Are Standard counts better?

[nielsfoged]

Probably, there are thorough comparative analyses of Standard counts vs. UDCA, and the observation below is likely to be just one among many examples of the skewness between the two agreements of which some will argue for the advantage of Standard counts, and probably(?) almost the same number will argue for UDCA. Still, as a UDCA-fan, the following example scared me:

 

Against a trump contract you lead the A in your long suit not having the K, but hoping to find partner with shortness. You are partially right, since your partner and declarer share 3 small between them, and they are either 2-1 or 1-2 (you get the trick!). Would you now prefer to play Standard counts or UDCA?

 

Say you are missing the T, 6 and 2. Then the following scenarios are relevant, if your agreement is Standard counts:

* If partner plays the 2, you know he has a singleton no matter what declarer plays.

* If partner plays the 6 (from 62 or 6), you know he has the singleton, if declarer plays the 2, and a well-prepared expert declarer will therefore always(!) play the T, thereby making your guess 50-50.

* If partner plays the T (from T6, T2, or T), your guess of him having a doubleton will be correct in 2/3 of the cases, no matter what declarer plays.

 

The scenarios are equal, if your agreement is UDCA. However, if your partner now plays the 6 (from T6 or 6), the well-prepared expert declarer must always play the 2 in order to make your guess 50-50.

 

It is my contention that in this example, the non-expert (or the unprepared expert) is more likely to play the same card as the well-prepared expert, if you play UDCA, than if you play Standard counts, simply because it is more frequent to play the 2 than the T from T2, when you do not know that this is a crucial choice. Of course, if declarer erroneously think he should play randomly in this situation, he will choose the wrong card ½ of the times, no matter whether you play Standard counts or UDCA, but I propose that it is more frequent for this declarer to play the 2 from T2 than the T. Do you agree?

 

I am not skipping UDCA just because of this example, but I am a little shaken. Anyone with examples that favor UDCA?

 

/Niels

 

PS: I think there is a rule for expert declarers to use the same signals as the opponents. That is: play your cards, as if you play their counts or their encouragements. In the situation described above: As declarer, you should play the T from T2, if it shows doubleton in opponents agreements, but 2 from T2, if their agrement is UDCA. If you have heard about that rule of thumb, too - do you have a reference?

 

PPS: In the above example, all statistics were a priori. When the guess is "purely" 50-50 (partner plays the 6, and declarer plays the right card), I believe it is probably more likely that partner has the doubleton, since declarer will typically have more trumps, and therefore less free space, than partner. Of course, if partner plays his card very fast, the situation is quite different...! ;)

[Free]

* If partner plays the T (from T6, T2, or T), your guess of him having a doubleton will be correct in 2/3 of the cases, no matter what declarer plays.

This is wrong, declarer will play a card as well. So name them T, X and Y, then when your partner plays the T and declarer plays the X, you'll be right in 1/2 of the cases since partner can only have T or TY.

 

The chances are the same whether you play standard or UDCA. However, many non-experts always play their highest card in this situation, which gives UDCA a small edge imo.

[nielsfoged]

This is wrong, declarer will play a card as well. So name them T, X and Y, then when your partner plays the T and declarer plays the X, you'll be right in 1/2 of the cases since partner can only have T or TY.

 

The chances are the same whether you play standard or UDCA. However, many non-experts always play their highest card in this situation, which gives UDCA a small edge imo.

 

I think this a restricted choice situation?

If partner has T and Declarer plays X from XY, he had a (50-50?) choice.

If partner has TY, then Declarer must play X (100%).

 

I know this argument works against the point of my example, that a non-expert (or an unprepared expert) will be less likely to play the correct T from T2, when we play the 6 and have the Standard count agreement, but...!

 

/Niels

[gwnn]

Many UDCA players lead high from doubletons (I believe almost every UDCA partnership in the US does this). The two are not mutually exclusive.

[nielsfoged]

Many UDCA players lead high from doubletons (I believe almost every UDCA partnership in the US does this). The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

I am not talking about leads, but counts. I don't think that many UDCA players play high from doubleton when partner leads the A, and they want to give count.

/Niels

[Free]

Why did you make this topic twice???

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/49119-are-standard-counts-better/

[rhm]

Nothing new.

There are scenarios where standard comes out ahead and there are scenarios where UDCA comes out ahead.

Some partnerships now start varying their method depending on some predefined circumstances.

A lot of effort for probably little gain

Your example is specific in that you have a ten card "fit" with dummy.

