Pedantic

[Vampyr]

Actually, it's more common sense than Occam's Razor. An agreement that the only encouraging card is the 3 is silly. Playing odd/even discards you frequently don't have an appropriate card; this problem is magnified several times when there are only 4 encouraging cards in the entire deck.

 

I don't think that David meant that the method was playable; I don't think he intended to suggest that "only 3's are encouraging" be taken literally at all. He was just demonstrating one of the problems with explaining a card according to what you think it is rather than what your agreements are. He exaggerated for effect and I think everyone understood what he was getting at.

 

The title of the thread is not an instruction on how to post. Honestly...

[bluejak]

Vampyr is correct. But in case there are other people who do not understand the point I was trying to make, let me clarify.

 

When partner plays the ♥3 it is clear misinformation to say "That is encouraging". Opponents have a right to know what you play, and how you make deductions, and even what you are going to do with problem hands.

 

Sure, I was exaggerating. But an opponent has a right to know whether a three is encouraging becuase

 

• odd cards are encouraging, or
  
• low cards are encouraging, or
  
• 3s, 7s and 9s are encouraging [and 4s and 5s are neutral], or
  
• odd cards are encouraging, but low odd cards more so, or
  
• the higher on this list it is, the more encouraging: 3 5 8 2 T 6 7 9 4
  

I was interested in Burn's description of Roman, aka Odd/even: I play odd encouraging, even discouraging plus Lavinthal. But I play [and we tell opponents] that the lower odd card, the more encouraging, so a 7 might be encouraging because it is my only odd card, but if followed by a 3, it is less encouraging.

 

Opponents have a right to make their own deductions, so telling opponents a card is encouraging is not good enough.

 

Where does Occam's Razor come into it?

[AlexJonson]

If you provide the opponents with an SC and it has your card play agreements, why should you have to talk about those agreements.

[blackshoe]

If you provide the opponents with an SC and it has your card play agreements, why should you have to talk about those agreements.

Because when you tell the opponents "it's on the card" you will get, as I once did, a supercilious "I don't look at convention cards, I ask questions". Aside from that there isn't room on most cards to completely explain everything about your carding agreements, particularly the nuances to which David referred.

[Chris3875]

Sorry - being Down Under I got my Easts and Wests mixed up - it was WEST who had the singleton 3. After reading all the posts I am wondering if "Our agreement is that the 3 of hearts (an ODD card) is normally encouraging for that suit" would be the simplest answer to the query ?

[Vampyr]

Sorry - being Down Under I got my Easts and Wests mixed up - it was WEST who had the singleton 3. After reading all the posts I am wondering if "Our agreement is that the 3 of hearts (an ODD card) is normally encouraging for that suit" would be the simplest answer to the query ?

Tell the opponents your agreements and let them figure out for themselves whether the 3 is odd or even. They should not have much trouble.

[bluejak]

If you provide the opponents with an SC and it has your card play agreements, why should you have to talk about those agreements.

The Laws of bridge give opponents the right to find out your agreements by asking questions and receiving full and accurate answers. You are constrained by those Laws.

 

As a matter of practicality, SCs never go into as much detail as good answers to questions do.

 

Sorry - being Down Under I got my Easts and Wests mixed up - it was WEST who had the singleton 3. After reading all the posts I am wondering if "Our agreement is that the 3 of hearts (an ODD card) is normally encouraging for that suit" would be the simplest answer to the query ?

Easiest - and most correct - is to say "An odd card is encouraging" or whatever you play.

[mycroft]

I've been starting to ask if people are playing "Polish Standard" (which, at least a few years ago, meant "Low encourages") or "Modified Upside-Down"?

 

Just as a joke, mind you...

[bluejak]

Try asking them if they play Mosher defence to a 1NT opening.

[RunemPard]

This post made me laugh. I just keep picturing all the people at our club that would take it that way.

[mycroft]

I had an interesting one last week. I am dummy (so kept very mouth shut during the play).

 

Partner won the first trick in 4♠ and led trump. On that trick, declarer's RHO pitched the ♥2. Declarer asked about carding and was told "standard, odd/even discards". When asked what the ♥8 (note!) meant, she was told "odd is encouraging in that suit, even discourages". Declarer then led a diamond, which set up RHO's diamond suit.

 

At the end, I asked whethere there was any suit-preference implications to an even card, and was told no. Given that RHO really wanted a diamond, and played the 2, I'm *still* not sure I was given correct information (but I can't see why they would dissemble). But given that declarer clearly missed which even heart was played, it wasn't going to matter.

 

But under other circumstances, it would have been interesting, no?

 

And as a side note, is there a reason why people would play "odd encourages, even discourages" with no SP implications over rightside-up or reverse attitude?

[aguahombre]

The Laws of bridge give opponents the right to find out your agreements by asking questions and receiving full and accurate answers. You are constrained by those Laws.

 

As a matter of practicality, SCs never go into as much detail as good answers to questions do.

This is not without problems. We are "need to know" signallers with very few signalling conventions, and right-side-up for count, attitude or suit preference. When we believe we already know the layout, our carding means only that we don't want to keep what we throw away.

 

We are probably not as good at both of us knowing this on a given hand as (say) Zia, Schermer, Chambers, Hamman, etc. So, sometimes we get it wrong. But, here's the rub: what do we answer when declarer asks in follow-up, "Is this a signalling situation?" And should we answer separately so that partner doesn't hear? Sometimes it would be easy to say that nothing after trick whatever was a signal. Sometimes not.

 

No one has asked that, yet..surprisingly.

[barmar]

But, here's the rub: what do we answer when declarer asks in follow-up, "Is this a signalling situation?" And should we answer separately so that partner doesn't hear? Sometimes it would be easy to say that nothing after trick whatever was a signal. Sometimes not.

I don't think it's a reasonable question. It's presumably not a matter of partnership agreement, but player judgement.

[gnasher]

I don't think it's a reasonable question. It's presumably not a matter of partnership agreement, but player judgement.

I think it's a reasonable question. If you know, from partnership experience, whether or how your partner will signal in a particular situation, it's an agreement.

[gnasher]

We are probably not as good at both of us knowing this on a given hand as (say) Zia, Schermer, Chambers, Hamman, etc. So, sometimes we get it wrong. But, here's the rub: what do we answer when declarer asks in follow-up, "Is this a signalling situation?"

You answer according to your knowledge of your partner's habits, without reference to what's actually in your hand. Possible answers include "Yes", "No", "Probably", "I'm not sure", "It depends on whether he thinks I already know the layout", "He would signal if he had x but not if he had y".

 

And should we answer separately so that partner doesn't hear?

No, you should obey the rules about answering questions, then your partner should obey the rules about UI.

[Trinidad]

And as a side note, is there a reason why people would play "odd encourages, even discourages" with no SP implications over rightside-up or reverse attitude?

For the past 8 years I have played that when following suit, the order from most encouraging to most discouraging cards is: 3-5-7-9-10-8-6-4-2, without SP implications. The advantage over standard or upside down is that the clearest signal is always a low card, which means that it is less likely that you will blow a trick by signalling. I know that this advantage is marginal, but since I don't see any drawbacks (other than in even rarer unblocking situations)...

 

When discarding, an even card carries a (mild) SP message.

 

Rik

[barmar]

I think it's a reasonable question. If you know, from partnership experience, whether or how your partner will signal in a particular situation, it's an agreement.

But you only know what the situation is from your hand and judgement about how the play is going.

 

I'm not talking about something like "Our first signal in a suit is attitude, then the next signal is suit preference" -- that's an agreement. I'm talking about something like "since I think it's obvious how many spades declarer has based on the auction, we don't need to give accurate count in spades." I think it would be unreasonable to expect a defender to disclose a judgement like this, or any expectations derived from it.

[gnasher]

But you only know what the situation is from your hand and judgement about how the play is going.

 

I'm not talking about something like "Our first signal in a suit is attitude, then the next signal is suit preference" -- that's an agreement. I'm talking about something like "since I think it's obvious how many spades declarer has based on the auction, we don't need to give accurate count in spades." I think it would be unreasonable to expect a defender to disclose a judgement like this, or any expectations derived from it.

I wasn't talking about situations which are a matter of general bridge knowledge, or specific knowledge derived from looking at your own hand. I was talking about knowledge that results from partnership experience.

 

Imagine that you were kibbitzing, and the only hand you could see was dummy. If you could predict, from experience of playing with this partner, what signalling method (if any) he would use on a particular trick, that would be a disclosable agreement. If you could make a conditional prediction such as "If East had ♠A his card would mean x, otherwise it would mean y", that would be disclosable too.

 

If your prediction was something like "Nobody would signal count in this situation", that would be general bridge knowledge, and not disclosable. But only if it was actually true.

Edited July 18, 2012 by gnasher

[barmar]

Can you give examples of such partnership understandings about signaling? I'm having trouble imagining it.

 

You're not talking about something like "Ace asks for attitude, King asks for count", are you?

 

Or when declarer is playing a suit and partner probably needs to know how many times to duck in order to kill the dummy entry. But that's GBK.

[gnasher]

Can you give examples of such partnership understandings about signaling? I'm having trouble imagining it.

 

Here are two uninteresting hands from last night. The hands you can see are dummy.

[hv=pc=n&n=sj653hk72dt4cq832&d=n&v=e&b=9&a=pp1c(Clubs%20or%2011-14%20bal)p1h(Spades)p1n(11-14 bal, not 3 spades)ppp]133|200[/hv]

They lead ♥3 to the 2, 9 and J. Declarer leads a club to the queen, which holds, then plays ♦10. East plays low. East's diamond card might be count, suit-preference, Smith, or nothing at all. Playing with a regular partner, I would expect to have a good idea which it was. The opponents would be entitled to the same information.

 

[hv=pc=n&n=s86ha8djt986cq432&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=p1sp1np2c(Various)p2s(Weak)p3h(Nat%20FG,5-4)p4sppp]133|200[/hv]

They lead [sP[9 to declarer's queen. Declarer plays ♣A and a club towards the queen. EW's club cards might be count, suit-preference, or nothing at all, and it might depend on who had the king. Again, knowledge of the partnership's habits would be disclosable.

Edited July 19, 2012 by gnasher

[bluejak]

And as a side note, is there a reason why people would play "odd encourages, even discourages" with no SP implications over rightside-up or reverse attitude?

For the same reason they play all sorts of things which can demonstrably be shown to be inferior: because they want to, because they don't know any better, because simple things are easier to remember, because they have decided logically and their logic differs from yours, or a combination of these.

 

It is fairly easy to prove that Aspro [spades and a minor, hearts and another], Astro [spades and another, hearts and a minor] and longer major Asptro [spades and another, hearts and another, show longer major with both] are inferior to shorter major Asptro [spades and another, hearts and another, show shorter major with both]. But people play all of them for the reasons above.

 

This is not without problems. We are "need to know" signallers with very few signalling conventions, and right-side-up for count, attitude or suit preference. When we believe we already know the layout, our carding means only that we don't want to keep what we throw away.

 

We are probably not as good at both of us knowing this on a given hand as (say) Zia, Schermer, Chambers, Hamman, etc. So, sometimes we get it wrong. But, here's the rub: what do we answer when declarer asks in follow-up, "Is this a signalling situation?" And should we answer separately so that partner doesn't hear? Sometimes it would be easy to say that nothing after trick whatever was a signal. Sometimes not.

You tell declarer your agreements. If it is that you judge each situation and you have no specific agreement about this particular situation, then you tell him that. If you have indirect reasons for knowing in this specific situation, then you tell him the indirect reasons and let him judge. If you have experience of this specific situation, so you know what you do in this specific situation, you tell him that. No, you don't send partner away from the table. Let him deal with any UI.