Playable

[nullve]

What makes a bidding or defensive signalling method playable?

[mikeh]

What makes a bidding or defensive signalling method playable?

How many insoluble problems does it generate?

 

No method with which I’m familiar, and I’ve played many methods and read about/played against many more, have hand types that don’t fit the methods well. A good system minimizes those hands, and confines them to low frequency holdings.

plus, of course, the system has to match the players’ ability to memorize it.

 

As for signalling, much the same applies, but with the extra wrinkle that some methods are so prone to ‘insoluble’ problems that the users come under great pressure to hesitate when they can’t play an honest signal.

 

I play odd/even in one partnership, and that method definitely creates issues. What if one has only odd cards in suits one doesn’t want led, and only even in the one you want played?

 

Unfortunately, some players ‘solve’ this by taking a long time and then playing what partner now knows may be the ‘wrong’ signal. Even ethical players can leak information by taking a little longer than normal.

[Douglas43]

mikeh's comment is as usual spot-on, but as mikeh implies there is a difference between "playable" and "worth playing".

 

To take an example, Smolen is popular in North America as a way to right-side game contracts opposite a 15-17 1NT. It is playable opposite a weak NT, but if responder is going to game, their hand is as good as opener's, so it's not worth playing.

This article by Marc Smith from the Bridgbum website sets out pros and cons. Smolen Bridge Convention - Bidding and Responses (bridgebum.com)

[Cyberyeti]

How many insoluble problems does it generate?

 

No method with which I’m familiar, and I’ve played many methods and read about/played against many more, have hand types that don’t fit the methods well. A good system minimizes those hands, and confines them to low frequency holdings.

plus, of course, the system has to match the players’ ability to memorize it.

 

As for signalling, much the same applies, but with the extra wrinkle that some methods are so prone to ‘insoluble’ problems that the users come under great pressure to hesitate when they can’t play an honest signal.

 

I play odd/even in one partnership, and that method definitely creates issues. What if one has only odd cards in suits one doesn’t want led, and only even in the one you want played?

 

Unfortunately, some players ‘solve’ this by taking a long time and then playing what partner now knows may be the ‘wrong’ signal. Even ethical players can leak information by taking a little longer than normal.

 

Mike is spot on, particularly with the last bit, I have the same issue with both odd/even and prism signals being played like that by the opps.

[AL78]

One reason I like playing revolving discards is that there are often two ways to show the same signal, so far less likely to have the dilemma of giving partner a false signal. I have had that problem with HELD, encouraging with a high card in some layouts risks costing a slow trick, which is why some people play reverse attitude.

[bluenikki]

"I play odd/even in one partnership, and that method definitely creates issues. What if one has only odd cards in suits one doesn’t want led, and only even in the one you want played?"

 

But when you first see your hand, such problem suits are known. So you should be planning throughout the auction what least-of-evils work-around you will use.

 

Carl

[mycroft]

But waiting until you have to do it and then thinking before playing the 3 is so much easier!

 

(and partner tends to read it better too!)

 

Another lovely thing that tends to happen with the people who play odd-even the "non-thinking" way rather than the "planning through the auction" way is that they describe it as "Odd encourages, even discourages". The other problem with that is that for some of them, that's what they actually play (in which case, why not play UD or RU?); they tend to get a bit flustered if you ask the question you need to ask the other pairs. There are people, similarly, who explain that their Lavinthal discard is "she discards from suits she doesn't like" - again, for some of them, that *is* what they play, and they also wonder why their opponents are badgering them about "and...?"

[mikeh]

"I play odd/even in one partnership, and that method definitely creates issues. What if one has only odd cards in suits one doesn’t want led, and only even in the one you want played?"

 

But when you first see your hand, such problem suits are known. So you should be planning throughout the auction what least-of-evils work-around you will use.

 

Carl

One doesn’t always know how the play will unfold, so one doesn’t always know when one is going to have to choose a pitch nor what one will, by then, know about the hand.

 

Gaming out all the possibilities ‘when one first sees one’s hand’ is unplayable, since the earliest one can realistically start to plan one’s defence is either when choosing one’s opening lead or, if partner is leading, when dummy hits.

 

Even then it’s often impossible to anticipate all lies of the cards or plays by declarer and partner, such as to plan for one’s first discard, unless one wants to slow the game down to a degree that is both unreasonable and likely to tell partner that we’ve got a problem….a problem he may well deduce when it becomes apparent that we didn’t have a more ‘normal’ problem.

 

Of course, when partner leads, we should take our time at trick one regardless of our problems or lack thereof, but one almost always has a lot more about which to think than planning our discards….amongst other thoughts, I’m usually considering dummy in light of the auction, inferring partner’s holding in the the suit led, considering the card I will play (often contingent on the play from dummy), reconstructing declarer’s hand, trying to construct a lie of the cards consistent with all of the foregoing where, at imps, we may beat the contract or, at mps, stop overtricks/set the contract, how best to help partner (including whether I’m better off helping partner or misleading declarer), etc

 

This takes me all of the customary pause declarer or (if declarer doesn’t pause) 3rd seat will perform at trick one. Add to that planning discards one may never make seems unreasonable to me.

 

That is not saying one ought not to consider discarding issues early. It’s just that it’s not possible never to have an issue for which one had not prepared or, if one does prepare, where one has not inadvertently leaked the existence of the problem.

 

So while I play odd/even with one (impeccably ethical) partner, I generally prefer not to do so.

[bluenikki]

One doesn’t always know how the play will unfold, so one doesn’t always know when one is going to have to choose a pitch nor what one will, by then, know about the hand.

 

Gaming out all the possibilities ‘when one first sees one’s hand’ is unplayable, since the earliest one can realistically start to plan one’s defence is either when choosing one’s opening lead or, if partner is leading, when dummy hits.

 

Even then it’s often impossible to anticipate all lies of the cards or plays by declarer and partner, such as to plan for one’s first discard, unless one wants to slow the game down to a degree that is both unreasonable and likely to tell partner that we’ve got a problem….a problem he may well deduce when it becomes apparent that we didn’t have a more ‘normal’ problem.

 

Of course, when partner leads, we should take our time at trick one regardless of our problems or lack thereof, but one almost always has a lot more about which to think than planning our discards….amongst other thoughts, I’m usually considering dummy in light of the auction, inferring partner’s holding in the the suit led, considering the card I will play (often contingent on the play from dummy), reconstructing declarer’s hand, trying to construct a lie of the cards consistent with all of the foregoing where, at imps, we may beat the contract or, at mps, stop overtricks/set the contract, how best to help partner (including whether I’m better off helping partner or misleading declarer), etc

 

This takes me all of the customary pause declarer or (if declarer doesn’t pause) 3rd seat will perform at trick one. Add to that planning discards one may never make seems unreasonable to me.

 

That is not saying one ought not to consider discarding issues early. It’s just that it’s not possible never to have an issue for which one had not prepared or, if one does prepare, where one has not inadvertently leaked the existence of the problem.

 

So while I play odd/even with one (impeccably ethical) partner, I generally prefer not to do so.

 

There are really only two questions: If I will need to encourage with Heee, what will I do. If I will need to discourage with Oooo, what will I do?

 

In most auctions, there is ample time to decide these, other than when it is your turn to call. Note I do not say you have to find the best possible action.

 

Carl