Discards

[Flem72]

Tried to start a thread on BridgWinners to get some sense of opinion, but it is ignored. So I will ask here, but more directly.

 

Many around here play that in order to send a "lead this" attitude message when discarding, the discarder MUST complete an echo. I learned that, if the second discard is in the same suit as the first, it is a present count message. (Personally, I can't imagine anyone not playing this way in a highly distributional context, but....) The "must echo" folks always rely on "you might not be able to figure out the spots"; I say sometimes you can't, but (again, especially in highly distributional contexts) I'd rather have the count information the other 89% of the time.

 

What does Expert-Class have to say?

 

Regards and Happy Trails,

 

Scott Needham

Boulder, Colorado, USA

[WellSpyder]

I would expect partner to be able to work out the first signal the majority of the time without completing an echo with the next discard.

 

Having said that, if your first discard is your second lowest and your next discard is your third lowest in the same suit, then I wouldn't expect partner to read that as encouraging (or whatever a high card in the first round would normally show. If you want to send both an attitude and a distributional signal, I would start by discarding your third lowest, and follow with your second lowest or lowest according to which sends the appropriate distributional signal from your remaining cards.

[ArtK78]

Usually the first card played will send the appropriate message, and there is no need to complete the echo. If, for example, at trick 4 partner shows out and plays a 10 in a side suit, I don't have to be Nostradamus to work out that he is starting an echo. The 10 gets the message across without the need for partner to play a lower card later to complete the echo.

 

All signals have to be deciphered in the context of the entire hand.

 

And, needless to say, your carding methods also have to be factored into the discussion.

[Free]

Don't show count (with a few exceptions obviously).

[gnasher]

What Wellspyder said. For example, if your lowest three cards are 862:

- If you want to start an echo and then give count, play either 8-2 or 8-6.

- If you want to play low and then give count, play either 2-6 or 2-8

 

There's never any need to play 6-8.

[lesh]

I play odd= I have something, even lavinthal. Then count - original count, lets say 852 - I discard 2 for the lowest suit and then play the 8 i.e. odd number. Or you can play present count and play the 5 i.e. I have even left but that confuses me :)

 

K8752 - I play the 5 then discard the 8 to get the count message clearer :) But still thats a preference. You can play low enc, high disc and then count. But agree whether you play original or present :)

[Zelandakh]

Taking Andy's example of a suit with played spots of 862 and assuming udca, we might play

 

2-6 = positive for this suit, odd number (H62)

2-8 = positive for this suit, even number (H862)

8-2 = negative for this suit, odd number (862)

8-6 = negative for this suit, even number (8642)

 

Notice that "must echo" is essentially irrelevant here since the echo is automatic once the second card is played.

 

If we are in a situation where we know we will discard at least 3 (such as declarer running a long suit) then 682 can potentially be a useful signal, but it does require agreements beyond either of these given. For example, you might decide to play 682 as suit preference for the higher suit and 628 as suit preference for the lower suit, or you might use the middle card as a pre-cursor to giving a substitute signal that is critical and cannot be shown another way. As Andy says, it is not really needed within the basic scheme and so can be given any other meaning that seems useful (and not too confusing!).

[Flem72]

I understand these principles; it seems to me that most here would consider the second discard a count card rather than a "the echo must be completed to send the attitude message" card.

 

If any would like to comment on http://bridgewinners.com/article/view/carding-problem-discards/

either here or there, I'd be interested.

[Fluffy]

I would be more reluctant to make it obvious that bridgewinners is the important thing for you and you only came here because you didn't get the answrs there and want people here to post there. But that's just me.

[Flem72]

I would be more reluctant to make it obvious that bridgewinners is the important thing for you and you only came here because you didn't get the answrs there and want people here to post there. But that's just me.

 

Nah; not the case. I spend equal (and far too much) time on both sites. Maybe BW seems a bit more convenient b/c here there seems to be no method of marking discussions I want to track, they just fade away from the "new content" display, which must constantly be monitored; OTOH, here there is much more discussion of systems and structures, which is my primary interest, and more direct (and beneficial) advice. I excel at screwing up declarer play problems on either site, thank you very much.

[Zelandakh]

Maybe BW seems a bit more convenient b/c here there seems to be no method of marking discussions I want to track, they just fade away from the "recent posts" display, which must constantly be monitored;

Page up to the top of a thread. On the right hand side you will see 3 blue buttons, one of which is labelled "Watch Topic". If you click on this, the thread will appear in your "watched topics" list and a small symbol will appear next to it in the forum view. You also get the option of receiving a message whenever someone posts to the thread. This is the BBF equivalent of marking a discussion.

