays this suit early, before a defender has managed to discard once or twice in the suit, then the defender with the Ace is going to have to commit himself before partner plays, THEN, so long as 3) a defender was not simply playing 3rd hand high initially, or 4) it is clearly not a case of attitude required in the led suit, THEN the player without the Ace will give a Side suit signal, using the same count method (standard or upside down, it matters not), and will signal count in the CRITICAL suit with the count card he plays in the played suit.

 

Jeff Rubens and the American Bridge World were happy with the term Side suit signal, so why change it to offsuit signal?

 

The example hand by Inquiry (post #9) is a great example. As it happens, it's not needed because declarer is not a lunatic, and can't have DJx. But one could change a few things, or the final contract, and then it would be critical for east to give partner the count of the diamond suit with his choice of card from the club suit.

[inquiry]

I wrote the article - It's interesting that 22 years after I wrote the article 'Side suit signals', discussion appears here. I'm working on some more complex variations of the signal now, but as it was originally postulated, it's not particularly difficult. The key factors are; 1) Dummy has a long dangerous suit with no side entry 2) It is clear to both defenders that if declarer plays this suit early, before a defender has managed to discard once or twice in the suit, then the defender with the Ace is going to have to commit himself before partner plays, THEN, so long as 3) a defender was not simply playing 3rd hand high initially, or 4) it is clearly not a case of attitude required in the led suit, THEN the player without the Ace will give a Side suit signal, using the same count method (standard or upside down, it matters not), and will signal count in the CRITICAL suit with the count card he plays in the played suit.

 

Jeff Rubens and the American Bridge World were happy with the term Side suit signal, so why change it to offsuit signal?

 

The example hand by Inquiry (post #9) is a great example. As it happens, it's not needed because declarer is not a lunatic, and can't have DJx. But one could change a few things, or the final contract, and then it would be critical for east to give partner the count of the diamond suit with his choice of card from the club suit.

 

I'm sorry. Some 20 plus years after reading the article, I didn't remember the name of the signal as you wrote it up. As you see, when I referred to the article, I got the name right. A rose by any other name, yada yada yada. I know side suit signals are easy to use, I have used them for years. This is a good addition to anyone's signalling scheme and quite easy to remember... even if the name was not... :(

[Tomi2]

[hv=pc=n&s=saqj942hj75djt2c8&w=s853hqt6dkq976ck5&n=st7h82d4caqjt9743&e=sk6hak943da853c62&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=3sp4sppp&p=dkd4d8d2h6h2hk]399|300|D8 suit pref = heart switch<br>H6 meant as ud count in clubs (we use udca)[/hv]

 

hope this works. This deal was played in the 2010 German Bridge Trophy, I was sitting east, our opps were Herbst-Herbst from Israel.

 

After I won the heart I could not read partners card and thought it would be the normal "count" in hearts, so I expected Q65 with partner and decl having 7330. I tried a small spade expecting decl to make 7 spade tricks, one ruff and club ace.

 

Partner tried to show his count in clubs in that trick, so I would know, that decl. has 1 club and partner Kx or xx. Since we play udca the small ♥6 shows even count in clubs... Returning a club and killing the dummy was the only chance to beat the contract.

 

I think this is even one step further than the situation some posts above, because partner did not signal, he lead the "suide-suit-signal"

 

edit: since my father never had a copy of BW in his hand this idea must have spread somehow to poland/germany. I was obv. also not reading BW when I was 5 years old ;)

[Siegmund]

I think there's a general understanding among partnerships-of-two-experts that "if you can clearly see there is one thing your partner needs to know, you make that answer available to him, and trust him to trust you to have done so." I've seen one or two hands of this type floating around in magazines before, but only ever had one partner who (on his best days) would have been up to the task of actually doing it.

 

Wish I could say I would have more use for this type of signal. But (even I sharpen up my own game enough to be alert for the possibility) think I am going to have a long wait before I need it.

[Lurpoa]

BridgeHands decribes Obvious Suit Preference Signal (http://www.bridgehands.com/O/Obvious_Suit_Preference.htm). They are similar, in the sense that an impossible signal, according the methos you use, is conveying an urgent fact, and that might be the count of dummy's suit.

 

.... Indeed easy to use... but much more difficult for partner to see :blink: