[Codo]

finally17, on Dec 14 2007, 12:14 AM, said:

It's a whole section on "Defensive Agreements," which asks whether you're standard or upside down, and then lists discards, including a blank line. There's nothing at all to imply to me that it's specifically there for "special conventions." My interpretation is at least as valid as yours.

Furthermore, I think it's a stretch to assume that because you don't agree to o/e or lav (or fill in the blank line), you have an implicit agreement. I think rather that most people who take the time to fill out a real card and play a serious game together, if they don't have an explicit agreement, don't really have an agreement at all, most likely because they haven't attained a level where paying attention to discards helps them.

But whatever, it's really not worth debating. The "eye roll" response got my dander up, but I don't really care beyond that.

1. Maybe Josh had seen some hundred CCs more then you? So maybe his assumtion has a little more merrit then yours? Hey, maybe he even had been uproad, to play bridge in other countries?

2. How many pairs do you know who play udca for carding and attitude but std while discarding? There are lovers for anything, but this species is quite a rare bird. I know zero.

3. If I agree on std. or udca, it is a 100 % certinity that my discards are the same.
And I never ever met a partner who disagreed. So there is an agreement, yes. And this agreement is so obvious that I never ever talk with my new partners about it. We talk about std. or att. and discards direct or lav. That is it.

4. There are too many people on this planet and even in this forum who try to defend silly statements even after being proven wrong. I hope you don´t join these guys. But I think you will.

[finally17]

[quote name='Codo' date='Dec 13 2007, 10:46 AM'] But whatever, it's really not worth debating. The "eye roll" response got my dander up, but I don't really care beyond that. [/QUOTE]

4. There are too many people on this planet and even in this forum who try to defend silly statements even after being proven wrong. I hope you don´t join these guys. But I think you will. [/quote]
Beyond the below, I'm completely done with this discussion. It's gone on too long as it is. Feel free to have the last word.

I didn't make a silly statement, and no one came close to proving it wrong.

My statement said "I think" followed by "guideline," and was a well-reasoned explanation of why I come down on one side of this argument as opposed to the other. In other words:

"This is my interpretation, and here's why, BUT I make no such assumption on BBO."

It would take a ruling body defining UDCA as one way or the other for anyone to be right.

I got responses of obscure literary quotes (Shaw, not Shakespeare, it was late, but really, on point correction!) implying some lack of culture, and rather futile attempts to prove me wrong. Josh's was the only reasonable effort (that considered my reference point and argued why he disagreed with my interp. of it), and I happen to disagree. Until such time as you all can demonstrate that my interpretation is factually, or simply logically, impossible(don't take this as a challenge), maybe you should all just agree to disagree with me.

The worst among us (which might be me) should be aware how dangerous it is to assume defaults in this game, especially in something so basic you will encounter it nearly 50% of hands you pick up.

[finally17]

My public apologies for comments about "eye rolls." The smiley printed out in the quotes as the "eyes roll" or some such, and this is what I read.

The rest I stand by.

[jdonn]

finally17, on Dec 13 2007, 11:15 AM, said:

Beyond the below, I'm completely done with this discussion.  It's gone on too long as it is.  Feel free to have the last word.

How can anyone else not have the last word? Sorry but your entire response to anyone who disagrees (which seems to be everyone) is "my belief is as true as anyone else's and nothing can change that no matter what anyone says." I don't mean to seem harsh about it, but your entire position seems to be you are determined to disagree with any view point but the one you have already decided you believe, so you lend little credence to the counter arguments. For example regarding my first post, no it's not labeled "special discarding conventions" but it lists nothing but special discarding conventions in that section! Common sense is allowed.

Just answer this. If you check nothing in the discarding section and you have agreed UDCA, what do you think the first discard means? Standard count/attitude?

[brianshark]

UDCA means that whenever you are showing attitude, it is upside down attitude and whenever you are showing count, it is upside down count.

Without agreement, partner's discard means nothing. But if you agree (or decide that it is a standard treatment) to show an attitude signal on your first discard then playing UDCA, you may assume it means upside down attitude.

