Lavinthal discards and udca

[jacekm]

Hi,

Definition of Lavinthal discards is simple and clear. But does udca really change the way we play Lavinthal? - met different opinions. What is Yours?

[Stephen Tu]

It doesn't make a difference. Lavinthal discard just changes how you interpret your side's first discard. UDCA is about meanings when following suit and not playing cards for trick taking purposes.

 

Lavinthal just means your discard is negative attitude and suit preference for the others, while with plain attitude discards upside-down would affect whether a low discard was encouraging attitude for a suit or discouraging.

 

[dave1hall]

I play Lavinthal in a local club game. Some players say they do not know it & have asked to be told when it is used.

Seems that would require chat.

Assume we post the answer, should the signaler or the partner explain. The possibility of UI obviously exists, so maybe it does not matter.

Thanks

Dave

[Stephen Tu]

Online, use the private chat feature to explain, then there is no UI as your partner does not see the chat. Use the buttons on left of chat box to direct chat to opponents, instead of ->table.

[blackshoe]

I play Lavinthal in a local club game. Some players say they do not know it & have asked to be told when it is used.

Seems that would require chat.

Or a system card that says you play Lavinthal.

 

Assume we post the answer, should the signaler or the partner explain. The possibility of UI obviously exists, so maybe it does not matter.

Online, you explain your own actions. I would think that would apply to both calls and plays. OTOH, it's a rare regulating authority that requires an alert for any play (ACBL requires a pre-alert if you have an agreement to lead low from a doubleton, but there is no alert during the play). If it's just a casual game, do whatever keeps the table happy, I guess.

[Vampyr]

Or a system card that says you play Lavinthal.

 

How would this help? In any case, IMO it would be very irregular to inform the opponents when you or your partner make a discard. Presumably declarer asked “leads and carding?” before playing dummy’s first card. Lavinthal can be explained then, and it is up to declarer to remember, though of course he can ask when it comes up.

[sfi]

Online, use the private chat feature to explain, then there is no UI as your partner does not see the chat. Use the buttons on left of chat box to direct chat to opponents, instead of ->table.

Agreed. I often use chat to tell opponents when my card is suit preference in unusual situations, e.g. on the opening lead when dummy has a singleton. If the opposition is not likely to know what agreements you have on a specific card, why wouldn't you tell them?

[Vampyr]

Agreed. I often use chat to tell opponents when my card is suit preference in unusual situations, e.g. on the opening lead when dummy has a singleton. If the opposition is not likely to know what agreements you have on a specific card, why wouldn't you tell them?

 

This particular agreement is so u usual that there is probably one person in the world who is not likely to know (and that person has never played bridge).

 

Anyway, I find this behaviour strange and problematic. You might not have a suitable card, you might be falsecarding, you might be playing cards more or less at random because partner does not need to know etc. If you have hard-and-fast rules you might be throwing declarer off the scent more often than not. A lot of cards have elements of suit preference, and declarers should be aware of this. If you really do use suit-preference a lot more than than other people, you might say “frequent suit preference” when declarer first asks about your carding, or even when you explain your basic system at the beginning of the round.

[nige1]

Online, use the private chat feature to explain, then there is no UI as your partner does not see the chat. Use the buttons on left of chat box to direct chat to opponents, instead of ->table.

Agreed. I often use chat to tell opponents when my card is suit preference in unusual situations, e.g. on the opening lead when dummy has a singleton. If the opposition is not likely to know what agreements you have on a specific card, why wouldn't you tell them?

This particular agreement is so usual that there is probably one person in the world who is not likely to know (and that person has never played bridge).Anyway, I find this behaviour strange and problematic. You might not have a suitable card, you might be falsecarding, you might be playing cards more or less at random because partner does not need to know etc. If you have hard-and-fast rules you might be throwing declarer off the scent more often than not. A lot of cards have elements of suit preference, and declarers should be aware of this. If you really do use suit-preference a lot more than than other people, you might say "frequent suit preference" when declarer first asks about your carding, or even when you explain your basic system at the beginning of the round.