[Fluffy]

glad to hear you take declarer problems at all, here declarer problems take very very few responses, perhaps because they are easilly proved wrong as oposed to bidding, but I normally think it is because people don't want to waste the time thinking a full problem.

[gnasher]

I understand these principles; it seems to me that most here would consider the second discard a count card rather than a "the echo must be completed to send the attitude message" card.

Has anyone said that?

 

In the method that I was trying to descibe (and Wellspyder and Zelandakh also, I believe), if you discard a second card in the same suit, you simultaneously complete the echo and give count (if appropriate). It's not a matter of choosing one or the other.

[mikeh]

glad to hear you take declarer problems at all, here declarer problems take very very few responses, perhaps because they are easilly proved wrong as oposed to bidding, but I normally think it is because people don't want to waste the time thinking a full problem.

My take on the limited answers to declarer problems, with far more on bidding, is:

 

1. There is usually a technically 'right' way to play a hand. Once that has been identified, few people want to post since there is little to say

 

2. Declarer play is less democratic than bidding. In bidding, many players of varying skill levels feel that they are competent to advance their own idiosyncratric conventions or methods, or opinions if only because it is very difficult to 'prove' them wrong. Even when a simulation is done, there will be complaints about the constraints, or about the subjective choices for action by the other 3 players. Whereas, there are a relatively small number of very good declarers here, and I suspect many players are far more reluctant to disagree with them on play matters than on bidding matters.

 

3. If you post a bidding opinion, it will be rare that someone will come along and post in a way that shows that your post was foolish, or that you made a basic error. Not so with declarer play problems.

 

The same applies to defence, altho some defensive problems are 'fuzzier' than declarer play problems and thus create fewer of these concerns.

 

The more it is possible to objectively demonstrate the right answer, the less likely it is that you'll get a lot of posts. No-one likes to be shown up as wrong.

[Flem72]

Has anyone said that?

 

In the method that I was trying to descibe (and Wellspyder and Zelandakh also, I believe), if you discard a second card in the same suit, you simultaneously complete the echo and give count (if appropriate). It's not a matter of choosing one or the other.

 

I find I've been posing these questions clumsily all week, asking for a general answer to a specific situation which was really about clarity, not "rules," for which, my very bad. I'm quitting while I'm (far) behind.

 

Except: You hold AQT62, and it is a highly distributional situation -- count matters -- in which it is clear you will not take the 3rd round of the suit. Playing standard attitude and standard present count, would you discard the 10 then the 6 or the 6 then the 2?

[gnasher]

Except: You hold AQT62, and it is a highly distributional situation -- count matters -- in which it is clear you will not take the 3rd round of the suit. Playing standard attitude and standard present count, would you discard the 10 then the 6 or the 6 then the 2?

 

If I can afford the 10 and then the 6, I do that.

 

If I can afford the 10 but can't afford a second discard, I discard the 10 and then a card from another suit.

 

If I can't afford the 10, I discard the 6. My next discard may be the 2, or it may be a card from another suit, depending on what I can afford. So sometimes I may end up playing 6-2, but only because keeping winners takes priority over signalling.

[Zelandakh]

but only because keeping winners takes priority over signalling.

This is the absolutely fundamental thing about signalling that players sometimes forget. If you need to signal a high card then choose the highest you can afford and no higher. That is why you sometimes (often) need to treat a signal as suspicious, especially when you know that partner's options in a suit are limited. You do the best you can with what you can afford to play and hope not to mislead partner too much if you hold all the wrong cards.

[billw55]

Honestly I had never even heard of the "must echo to complete signal" idea until this thread, and I don't understand it at all. Seems like a waste of both time and a second signal opportunity, either of which can be vital, to gain only a confirmation of a signal that is clear most of the time anyway.

[WellSpyder]

Honestly I had never even heard of the "must echo to complete signal" idea until this thread, and I don't understand it at all. Seems like a waste of both time and a second signal opportunity, either of which can be vital, to gain only a confirmation of a signal that is clear most of the time anyway.

Go back to Andy's example of 862. If you discard 6 to show whatever an echo shows, and then discard the 8 to show the remaining even number, how is partner to know that you rather than declarer have the 2? So he can't be sure what your primary signal was. If you discard the 8 followed by the 6, he may still have the same uncertainty about the 2, and he may therefore be uncertain about your secondary signal. But at least your primary message will be clear.