[mike777]

Is there enough advantage in playing UDCA over say std with o/e to bother with it?



Do many of you UDCA players just play UDCA on the first discard and pretty much standard count, suit preference the rest of the time?

[jdonn]

Odd even has nothing to do with it, you can play UDCA with O/E just like you can play standard carding with O/E.

[peachy]

UDCA players (I have been one since 1978) do not play standard count. UDCA stands for Upside Down Count and Attitude. Whether one also plays O/E for first discard, is irrelevant to how UDCA is played, just as it is irrelevant to how Standard Attitude and Count are played. Now, before anyone really starts the confusion, UDCA has nothing to do with leads just like Standard Carding has nothing to do with leads!

[hanp]

The main advantage of udca is that everybody plays it so it's easier to remember.

[Siegmund]

It's a regional thing. All my f2f partners use standard and most my internet partners use udca. It's a bit of a strain switching back and forth and I blow a trick a week on the internet as a result...

I personally find the technical differences to be quite small. And, while as peachy says, any combination of leading and carding agreements is possible - my own experience is that standard+0 or 2 higher+3/5 mesh very well as do udca+4th. Just a convenience thing of having a number of situations where you play the same card from a given combination whether leading or following.

I've never met anybody who played UDCA on opening lead and right-side-up attitude and count the rest of the hand.

[Codo]

There is no difference. Sometimes you need to lie with standard carding- so that you do not blow a trick or block a suit, sometimes you need to lie playing udca for the same reasons.

Sometimes udca is better to read, sometimes standard.

And o/e is a very different piece of cake and should be forbidden.

[helene_t]

Most UDCA players play original count while standard players tend to play current count. So you could say that UDCA players play std count in the situation where they played an honour to the first trick and give count the second time the suit is played.

I find it a little problematic with UD count that from Tx I have to decide whether I need to unblock the T or give count with the x. With as result that I play slow to "show" Tx which is obviously unethical.

[billw55]

Codo, on Mar 25 2010, 02:21 AM, said:

And o/e is a very different piece of cake and should be forbidden.

Why do you say so?

[ArtK78]

UDCA is technically superior to standard CA. I am not going to get into any discussion of it as it is a waste of time. Players have ingrained attitudes towards these concepts.

Many years ago there was an article in The Bridge World. There was a Martian who came down to Earth and got into a Bridge game. He (it?) used UDCA without discussion. When this led to a misunderstanding on defense, the Martian stated that he assumed that UDCA was standard as it was technically superior to non-UDCA methods (avoiding the word "standard").

There are some random situations where it is better (more accurately, fortuitous) that one is using "standard" carding rather than UDCA, and vice versa. But in the more normal situation UDCA is superior. One of the main reasons (but by no means the only reason) is that when you do not have strength in a suit and want to discourage, you can almost always afford to squander a high card to discourage a play or continuation in that suit; but if you do have strength in a suit and want to encourage a play or continuation in that suit you may not be able to expend a high card to get that message across.

But, as I said, I am not going to get into a long discussion of the technical merits of UDCA.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on Mar 25 2010, 07:21 AM, said:

Codo, on Mar 25 2010, 02:21 AM, said:

And o/e is a very different piece of cake and should be forbidden.

Why do you say so?

In the ACBL, odd-even carding and Lavinthal are permitted only at a player's first opportunity to discard. The reason is that as a hand progresses more and more situations occur in which a player may not have a "correct" card to play using either of these methods. This leads to tempo problems and UI problems as the player searches for the least wrong alternative. Aware of the problem, the ACBL banned odd-even carding methods and similar methods except at a player's first opportunity to discard, when such problems are much less likely to occur.

[ArtK78]

helene_t, on Mar 25 2010, 07:10 AM, said:

Most UDCA players play original count while standard players tend to play current count. So you could say that UDCA players play std count in the situation where they played an honour to the first trick and give count the second time the suit is played.

This is news to me. I have been playing UDCA with current count for over 30 years and I am unaware of any players who mix their methods as you presented it in your post.