For example if you lead an AK suit and have an 8 card "fit" with dummy UDCA comes out ahead to find out whether partner had a doubleton and you can give him a ruff when a dumb declarer follows up the line.

 

Rainer Herrmann

[nielsfoged]

Why did you make this topic twice???

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/49119-are-standard-counts-better/

 

Ahhhh, sorry!

 

After having written the topic (too?) late last night, I looked for it this morning under "Advanced and Expert-Class bridge", and thought it was lost, since I couldn't find it. Thanks to your comment, I now see, I made it under General Discussions by mistake (or it was moved by the discussion board organizer?).

 

I appologize for the incovenience, and have now tried to stop the continuation of the thread under General Discussions.

 

However, please allow me to copy the two fine comments by Kenberg and Mbodell to here:

 

Kenberg wrote:

Reasoning along those lines, you should perhaps balance this against the number of players who

a. Know that when the 6 appears they should play the ten from ten-deuce against std but

b. Didn't bother to note that you are playing upside down.

So they play the ten and you get your ruff.

 

Maybe it depends on the game you are in.

 

Myself, I'm not a big fan of udca. I think I know the arguments, but there are counter-arguments and I am not convinced. Presumably I am wrong as udca is pretty much std among the experts.

 

Mbodell wrote:

There are some people who play standard count and upside down attitude, for this and other reasons. I also like playing standard attitude on discards (mainly because I discourage more than I encourage and like to pitch small cards).

 

Really, I don't think any one matters half so much as being on the same page as your partner about when are things attitude, when are they suit preference, and when are they count (and does attitude and suit preference direct partner or merely inform).

 

 

 

/Niels

[han]

I think many declarer's will play the 10 when the 2 is the right card, maybe more than those that play the 2 when the 10 is the right card. Maybe I play against the wrong declarers, but it seems to me that many will just "falsecard" without thinking about it too much.

[nielsfoged]

Nothing new.

There are scenarios where standard comes out ahead and there are scenarios where UDCA comes out ahead.

Some partnerships now start varying their method depending on some predefined circumstances.

A lot of effort for probably little gain

Your example is specific in that you have a ten card "fit" with dummy.

For example if you lead an AK suit and have an 8 card "fit" with dummy UDCA comes out ahead to find out whether partner had a doubleton and you can give him a ruff when a dumb declarer follows up the line.

 

Rainer Herrmann

 

Thanks Rainer

 

I like that example, though that is probably at least as rare as mine. For example, we lead the A from AKxxx, table has QJx and partner and declarer share T8642. If partner now plays the 4 (UDCA from T4, 84 or 64), and declarer wrongly just plays up the line with the 2 (from 862, T62 or T82), we know that partner has the doubleton (or four :( ). Again the proposed rule of thumb for declarer seems to work: use their count principle by playing the middle (or high) from three, when opponents play UDCA, but never low!

 

/Niels

[helene_t]

I propose that it is more frequent for this declarer to play the 2 from T2 than the T. Do you agree?

Not really (although of course it will be true for some declarers).

 

I saw a simple advice (aimed at intermediate players) in a Dutch magazine: As declarer you should play the same kind of attitude signals as the defenders! That will generally make it more difficult for the defenders to read their signals.

 

This may be too crude a guideline, but it works here: Holding T2 and not wanting the suit continued, declarer plays the T against udca defenders and the 2 against std defenders.

 

Declarers who have the habbit of droping an honour whenever they can afford and they want to pretend to have a singleton, would play T regardless of the defenders' signaling methods.

[Free]

I think this a restricted choice situation?

If partner has T and Declarer plays X from XY, he had a (50-50?) choice.

If partner has TY, then Declarer must play X (100%).

 

I know this argument works against the point of my example, that a non-expert (or an unprepared expert) will be less likely to play the correct T from T2, when we play the 6 and have the Standard count agreement, but...!

 

/Niels

Well yeah, restricted choice can apply, but how restricted is it really?

- Your average newbie will play the 2 each time, so if declarer plays the 6 you know partner has T2. If newbie plays the 2, then you have 50-50 chances of getting it right.

- Your average non-expert non-beginner will play the 6 all the time, out of habbit. Again, if he plays the 2 you know partner has T6, if he plays the 6 you have 50-50 of getting it right.

- Your expert player will probably randomize because 6 and 2 are of equal rank when partner plays the T. In that case restricted choice applies and you'll have 2/3 chance that partner has a doubleton, 1/3 that he has a singleton.