[barmar]

I also believe that it applies to discards. Unless you've agreed to a conventional discard system like Lavinthal or Odd-Even, why shouldn't it? It seems like an obvious application of the general logic that resulted in UDCA in the first place: when you're showing attitude, you don't want to waste high cards in an important suit. Shouldn't this reasoning apply just as well when you're discarding as when you're following suit?

[awm]

Agree with Brianshark. Basically:

UDCA means that any time my play indicates attitude about the suit I am playing, a small card will indicate positive attitude and a high card negative attitude. Any time my play indicates count in the suit I am playing, a small card will indicate even count and a high card odd count.

Obviously, there are many situations where the card I play is not primarily a signal, for example if I am trying to win the trick, or I am leading a suit, or it's late in the hand and I'm not signaling, or I'm intentionally falsecarding to mislead declarer.

There are also situations where the card I play is a signal, but does not indicate attitude or count in the suit of the card I play. These situations can include giving suit preference when partner leads the ace of dummy's singleton suit, or discards in some situations, or smith echo if we play smith echo.

However, if my general agreement is UDCA, then the presumption is that I will never use a high card in a suit to encourage that suit, or play a high card in a suit specifically to give even count. If you combine UDCA with "attitude discards" (attitude discards are the standard discard agreement where pitching a card in a particular suit gives only attitude about that suit, as opposed to for example lavinthal discards which give suit preference about other suits, or odd/even discards which signal based on parity), then it is presumed that like all other situations where the play of a card indicates attitude about the suit in which the card is played, that low will encourage and high discourage.

[barmar]

I think Adam has summarized it perfectly.

One point that I don't think has been mentioned, though: UDCA does not apply when you're leading. In particular, when leading a doubleton, you still lead high-low. There are some partnerships that agree to lead low from two small, but this is a special agreement, not a consequence of UDCA (I'm not really sure what their reason for this agreement is -- I think it may just be to be confusing, like the pairs who play upside-down suit preference).

[awm]

barmar, on Dec 13 2007, 06:55 PM, said:

I think Adam has summarized it perfectly.

One point that I don't think has been mentioned, though: UDCA does not apply when you're leading. In particular, when leading a doubleton, you still lead high-low. There are some partnerships that agree to lead low from two small, but this is a special agreement, not a consequence of UDCA (I'm not really sure what their reason for this agreement is -- I think it may just be to be confusing, like the pairs who play upside-down suit preference).

I've played this agreement before. The basic intention is to play attitude leads, where you lead high in a suit you don't want returned and low in a suit you want returned. Since a doubleton lead is normally one you want returned, you lead low.

Another way to view this agreement is that if you frequently lead from three or four small cards, it's nice to be able to distinguish that lead from a lead from doubleton or a lead from strength. Standard lead agreements don't do a good job of this (fourth best is particularly bad, leading the same card from 542 and KT82). People have come up with methods like MUD for this, but they tend not to help partner much (who sees the high card lead and thinks it's doubleton until after he has mistakenly continued the suit).

[Walddk]

barmar, on Dec 14 2007, 01:55 AM, said:

There are some partnerships that agree to lead low from two small, but this is a special agreement, not a consequence of UDCA (I'm not really sure what their reason for this agreement is -- I think it may just be to be confusing, like the pairs who play upside-down suit preference).

Wrong. The reason for this agreement is that by leading low from two and four small and high from three is that you now lead the same way you give count (playing UDC).

72
762

You lead the deuce and the 7 respectively, just like when you give count. 2 followed by 7 = even number of cards, 7 followed by a smaller = odd number of cards.

This makes a lot of sense and is also easy to remember. I don't mind leading high from a doubleton if that is our agreement, but there is nothing that suggests that one method is better than the other.

As pointed out by a few, this has nothing to do with UDCA. It's a leading style as per agreement.

Roland

[jdonn]

Walddk, on Dec 13 2007, 07:19 PM, said:

barmar, on Dec 14 2007, 01:55 AM, said:

There are some partnerships that agree to lead low from two small, but this is a special agreement, not a consequence of UDCA (I'm not really sure what their reason for this agreement is -- I think it may just be to be confusing, like the pairs who play upside-down suit preference).

