Oldfashion standard carding

[UdcaDenny]

In Sweden 99% of players use udca and Im surprised that standard carding is so dominating on BBO. That was used by Culbertson in the childhood of bridge and probably he didnt have any good explanation why, they just decided a high card was encouraging and high-low showed even. When asking standard carding users whats the advantage they cannot answer. Most just say I learned that from start without giving it a thought. If you ask me why I use udca its very easy to answer. Save your high cards. Many standard carding users tell me they often lie in carding, for instance they dont play J from J2 to show even numbers. One american woman told me its only beginners and old players that dont want to change that use standard carding. Its that true ? Would like to know what other american players say about that.

[Stephen Tu]

I think a large majority of the better American players play upside-down. It is mostly the beginner-intermediates and older players using standard, as that is what is taught in the books. (Keep in mind that a lot of intermediates self-rate as "expert" on BBO). They don't want to change since it might be difficult to switch back and forth playing with different people since that increases the chance of a forget.

 

Also,

- it's not really that huge a difference, good defender can defend well using either, bad defender still sucks either way really.

- there are a few situations where std carding is actually better, like:

 

   	xxx
AKxx    	JTx
  	Q9x  

 

(west leads honor, east's low x may encourage west to continue)

 

or

 

 	A
Q9xxx		KTx
   	Jxxx

(East has to unblock the T if this is notrump, but if the T discourages it can be problematic if West gets in first esp. without Smith).

 

Swede Anders Wirgen wrote some bridge world articles advocating situational upside-down/std to cater to these situations.

[mikeh]

'standard carding' originated long before bridge: it was part of whist, at least for 'advanced' players, and whist dates back a long way before any game described as bridge. Culbertson and others of that era simply adopted carding methods from auction bridge, which in turn took them from whist (or the other, somewhat esoteric versions of 'bridge', such as Royal Auction Bridge).

 

The same is true with the Rule of Eleven, and 4th best leads.

 

The reality is that on most hands it makes no difference which method you play, on a small percentage of hands you will be better off with udca, and on a slightly smaller percentage, you will be better off with standard. It comes down to the spots you hold. If you hold, say, A98 and want to show the A, then unless dummy and partner have a lot of small cards, udca is tough: the 8 will look discouraging. And Stephen gave another example. There are analogous issues in count scenarios.

 

While I would always encourage players to use udca, it's not a big deal to play standard: most advancing players have other areas on which they could usefully spend their energy.

[billw55]

I suspect that "standard" attitude signals originated and are still taught to beginners for the same reason: they consider it normal to always play their smallest card, and therefore a high card is much more easily recognized as unusual, and hence a signal.

 

This only helps for a little while though. Even at the late novice stage, and certainly by the early intermediate stage, we begin to teach learners that *leading* a low card (after trick 1) is encouraging, whereas a high card is discouraging. To me this always felt contradictory and confusing with "standard" attitude signals when discarding or following suit. Then and now, I find it simpler and more understandable that the low card is encouraging in both situations.

[Finch]

If you are comparing only standard & upside down, it really makes close to no difference which you play. I play one way in one partnership and the other way in another for attitude signals and neither is obviously coming out ahead.

"expert standard" (i.e. the most common method seen played by good players) in the UK is probably standard count & reverse attitude; UDCA is IMO rarer than standard

 

I'm also sure that if you asked your 99% of swedish players what the advantage is of playing udca they wouldn't be able to answer either. Most players play what they have been taught and don't think about why it may or may not be better than alternatives. This is true whatever country they come from.

[jallerton]

In Sweden 99% of players use udca and Im surprised that standard carding is so dominating on BBO. That was used by Culbertson in the childhood of bridge and probably he didnt have any good explanation why, they just decided a high card was encouraging and high-low showed even. When asking standard carding users whats the advantage they cannot answer. Most just say I learned that from start without giving it a thought. If you ask me why I use udca its very easy to answer. Save your high cards. Many standard carding users tell me they often lie in carding, for instance they dont play J from J2 to show even numbers. One american woman told me its only beginners and old players that dont want to change that use standard carding. Its that true ? Would like to know what other american players say about that.

 

There's something about your username which suggests that your opinion on this matter may be somewhat biased!

[chasetb]

*first half snipped*

 	A
Q9xxx		KTx
   	Jxxx

(East has to unblock the T if this is notrump, but if the T discourages it can be problematic if West gets in first esp. without Smith).