 

Btw, if you make the same analyses for UDCA against experts, you'll notice that partner having singleton T will be similar to SC singleton 2, partner with singleton 6 won't matter, and partner with singleton 2 will equal to SC singleton T. However, when not playing against experts, the case where partner holds singleton 6 will be clearer when playing UDCA.

[dake50]

Where are the sims guys? This seems a relatively

constrained situation as there are only a dozen

doubletons, a few dozen trips, bunches of 4-,5+ cases.

Get the ANSWER. Does UDCA beat old fashioned?

[Free]

Does UDCA beat old fashioned?

In theory: yes

In practice: no, perhaps a small edge.

[billw55]

In theory: yes

In practice: no, perhaps a small edge.

I count a small edge as a yes :)

 

I think encouraging with a low card inherently makes more sense. Logically, a high spot card is more likely to be of use in a suit you want led, than in a junk suit. IMO the only reason "standard" ever was standard is that in all trick taking/suit following games, it seems normal to follow with/discard your smallest card; and therefore, an unusually high card would get partner's attention. Basically, this method caters to the natural tendencies of novices. Higher level bridge can, and should, move beyond this basic instinct, and decide which method is best independent of habits.

[ArtK78]

Many years ago, there was an article in The Bridge World where a group of Martians arrived on Earth and immediately got involved in a bridge game. In the partnership between the author (a expert human bridge player) and one of the Martians, there was a misdefense because the human player gave standard count. The Martian player assumed UDCA as everyone in the galaxy knows that UDCA is superior to standard signals.

[stegenborg]

So we should do as the norwegians! Upside down attitude and standard count.

Call it UDA or perhaps UDAY.

[Free]

So we should do as the norwegians! Upside down attitude and standard count.

Call it UDA or perhaps UDAY.

I tried that, didn't work for me. The first time I lead the Ace against a suit contract partner played a small card. Is that encouraging (or doubleton, hoping to get a ruff) or discouraging (or showing an odd number of cards)? I prefer my encouraging/even signals the same.

[billw55]

I tried that, didn't work for me. The first time I lead the Ace against a suit contract partner played a small card. Is that encouraging (or doubleton, hoping to get a ruff) or discouraging (or showing an odd number of cards)? I prefer my encouraging/even signals the same.

My main partner also prefers low to encourage, but standard count.

 

There isn't really a conflict on doubletons. The primary signal is attitude - not count. Following with a higher card on trick two is just happenstance.

[mycroft]

I have played UDA/Right-side-up count. Free's question has been asked of me several times, and I give the same answer: "so what does the Ace ask for? Attitude or count?" And give the appropriate answer. The fact that "I like your lead" and "I have an even number" have the same parity is just a coincidence; "I like the lead *because* I have an even number" is "I like the lead"; "I like the lead because I have the Q and it's 4333 around the table" is "I like the lead"; even playing same-parity count, you can't tell which is which from my low card, can you?

 

I realize that if you're more a "tell the person what he needs to know" pair, that might be an issue. But I'm not good enough to know at trick 1 what partner needs to know, so I'd rather have an unambiguous, fixed (except for things like "obv. suit preference when they're ruffing the next one" and "count when dummy wins with an honour" - but even those are fixed, just complicated.) signal.

 

I did like the agreement I first read about from the Granovetters that says "On the lead that says AK, 'encourage' means 'cash'."

[kemperb]

In theory: yes

In practice: no, perhaps a small edge.

 

It seems to me that in theory, whatever declarer's best play is against standard carding, he can make the inverse play against upside down. There should be the same (mirrored) scenarios that win with one as with the other, so there should be no edge with either one.

 

I agree that in practice, declarer will tend to be prepared to card optimally against standard carding, and will thus be suboptimal against UDCA, giving it an edge.

[phil_20686]

It seems to me that in theory, whatever declarer's best play is against standard carding, he can make the inverse play against upside down. There should be the same (mirrored) scenarios that win with one as with the other, so there should be no edge with either one.

 

I agree that in practice, declarer will tend to be prepared to card optimally against standard carding, and will thus be suboptimal against UDCA, giving it an edge.

 

These situations are symettric, but there are others where it is not:

 

Partner leads the K from AK or AKQ and you have Qx/Jx - occasionally you want to preserve the J as an entry, to do this in std you must lie whereas it is auto in reverse.

 

You hold QTx and partner leads A or K, now you automatically unblock your pip while giving correct count.