question about UDCA

[Finch]

Well, we really want partner to play another high club if declarer isn't ruffing because he will discard a club on a heart we can ruff but this is at the cost of our natural trump trick.

So partner really needs to read club count here. I think situations like that are frequent. I also prefer to play "just attitude, low = play two more rounds o clubs, high = don't do it" but here it should clear that cashing a club is vital play if declarer has more than one.

I mean it is difficult question about best agreements and not what to do in practice playing in pickup partnership.

 

I think you are getting the answer about 'best agreements', which is that no-one replying to this thread plays 'attitude unless partner wants count'

You can see two trump tricks, and you know partner needs to cash out. However, partner doesn't know that. Suppose partner's hand is

 

xx

xxxx

KJxx

AKJ

 

 

From his point of view, declarer could have either

 

AQJ109x

Qxx

xx

xx

 

(when a diamond switch is necessary to beat the contract)

 

or

 

AKQ10xx

x

xx

10xxx

 

(when it's necessary to give you a club ruff)

 

 

I'm not going to comment on whether or not we are a 'top partnership' but we spend a lot of time discussing signalling (and I mean about as much as we do discussing uncontested auctions), and the one thing we don't do is play any form of 'attitude unless partner wants count'; we stick to an agreement about when we give attitude and when we give count (and when we give suit preference) based on objective rules. In fact most of our discussions lately are about (i) suit preference vs attitude positions late in the play and (ii) when a switch should be attitude and when it should be count. (Although JLOGIC's thread on 3NT spawned a long discussion about whether to give or attitude at trick one when dummy has Kx defending 3NT, which we still haven't resolved.)

[CSGibson]

My own agreements solve this particular problem, though it does have problems in other situations.

 

In my partnership, we lead high from an even number, and Rusinow from an odd number. Here, the lead of an ace would indicate a 2 or 4 card suit, and I'm going to play my highest club to discourage partner from trying to cash another from a 4 card suit.

 

In general, if you play this as a count situation, you should play your lowest card from 4 and the highest card you can afford from 3. Playing the 3 would deny the 2 for me from an even number, and my partner would be sure to play me for a doubleton; likewise, if I had 3, playing the 6 would deny the 7 if I had an odd number.

 

If it is an attitude situation, play the highest you can afford if you want to discourage, and the lowest you can afford to encourage.

 

We would play this as an attitude situation (with obvious shift implications), but that's an area of partnership agreement, so I don't imagine there is going to be a useful consensus.

[bluecalm]

I'm not going to comment on whether or not we are a 'top partnership' but we spend a lot of time discussing signalling (and I mean about as much as we do discussing uncontested auctions)

 

So do you play attitude or count here ?

We discussed it and generic rule for us seems to be "if declarer showed a lot of cards in side suits in the bidding then we give count, otherwise attitude". This for sure apply after 3level preempts and 2 suiter openers. I am not sure about 2level openings.

Do you care to share your thoughts on this exact situation ? (I mean, what signal would you give here ?)

[Finch]

As a general rule, if partner led the ace I would give attitude and hence would discourage. Partner will at least be aware of the potential for us to have two trump tricks and hence the need to cash out.

If I could work out that it must be right for partner to continue clubs, of course I would encourage, but everyone plays that if you know how to direct the defence, then you do so.

 

I don't have a signal to say 'please continue clubs if you have only 3 but switch if you have 4'

Although I would expect partner to be more likely to lead the king, asking for count, from AKJ10 or AKJx, so perhaps I would gamble on partner having only 3 of them and encourage.

[gnasher]

I normally play that the ace asks for atttude, but if dummy has Qxx(x) we switch to count. On this deal, therefore, I'd show an even number and hope partner could work it out.

 

 

As I understand it, one of the things you want to be able to do is to make a three-way distinction between xx, xxx and xxxx. You can only do this by sacrificing some certainty compared with a binary signal, but it may be worth it.

 

Suppose, for example, that you agreed to signal xX, Xxx, xxXx. If declarer hid a low spot card, he could make xxx look like xxxx, or xx look like xxxx. By playing a low spot card, he could make xxxx look more like xx. However, one advantage to these signals is that it's quite hard for declarer to work out what the correct card to play is, as it seems to depend on how many cards you're trying to show.

[bluecalm]

Suppose, for example, that you agreed to signal xX, Xxx, xxXx. If declarer hid a low spot card, he could make xxx look like xxxx, or xx look like xxxx. By playing a low spot card, he could make xxxx look more like xx. However, one advantage to these signals is that it's quite hard for declarer to work out what the correct card to play is, as it seems to depend on how many cards you're trying to show.

 

Yeah, this is exactly my point.

Maybe for example xXxx, Xxx, xX is more readable in most situations than xxxX, Xxx, xX. I was hoping someone could offer some insight/analysis of that because I don't really know how to start thinking about it to arrive at some useful conclusions.

[Tomi2]

I play count singlas in nearly every spot and UDCA and obviously i play the smallest here. partner can read this as two or 4, no agreement is perfect. but once i play a small spot but not the smallest one he knows i have two cards only. if i play a relatively high one he must find out if its Xxx or xX and if I play the highest one he knows its 3 cards. I really hate "encouraging" with two small. if partner has the count on the hand he should be able to work out, If I get a ruff. I can't imagine playing the same card from xxx and xxxx and sometimes "falsecard" from xx to make partner find a switch. and on the other hand to play the same card from xx Qxx qxxx etc.

 

the xx xxxx problem gets solved a bit in the next round if partner decides to cash the king, i play my next lowest spot. so anytime i have not played the two lowest spots i have started with a doubleton. so 23 sec and 98 sec are kinda the most difficult holding for this method regarding the correct count

[dake50]

This is an argument that I don't understand.

 

If one was playing standard carding, what card would one play?

 

To me, the question is "Is this an attitude or count situation?" I believe it is an attitude situation, and I don't want partner to continue clubs, so (playing UDCA) I play the highest one that I can afford to play - the 7. If I were playing standard carding, it would still be an attitude situation, so I would play the 2.

 

There are many reasons why UDCA is superior to standard carding. The most obvious is when you discourage, the high card that you use to discourage is likely to be a card you can afford to play; however, if you were playing standard carding, a high card that you would have to play to encourage might not be a card you could afford to play.

 

As for unblocking plays, they tend to be obvious to all concerned.

 

 

*** Can this discussion even exist if this 20 year old

*** "UDCA is best" were correct and documented/demonstrated?

*** If it's best these were shown better long ago.

*** This situation would long ago have been resolved in "UDCA is best".

*** That hasn't happened. This discussion is asking "what is best?"

*** UDCA proponents are, by me, simply asked to show.

*** Not appeal to experts do it. Not 10x drops 10 to discourage.

*** Not one pet case, but a spectrum of better than.

*** I haven't seen that. Show me.

[bluecalm]

One example of agreement of this kind:

When you are discarding and want to encourage from Hxxxx we play 4th, not 5th. This way partner instantly knows when we have Hxxx if he sees the lowest spot and from 5 count will often clear too quite fast.

So while it is attitude situation for us, we don't play the lowest to encourage from every holding.

It seems the idea is completely alien to some people here :)

 

the xx xxxx problem gets solved a bit in the next round if partner decides to cash the king, i play my next lowest spot. so anytime i have not played the two lowest spots i have started with a doubleton. so 23 sec and 98 sec are kinda the most difficult holding for this method regarding the correct count

 

Yeah, I think it's quite reasonable agreement. I have know idea if it's best though, it well might be. At least it' doesn't require much mental effort to analyze possible spot holdings.

[fluff]

We play UDCA but with some exceptions, as recommended by Kit Woolsey. So, after partner leads A from AK and there is a threat in dummy, Qxx(x) or singleton, third hand plays suit preference.

 

so here we would play the lowest club, inviting partner to switch diamond.

[bluecalm]

So, after partner leads A from AK and there is a threat in dummy, Qxx(x) or singleton, third hand plays suit preference.

 

So how do you manage to ruff a club if opening leader has AKxx and declarer xxx ?

[TWO4BRIDGE]

We play UDCA but with some exceptions, as recommended by Kit Woolsey. So, after partner leads A from AK and there is a threat in dummy, Qxx(x) or singleton, third hand plays suit preference.

 

So, here we would play the lowest club, inviting partner to switch diamond.

 

If Attitude and Count are unnecessary ( as understood from your explanation above ), then it doesn't matter if you are playing UDCA or Standard to give Suit Preference-- it would be the same card signal.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As for OP's original question, there is NO way to distinguish between 2 or 4 cards ( if you are giving Count ) on the 1st lead when You and Dummy both have 4 cards each and you don't know if partner is leading from 4 cards. [ This has been stated earlier ] .

 

EDIT: not only has this same question been asked over and over on these forums for the past 10+ years, it also has been asked -- and not resolved -- on at least another message board ( according to my files ) .

Edited March 23, 2013 by TWO4BRIDGE

[jogs]

As far as I know, no-one has invented a legal method of telling partner whether you have xx or xxxx, regardless of signalling agreements.

 

In real life, some players will inadvertently or deliberately 'help' partner by hestitating with 4 and playing quickly with 2.

 

 

I solved that problem years ago. Behind dummy always wait at least 30 seconds

(after dummy is shown) before playing to trick one. Wait the 30 seconds even

when you hold a singleton in the suit.

[DougN]

 

 

There are many reasons why UDCA is superior to standard carding.

Partner leads the A (or K if you prefer), what card do

you play if UDCA is agreed?

 

.........765

AK84.........J102

.........Q93

 

Is there a similar counterexample for natural count and attitude

where you have a card suitable for both signals (ie not J109 or J32)?

[Cascade]

I solved that problem years ago. Behind dummy always wait at least 30 seconds

(after dummy is shown) before playing to trick one. Wait the 30 seconds even

when you hold a singleton in the suit.

 

This seems illegal to me and is likely to deceive a declarer who does not know of your habit and you could have known that was the case so I would hope that you would be ruled against when declarer is deceived.

[billw55]

This seems illegal to me and is likely to deceive a declarer who does not know of your habit and you could have known that was the case so I would hope that you would be ruled against when declarer is deceived.

Easily solved. With unfamiliar ops, disclose before play starts. "I always pause at trick one." Then do it.