 

Swede Anders Wirgen wrote some bridge world articles advocating situational upside-down/std to cater to these situations.

This problem was addressed in Modern Defensive Signalling by Kit Woolsey. He mentions if playing UDA, there are for sure two exceptions you should make. On this one, if partner's opening lead hits dummy with a singleton Ace or King, standard attitude/count is in effect for trick one only. Therefore, you can unblock the Ten and let partner know that you like the suit.

 

In that book, Woolsey said that UDCA was superior, partly because when you want to encourage it's easy to throw a small for Attitude and not have to worry about the rest of the hand, and on occasion when you discourage from a sequence, it helps partner out. However, he said that standard attitude and count were better than UDA and standard count, or UDC and standard attitude, because of ambiguous situations where you aren't sure if attitude or count apply.

[billw55]

"expert standard" (i.e. the most common method seen played by good players) in the UK is probably standard count & reverse attitude;

Interesting. I am in USA, and play this way with my most frequent partner, at her request. When people ask and hear this, they invariably think it is really weird, often saying "I have never heard of that" or "why" (with astonished look).

[jallerton]

However, he said that standard attitude and count were better than UDA and standard count, or UDC and standard attitude, because of ambiguous situations where you aren't sure if attitude or count apply.

I

 

Yes, there are ambiguous situations where the two partners may not agree whether count or attitude applies (or one is not sure which applies), but I don't see why this leads to his conclusion.

 

The implication from his comments is that defenders are more likely to want to encourage from a 2, 4 or 6-card holding than with a 3, 5 or 7-card holding. Is this really true?

[barmar]

The implication from his comments is that defenders are more likely to want to encourage from a 2, 4 or 6-card holding than with a 3, 5 or 7-card holding. Is this really true?

In a suit contract you often want to encourage from a 2-card holding, to get a ruff. The rest just comes from consistency.

[mycroft]

I played that for years, and when asked by a very strong player "so, partner leads the A and you have a doubleton, what do you do?" I said "This is a clear attitude situation, so I encourage?" Of course, we agreed with the Granovetters that "comeon == cash", so whether we were Qxx or xx didn't matter.

 

I wonder at the people asking that question how they tell (playing same-orientation signals) when low is xx (count) and when low is attitude (Qxx)...

 

Still more comfortable playing that than either same-orientation. I have no problem with "low == encourage", but I get count signals backwards frequently (especially when I'm playing with 3 partners, one of whom plays standard).

[jallerton]

In a suit contract you often want to encourage from a 2-card holding, to get a ruff. The rest just comes from consistency.

 

Yes, but I'll also often wish to discourage from a 2-card holding, particularly after trick one, when there is more scope for ambiguity whether count or attitude applies.

[UdcaDenny]

I played that for years, and when asked by a very strong player "so, partner leads the A and you have a doubleton, what do you do?" I said "This is a clear attitude situation, so I encourage?" Of course, we agreed with the Granovetters that "comeon == cash", so whether we were Qxx or xx didn't matter.

 

I wonder at the people asking that question how they tell (playing same-orientation signals) when low is xx (count) and when low is attitude (Qxx)...

 

Still more comfortable playing that than either same-orientation. I have no problem with "low == encourage", but I get count signals backwards frequently (especially when I'm playing with 3 partners, one of whom plays standard).

As I see it attitude is more important than count. Against 4S I led KC from KQ10x, dummy had xxxx and my p played a small and so did declarer. We had agreed udca so offcource I assumed he had A or J if not singleton. I continued with a low C to declarers AJ. Make life simple.

[jallerton]

As I see it, the most important thing is to agree with your partner basic rules for whether you are playing attitide or count signals in particular situations. If all you agree is "UDCA" then of course there will be situations where one of you is giving reverse count and the other person interprets this as reverse attitude.

[barmar]

Sometimes it's a judgement call about whether attitude or count is more useful in a particular situation. You can't always ensure that you and your partner view it the same way.

[Finch]

Sometimes it's a judgement call about whether attitude or count is more useful in a particular situation. You can't always ensure that you and your partner view it the same way.

 

You can if you agree rules on when each applies.

This has the downside that in some positions you give what you and your partner probably know is an unhelpful signal.

It has the advantage that you always know what partner's signal means.