IMO, an advantage of the on-line game is that you can divulge defensive carding agreements in real time, with little risk of UI to partner. Unfortunately, as in other contexts, few of us take advantage of opportunities to disclose our understandings.

 

Again Vampyr's example is excellent. When dummy has a singleton or void, I like to agree a simple suit-preference scheme, for example ...

 

• Low card = Neutral or encouraging the suit led.
• High odd card = Prefer a high-ranking suit.
• High even card = Prefer a low-ranking suit.
• Playing high cards of the same parity upwards is equivalent to playing the opposite parity (but rarely required).

Sadly, many players deem their pet methods to be general bridge knowledge :(

[Vampyr]

When dummy has a singleton or void, I like to agree a simple [/size]suit-preference scheme, for example ...

 

• Low card = Neutral or encouraging the suit led.
• High odd card = Prefer a high-ranking suit.
• High even card = Prefer a low-ranking suit.
• Playing high cards of the same parity upwards is equivalent to playing the opposite parity (but rarely required).

 

This seems reasonable if you have bid the suit; otherwise it seems unlikely that you will frequently have the necessary card to convey your message.

[nige1]

This seems reasonable if you have bid the suit; otherwise it seems unlikely that you will frequently have the necessary card to convey your message.

In the same context (when dummy has a singleton or void) some players agree

• low card = prefer low ranking suit
• high card = prefer high ranking suit
• middle card = no preference or encouraging.

which seems to suffer from similar problems with less clarity :)

[sfi]

This particular agreement is so u usual that there is probably one person in the world who is not likely to know (and that person has never played bridge).

Really? I think it's a poor agreement and only play it when partners insist. It's certainly not universal.

[Vampyr]

Really? I think it's a poor agreement and only play it when partners insist. It's certainly not universal.

 

I didn’t say that playing it was universal, just that knowing about it is.

 

I am interested in why you think it is a poor agreement.

[Zelandakh]

If as declarer I need to know I usually wait a few tricks and then ask the table generally about discarding agreements. If I need to know immediately I will ask the partner of the player that has made the discard.

 

In terms of the question in the OP, Lavinthal is traditionally only played on the very first discard and that discard is unaffected by whether udca or standard carding is used in other situations. However, if your opponents ask about your discarding agreements then you need to disclose both if subsequent discards revert to udca. Many players omit this when answering such a question and state only "Lavinthal" or "McKenney", which is actually misinformation. Note also that a small number of pairs have chosen to follow Meckwell and play not only udca but also Reverse Lavinthal. That obviously would also need to be disclosed.

[sfi]

I didn’t say that playing it was universal, just that knowing about it is.

 

I am interested in why you think it is a poor agreement.

Even if knowing about it is universal, I still think it's useful information for opponents to know the meaning of our signal when the situation arises.

 

I think it's a poor agreement because it assumes you would never want a continuation. Even if you play something like 'middle encourages', it's often hard to read until it's too late. I much prefer to encourage as normal, with the understanding that discouraging also sends the message that I am happy with the expected switch. The ramifications depend on context, but if I encourage when a continuation makes no sense then it's equivalent to discouraging the normal switch. Partner can generally work out a sensible defence with that information.

 

The times when the 'normal switch' is unclear are fairly small. I think it gains by not ruling out continuations when it makes sense.

[blackshoe]

How would this help?

For the large number of players who never look at system cards, it wouldn't.

[Vampyr]

For the large number of players who never look at system cards, it wouldn't.

 

Or for the people mentioned in the OP, who don’t know what the word Lavinthal actually means. Anyway, online, very few people seem to have system cards. Usually if they have anything it is some bullshit written on their profile.

[kgr]

Hi,

Definition of Lavinthal discards is simple and clear. But does udca really change the way we play Lavinthal? - met different opinions. What is Yours?

No. Discards and following suit are different things imo.

[blackshoe]

No. Discards and following suit are different things imo.

Clearly. After all, when you discard you are not following suit. B-)