Wrong. The reason for this agreement is that by leading low from two and four small and high from three is that you now lead the same way you give count (playing UDC).

72
762

You lead the deuce and the 7 respectively, just like when you give count. 2 followed by 7 = even number of cards, 7 followed by a smaller = odd number of cards.

This makes a lot of sense and is also easy to remember. I don't mind leading high from a doubleton if that is our agreement, but there is nothing that suggests that one method is better than the other.

Admittedly I have never played it. But my thought was always that you still have to lead high from honor doubleton to avoid blocking suits, so at some point there is a cut-off (maybe it's Tx or 9x?). It seems this could lead to problems. Like do you lead the T from Tx and Txx? Or do you lead low from 9x and find partner with AQJTx and king in dummy (yes I realize this can also happen if you lead low from 9xx like I would, but somehow it seems more important from a doubleton.)

[Walddk]

jdonn, on Dec 14 2007, 02:24 AM, said:

Walddk, on Dec 13 2007, 07:19 PM, said:

barmar, on Dec 14 2007, 01:55 AM, said:

There are some partnerships that agree to lead low from two small, but this is a special agreement, not a consequence of UDCA (I'm not really sure what their reason for this agreement is -- I think it may just be to be confusing, like the pairs who play upside-down suit preference).

Wrong. The reason for this agreement is that by leading low from two and four small and high from three is that you now lead the same way you give count (playing UDC).

72
762

You lead the deuce and the 7 respectively, just like when you give count. 2 followed by 7 = even number of cards, 7 followed by a smaller = odd number of cards.

This makes a lot of sense and is also easy to remember. I don't mind leading high from a doubleton if that is our agreement, but there is nothing that suggests that one method is better than the other.

Admittedly I have never played it. But my thought was always that you still have to lead high from honor doubleton to avoid blocking suits, so at some point there is a cut-off (maybe it's Tx or 9x?). It seems this could lead to problems. Like do you lead the T from Tx and Txx? Or do you lead low from 9x and find partner with AQJTx and king in dummy (yes I realize this can also happen if you lead low from 9xx like I would, but somehow it seems more important from a doubleton.)

High from Hx (T included), yes. Low from any other doubleton unless the auction suggests that it may be better to lead high from 9x, particularly against notrumps. You don't stop playing bridge just because you have agreements.

Regarding Txx it's normal procedure to lead the T from T9x and middle from Txx. I have played that method in most of my regular partnerships when I was younger, but I need to add that I also led 4th then. I don't any more if I have a say. I much prefer 3rd and 5th, also vs NT.

Speaking of "playing bridge", I assume that no one playing 3rd would lead the 9 from KJ93 or even KJ83. Yes, your agreement is 3rd but certainly not if it can cost a trick. That's what I mean by "you don't stop playing bridge".

Roland

[jdonn]

Walddk, on Dec 13 2007, 07:33 PM, said:

High from Hx (T included), yes. Low from any other doubleton unless the auction suggests that it may be better to lead high from 9x, particularly against notrumps. You don't stop playing bridge just because you have agreements.

Regarding Txx it's normal procedure to lead the T from T9x and middle from Txx. I have played that method in most of my regular partnerships when I was younger, but I need to add that I also led 4th then. I don't any more if I have a say. I much prefer 3rd and 5th, also vs NT.

Speaking of "playing bridge", I assume that no one playing 3rd would lead the 9 from KJ93 or even KJ83. Yes, your agreement is 3rd but certainly not if it can cost a trick. That's what I mean by "you don't stop playing bridge".

Roland

I understand, it's all fair enough. I'm sure I would feel differently if I tried it, after all a number of better players than I am use this method, although I can't help but feel it's largely due to regional familiarity more than technical superiority. After all you could easily reverse the procedure, leading high from even numbers low from odd numbers, thereby maintaining the same advantage of distinguishing even and odd holdings but without leading differently from different doubletons. This is the same as playing 3/5 leads, but from something like K752 you lead the 7 not the 5, which is an improvement over 3/5 leads IMO.