[UdcaDenny]

Sometimes it's a judgement call about whether attitude or count is more useful in a particular situation. You can't always ensure that you and your partner view it the same way.

Make life easy. When partner play a suit I signal if I like it or not. When declarer play a suit I signal length, od or even. Dont see how there can be any confusion.

[mikeh]

Make life easy. When partner play a suit I signal if I like it or not. When declarer play a suit I signal length, od or even. Dont see how there can be any confusion.

 

Sounds like a US Republican approach: simplistic solutions to complex problems avoid the need to actually think, but usually lead to inadequate real life results.

[dustinst22]

Sounds like a US Republican approach: simplistic solutions to complex problems avoid the need to actually think, but usually lead to inadequate real life results.

 

What would the democratic approach be, to have partner kick you under the table which signal should be given?

[mikeh]

What would the democratic approach be, to have partner kick you under the table which signal should be given?

In fairness, the sort of approach I was mocking seems to be popular in many countries, including Canada. And I suspect the problem is not confined to right wing politicians: almost any populist approach will exhibit the same methodology. The US Republicans were an easy target because the stupidities on display during the recent presidential primacy in the US are relatively fresh, as are other examples of overly-simplistic thinking on complex topics. I apologize if I offended anyone's sensitivities.

[Siegmund]

Returning to bridge...

 

It is a highly regional thing, in my experience. In the two states I have played in the most (Alaska and Montana) standard is the extreme-majority position even by the local experts. Play in Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake City, you better look at every pair's convention card. In general it seems the bigger the city, the greater the likelihood that a random opponent will be playing udca.

Opposite to OP, I find that UDCA is vastly more common on BBO than it is in any (north american) live venue I've ever played. At times I've joked "all my live partners play standard and all my internet partners play UDCA."

 

From a technical standpoint I think the difference between the two methods is too tiny to give either one a clear advantage.

 

One common situation I find more comfortable playing standard is playing doubletons (high to unblock and high to show two and high to show positive attitude all overlap -- while in UDCA somewhere around Jx, high to unblock and low to signal honestly come into conflict.

I also find the mental effort is reduced if 3/5 leads are combined with standard signals - and conversely 4th best leads with udca - so that first hand and third hand are "playing the same system."

Faced with a partner who is accustomed to 4th best and standard, I usually opt for converting him to 3rd and 5th rather than converting him to udca.

[UdcaDenny]

Sounds like a US Republican approach: simplistic solutions to complex problems avoid the need to actually think, but usually lead to inadequate real life results.

Maybe you have a better method showing both distribution and encourage or discourage at the same time. Please tell me as that would make everything much simpler.

[barmar]

One common situation I find more comfortable playing standard is playing doubletons (high to unblock and high to show two and high to show positive attitude all overlap -- while in UDCA somewhere around Jx, high to unblock and low to signal honestly come into conflict.

In general, playing honors falls outside the usual count and attitude signals -- you don't waste them for mundane uses like this. If you play an honor under partner's honor lead, it's usually to show the next lower honor and deny the next higher one, but occasionally it's unblocking. Playing an honor in some other situation is usually an "alarm clock" signal.

[mikeh]

Maybe you have a better method showing both distribution and encourage or discourage at the same time. Please tell me as that would make everything much simpler.

You remain in search of a simple solution to a complex problem. I don't think one exists.

 

Bridge, played at its best, is a subtle, complex game that has become ever more so as the years go by and good players, building on the work of others, look ever deeper into the game.

 

For example, if partner leads the A, in a situation in which he implies the K as well, and assuming a suit contract, what one wants to do with any holding will depend on a range of factors, including what we hold, what dummy holds, and what we infer from the bidding.

 

We can't just say we give attitude. Say dummy has a stiff: most would now play some form of suit preference, including being able to indicate that we want the suit continued despite the stiff. If dummy holds Qxx(x) we need to decide whether we want partner to cash the K or switch now, and of course we may have xx in the suit and want to ruff the 3rd round, and so on.

 

My own preference is to play Obvious Switch, but I have had trouble convincing partners to opt in to the method: I played it for several years in my most successful partnership and remain convinced that it is the best approach I have yet played. If interested, you can probably find a copy of Granovetter's A Switch in Time somewhere online. I didn't play it exactly as he wrote, but very close.

[UdcaDenny]

Sounds like a US Republican approach: simplistic solutions to complex problems avoid the need to actually think, but usually lead to inadequate real life results.