[jjbrr]

Most of my partners play udca with standard remaining count or upsidedown original count the second round. Is that what Helene is saying?

[ArtK78]

jjbrr, on Mar 25 2010, 09:46 AM, said:

Most of my partners play udca with standard remaining count or upsidedown original count the second round. Is that what Helene is saying?

That does appear to be what helene is saying. I just do not understand the logic of it.

[CSGibson]

I strongly prefer UDCA. If I want a suit attacked, there are times that I cannot afford a high spot card - that spot card is often the reason why I want the suit attacked! An example: QTx in dummy, AK92 in my hand behind dummy. I want the suit led by partner because I'm going to be endplayed in the suit in the endgame even if partner has the J, like I hope. I can afford to discard the unambigous 2 to encourage, but if I discard the 9 declarer's 8 becomes equal with the T, and he makes his contract.

Other situations - with a doubleton, I cannot often afford to give the top spot if it is a 9 or higher playing standard count. I can almost always afford to give up the 2nd highest from 3, though, retaining the top card when needed. etc, etc, etc.

The long and the short of it is, that playing UDCA lets you both provide needed information and preserve your spot cards with greater frequency than standard carding.

[zenko]

While ago somebody made a study about it. The conclusion of it is, and my personal experience is in line with it, that upside down attitude is clearly superior, but upside down count is about equally good as the standard. Some players, especially in Europe prefer to play just upside down attitude, mostly on grounds that it is not worth the trouble to learn something that is not clearly beneficial. Other players especially in NA insist on UDCA, playing both attitude and count upside down, on grounds that it is easer to play "everything" reversed. Frankly I never understood that argument for UDCA, for example most of those players continue to play standard suit preference instead of upside down. Bottom line, if you got used to one way of showing count there is not advantage to switch either way, but there is an advantage to switch to low encouraging.

[jjbrr]

ArtK78, on Mar 25 2010, 09:49 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 25 2010, 09:46 AM, said:

Most of my partners play udca with standard remaining count or upsidedown original count the second round. Is that what Helene is saying?

That does appear to be what helene is saying. I just do not understand the logic of it.

I never learned the logic either.

I suppose it's along the lines of what Chris said. If I originally hold HSxx, where H is honor and S is a high spot card, like a 9 or 8, and I play the H on the first round, my S is more likely to eventually become a trick than it would be from HSx. So from remaining Sx, it's a little less dangerous to play the S than it is from Sxx.

[ArtK78]

jjbrr, on Mar 25 2010, 12:00 PM, said:

ArtK78, on Mar 25 2010, 09:49 AM, said:

jjbrr, on Mar 25 2010, 09:46 AM, said:

Most of my partners play udca with standard remaining count or upsidedown original count the second round. Is that what Helene is saying?

That does appear to be what helene is saying. I just do not understand the logic of it.

I never learned the logic either.

I suppose it's along the lines of what Chris said. If I originally hold HSxx, where H is honor and S is a high spot card, like a 9 or 8, and I play the H on the first round, my S is more likely to eventually become a trick than it would be from HSx. So from remaining Sx, it's a little less dangerous to play the S than it is from Sxx.

But you would not play the S from Sxx if the S was relevant. You would play the higher x.

[jjbrr]

the higher x could be an S.

H98x.

I don't know; I can't imagine in practice it makes much difference. Probably none at all.

[gnasher]

One thing that I find curious: lots of people prefer UDCA to standard because of a small theoretical advantage, but hardly anyone prefers revolving signals* to standard suit preference, even though that too has a small theoretical advantage.

* Revolving = low card signals for the next lower suit in rotation; high card signals for the next higher suit in rotation.

[jdonn]

gnasher, on Mar 25 2010, 01:20 PM, said:

One thing that I find curious: lots of people prefer UDCA to standard because of a small theoretical advantage, but hardly anyone prefers revolving signals* to standard suit preference, even though that too has a small theoretical advantage.

* Revolving = low card signals for the next lower suit in rotation; high card signals for the next higher suit in rotation.

I've never heard of this. What is the small theoretical advantage? That you more often don't have to waste a high card to signal for any suit?