[ArcLight]

Some experts use 4th best leads, other 3/5.

Some use standard signals, others udca, or even a mix.

Some use odd/even discards, some count discards, some Lavinthal.

What is the net benefit of one system over another?

If udca gives a better result 1 out of 50 hands then its worth using. If it gives a better result 1 out of 500 then there is not much real benefit. (I'm just making these numbers up, and in a high level competition, experts want all the benefits they can get)

If 3/5 is a lot better than 4th best, (giving a better result 1 out of 25 hands) then I'll use it. But if its better in 1 out of 500 then there is little difference (to me), and its a little more complicated.


Are there any articles or papers proving the worth of one system over another.
Specifically, how much better is 3/5 over 4th best, and udca over standard?
If these methods are clearly better why don't all expert use them?

[Free]

It's a fact that UDCA is usually better than standard, for the simple reason that you don't need to discard a high card in a good suit to encourage. This keeps your suit quality better.

I haven't made other comparissons, since imo it's a matter of preference. If you like to count distributions and you can't do it on your own, you might want to discards suit length. If you can't find out what suit to play, you want a good signalling method to let partner help you. Etc.

My preference is: 3/5 vs trump, 2/4 vs NT, O/E discards, obvious shift, and standard signals when following suit (since I forget UDCA and mess up the defense )

[flytoox]

Free, on Jan 30 2005, 03:40 PM, said:

It's a fact that UDCA is usually better than standard, for the simple reason that you don't need to discard a high card in a good suit to encourage. This keeps your suit quality better.

Free, is this really a fact? While you dont need to discard a possibly useful high card to encourage, you may cause blockage in the suit:)

My opinion is that both are basically equivalent. It is rare that the result is determined by your singal. Judgement and logical analysis are far more important.

[ArcLight]

How valuable is signaling in general?

Someone posted that Meckwell and Bobby Hamman rarely signal.
I was under the impression that experts do signal, but I could be wrong.
Maybe they only signal in certain cases.

[fred]

Signals are very valuable, but when very good players play against other very good players, they are very careful about when the signal (sorry about all the verys).

I think upside down signals are better than "standard signals", but Hamman refuses to play upside down because he is confortable with standard.

I find that most pairs that Lavinthal and (especially) O/E discards lose more than they gain when they play against very strong players (because these signals often paint a roadmap for an alert declarer). This is not the fault of the signals themselves - people are not careful enough about when not to use them (or when to intentionally give false Lavinthal or O/E signals). This is partly a function of human nature - people get attached to their pet toys.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mike777]

Let me put in my usual very strong plug for "Obvious Shift". If for no other reason it keeps my head in the game and makes me count and think as compared with my non obvious shift partners.

I would say if your favourite methods make you count and visual the hands more often in practice than other methods, just do it more.

If you are counting and constructing the hands 100% then you are so far ahead of the rest of us in any event.

[the hog]

I agree with Justin. It does not really matter what you use. Probably the Poles have put more work into signalling than anyone else. There is a slight advantage in playing Combine Leads and signals, but "slight" is the operative word.

[Flame]

I like udca more then std, its easier for me. It more flexiable, both when playing attitude when i dont have to think if i can throw my 9/8/7 which could be important later, and also when giving count, no need to throw a high card with a doublton which could be needed for taking tricks.

[keylime]

I like 3rd/5th vs. suits, attitude leads vs. NT, UDCASP with reverse suit preference LAV first discards.

I've noticed that here in Calgary (on assignment) that there are some pairs that play Lav versus suits, o/e versus NT.

[FrancesHinden]

There is no one answer. Consider leads against a suit contract

4th highest tends to give more information on attitude (particularly if you led 2nd or top from 3 or 4 low). 3rd & 5th (3rd and long) give more count information. Which is more important? That depends on your defensive style.

Against suit contracts I tend to be aggressive, and will usually avoid leading from 3 low or 4 low in an unbid suit. In that case, the count information - and the honour information leading the 3rd highest gives - is very helpful for partner; he doesn't need to worry if I've led from 3 low because I generally won't (of course there are exceptions to this).

If you like to be more passive against suit contracts, 4th highest may well work better because partner has a better idea if you have led away from an honour or not.

Now think about leads in partner's suit, still in a suit contract. The advantage of 3rd & 5th over 4th highest is that partner can often tell at once if you have led from Hxx or Hxxx. If during the auction you always distinguish between 3 and 4 card raises than that information is less useful than whether you have an honour in the suit. For that reason I believe 3rd & 5thers are more prone to leading the honour from Hxx in partner's suit to help save a guess at trick one.

In cashout situations both count and attitude can be vital. If you have raised partner's suit and you could have 4 or 5, or even 3, 4, or 5 (6 doesn't usually cash) then being able to give count on the lead, and tell partner if they are cashing or not, overwhelms any other agreement. For that reason I lead top from 4 low in an auction where I have raised: partner knows at once both that I don't have the King and how many I have.

What about NT? Personally I'm a very big fan of attitude leads, but only after detailed discussion with partner. It would take another long essay to explain why I believe they are superior, so I won't bother unless begged... However it is certainly the case that an attitude type approach (e.g. 2nd & 4th) is generally more important now than count (strict 3rd & 5th). 3rd & 5th is much rarer against NT than against suits.

As for standard vs o/e vs UDCA vs the common-in-England standard count reverse attitude, I believe the edge is tiny or non-existent from one method against another. The edge from discussions with partner every time an interesting signalling issue comes up is much bigger. When it is count, when is it attitude, when is it suit preference? What counts as encouraging? In what circumstances is attitude known at trick one? If you play Ace attitude/King count when do you not give the agreed signal? If you play Smith Peters, when is the signal a count signal, when is it a Smith Peter, when is it suit preference? If you give standard count from 4/reverse count from 3, which card do you play to the first one - highest or second highest? Which do you play on the second round - second highest or bottom? If partner leads an Ace (attitude request) against 1NT-3NT, dummy has xx and you have Jxxxx do you encourage or discourage? (you can't get both AK10x opposite Qxx and AK10x opposite Jxxxx right in defence, you just have to decide which is more likely and hope for the best on the other one).

I have two fairly regular partners. With one I play reverse attitude, with the other standard attitude. They are running pretty much level on hands where I've wished I played the other approach, the reason is always because I haven't been dealt a suitable card to signal with and have to hope partner can read a murky signal (can he read the 4 from A432 as encouraging? can he read the 6 from 876 as discouraging?)

[inquiry]

Since Stephen Tu is here, I think we can let him explain the Scanian Signals (or go see his contribution to Bridgeguys page on this topic at http://www.bridgeguys.com/SGlossary/Signal...nseSummary.html

The basic idea is that you play both UDCA and standard signals, choosing the right signal for the right kind of hand. I can't do the write up justice, but the principle is you use udca carding when dummy has a finessable holding in the suit or as third hand you are known (or can be assumed to be) long in the suit lead. Otherwise, you use standard signals.

Ths concept is to unblcok (not long, no finessable holding in dummy) when short in suit (but encouraging at same time), and to keep your higher cards when you are long in suit or dummy has something that can be finesseed.

The idea is theoretically very sound, the trick is finding someone who will play this with you, and to figure out how this applies when leading through the closed hand.

In my opinion, UDCA is slightly superior to standard signals, and if you can find someone to play these two way signals, this is even better...

Ben