I have always led 9 from KJ9x and 8 from KJ8x, as does everyone I have ever met who plays 3/5 leads to my knowledge, with the exception if they try the jack sometimes. And expect I always will

[Walddk]

jdonn, on Dec 14 2007, 02:47 AM, said:

I have always led 9 from KJ9x and 8 from KJ8x, as does everyone I have ever met who plays 3/5 leads to my knowledge, with the exception if they try the jack sometimes. And expect I always will

I congratulate you and am very impressed if you select the jack when leading blindly and find this layout:

---

A surrounding play on opening lead. Wow, great stuff, Josh

Roland

[jdonn]

Walddk, on Dec 13 2007, 07:55 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 14 2007, 02:47 AM, said:

I have always led 9 from KJ9x and 8 from KJ8x, as does everyone I have ever met who plays 3/5 leads to my knowledge, with the exception if they try the jack sometimes. And expect I always will

I congratulate you and am very impressed if you select the jack when leading blindly and find this layout:

---

A surrounding play on opening lead. Wow, great stuff, Josh

Roland

Kranyak did at least once, on opening lead, in a national event. It was published in a bulletin at a relatively recent NABC. Please don't make me remember which one and find it I have never done that one in particular, although I did once lead A from AJxx and find QTx in dummy and Kxxx with partner, leading to an inevitable misguess and a sad declarer. Not sure why I did that, I'm pretty lucky I guess

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Dec 13 2007, 05:05 PM, said:

Walddk, on Dec 13 2007, 07:55 PM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 14 2007, 02:47 AM, said:

I have always led 9 from KJ9x and 8 from KJ8x, as does everyone I have ever met who plays 3/5 leads to my knowledge, with the exception if they try the jack sometimes. And expect I always will

I congratulate you and am very impressed if you select the jack when leading blindly and find this layout:

---

A surrounding play on opening lead. Wow, great stuff, Josh

Roland

Kranyak did at least once, on opening lead, in a national event. It was published in a bulletin at a relatively recent NABC. Please don't make me remember which one and find it I have never done that one in particular, although I did once lead A from AJxx and find QTx in dummy and Kxxx with partner, leading to an inevitable misguess and a sad declarer. Not sure why I did that, I'm pretty lucky I guess

It was in Dallas.

I held the hand from from the other direction and had the chance to shift to the suit at T2.

[Walddk]

jdonn, on Dec 14 2007, 02:47 AM, said:

I have always led 9 from KJ9x and 8 from KJ8x, as does everyone I have ever met who plays 3/5 leads to my knowledge

In that case you blow a trick on a layout like this:

---

Now declarer (East) can develop a second trick if you lead the 9. He can't if you lead the 3. There are other examples where leading the 9 (and the 8 occasionally) may turn out to be costly.

Roland

[jdonn]

Walddk, on Dec 14 2007, 03:47 AM, said:

jdonn, on Dec 14 2007, 02:47 AM, said:

I have always led 9 from KJ9x and 8 from KJ8x, as does everyone I have ever met who plays 3/5 leads to my knowledge

In that case you blow a trick on a layout like this:

---

Now declarer (East) can develop a second trick if you lead the 9. He can't if you lead the 3. There are other examples where leading the 9 (and the 8 occasionally) may turn out to be costly.

Roland

I agree, I would never deny that. But of course it can be costly to mislead partner to your length as well, especially in a situation that usually breaks even. For example, even in the layout you propose the 4th round is very often irrelevent in a suit contract.

Anyway all I'm stating is an observation. Living in an area where virtually everyone leads 3/5 against suit contract, the day I meet the person who leads the 3 from KJ93 will be the first.

One more thought though:

---

If declarer were able to figure out to play low on the small card lead, that would cost a trick as opposed to the 9. I know I know he wouldn't really do that, but regardless these things can work both ways.

[ceeb]

jdonn, on Dec 14 2007, 11:52 AM, said:

Anyway all I'm stating is an observation. Living in an area where virtually everyone leads 3/5 against suit contract, the day I meet the person who leads the 3 from KJ93 will be the first.

When playing 3/5 I have always led 3 from KJ93. I consider it a routine application of the principle that you don't signal with a card you can't afford.

Good to meet you (and to be met).

Charles