[euclidz]

I have avoided using any form of discard system because I am often forced to discard something I don't want to discard.

Playing Bridge on BBO last week I joined a person who immediately left saying she wouldn't play with a partner who didn't play a discard system. So looking at systems for something which is both simple but effective I came across Dodds which seemed to fit the bill. Researching that I found the below paragraph in an article on discards . . .

A little used system is that of Dodds discards . . . . . This is little used because there is quite a high frequency of hands where you have no useful discard and you end up misleading partner.

That is exactly NOT what I am looking for but I don't see that in Dodds. What do we think?

[ahydra]

Once I discovered attitude discards I never looked back. Probably best to play the signal the same way up as your regular attitude signals - so for example if you play reverse attitude, then discarding a low card in a suit encourages that suit, and a high one discourages. I can't recall the last time this left me with a problematic discard.

ahydra

[steve2005]

Lots of people don't play discard signals. The person was being small minded to leave. No loss to have this type of person leave your table.

if interested in signals here's my 2 cents worth:

Upside don't count and attitude signals are clearly superior because there is less chance of throwing away a useful high spot card when needed.. But even standard attitude and count signals are playable.

for your first discard (in ACBL)

In suit contracts just discard a high card if you like the suit and a low card for suits you don't like *playing upside down)

In NT contracts you usually don't want to discard a card in the suit you like as you may be able to run that suit so would be throwing away a trick. So, discard any card in a suit you don't like with the discard being suit preference for the 2 remaining suits high for higher suit, low for lower suit. This is Lavinthal.

No you may get stuck sometimes and have to discard a card that' doesn't show the meaning you intended. However odd-even discard you will find you often don't have the right card to signal

[Cyberyeti]

euclidz, on 2015-March-03, 07:14, said:

I have avoided using any form of discard system because I am often forced to discard something I don't want to discard.

Playing Bridge on BBO last week I joined a person who immediately left saying she wouldn't play with a partner who didn't play a discard system. So looking at systems for something which is both simple but effective I came across Dodds which seemed to fit the bill. Researching that I found the below paragraph in an article on discards . . .

A little used system is that of Dodds discards . . . . . This is little used because there is quite a high frequency of hands where you have no useful discard and you end up misleading partner.

That is exactly NOT what I am looking for but I don't see that in Dodds. What do we think?

As an aside, I find that people playing the more complicated discard systems at below top level tend to let partner know they don't have the right card to discard, because it takes them longer to find a discard when it's not simple for that reason. You have to train yourself not to do this and to ignore it if partner does it, as it's unethical to take this into account.

[helene_t]

I would strongly advice against any odd/even based system (Dodds, Roman, whatever) unless you are a very experienced player.

It is quite often that you have only two cards in a particular suit that you can afford to discard. If one is odd and the other is even then all is fine, but what if they have the same parity?

The agreement is that, in such a case, you discard the highest if you have only the wrong parity and the lowest if you have only the desired parity. In other words, 3 is the oddest card and 2 the evenest, and 7-8-9 are fairly neutral.

This is difficult for partner to read because while he might be able to figure out that you might play the 6 from 962 if you wanted to show "high" (6 is the highest you can afford), it is a lot more subtle to figure out that from 962 the 6 may be the oddest card you can afford.

So Ahydra is right. Just stick to your normal attitude signal. You may agree that if it is obvious that if it can't be an attitude signal then it may be suit preference. But above all, it is quite possible that it doesn't mean anything. It may be the only card you can afford, or it may be that you have nothing to say!

[mikeh]

I would suggest that virtually all bridge players will improve their defence by playing some reasonable discard method rather than by playing none. Defence is the most difficult part of bridge. Playing uninformative discards is like trying to judge distance with one eye closed. It is possible but far more prone to error than using both eyes.

As for method.....my suggestion is upside down provided that you and partner are both comfortable, otherwise high spot suggests you like the suit, low says you don't. That was the traditional discard method from whist, a game that is a forerunner to bridge. Upside down is simply the inversion of that ancient method.

I would not recommend lathinthal, roman, etc until you are in a regular partnership and are comfortable with being able to make plays in tempo even when you don't hold the 'right' cards.

[NickRW]

I've been happiest with upside down attitude. Normal attitude is OK (I think upside down is better because you can more often spare a higher spot from a suit you don't want led, but there is little to choose between the two).

I don't like systems that depend on odd/even.

One or two decent-ish pairs where I am just discard "unwanted cards" with a count signal. Not sure that is particularly recommended, but they seem to like it.

Suit preference (first) discards (higher for a higher suit) are common. Not particularly in love with them, though there are plenty of other situations where suit preference comes into its own.

[Zelandakh]

I would start my answer to this question with a counter-question. What is your regular signalling system in non-discard situations? For example, when your partner leads an ace or king, when do you play a high card and when a low one? In general the basic discard system works in precisely the same way. In general, basic signalling works by giving signals in a suit in the order attitude -> count -> suit preference. That is, the first signal for a suit should tell your partner whether you have an interest in this suit in the context of the play so far; the second will tell partner whether you have an odd or an even number; and subsequent signals will indicate an interest (or not) in the remaining suits.

Discards can work in the same way and simply extend the signalling possibilities. This is therefore the method I would suggest to someone new to the idea rather than having a special additional method for a single card. Like Mike, I would also advise sterring clear of odd/even methods for the time being, not because they are generally worse but because they add an additional level of complexity and because weaker partners tend to think of them more absolutely, which is not really helpful. In principle then, te 2 methods I would suggest are standard: a high card = like -> even -> higher suit preference (and low is dislike -> odd -> lower suit preference) or udca: high = like -> even -> lower suit preference (high = dislike -> odd -> higher suit preference). Udca has a small theoretical advantage but it is much more important to play what you and your partner are comfortable with. Therefore I say that you should take over your existing signalling method to discards without worrying about the times when it might not be optimal. If you do not have an existing signalling method then choose the one most commonly played in your area (typically udca in Europe, standard in the UK and USA but it varies quite a lot regionally).

Now it would be remiss of me not to point out some special signalling cases, albeit most of which do not relate directly to discards. When partner leads a high card against a trump contract and dummy has a singleton, it is common to play the first signal as suit preference. Similarly, when partner leads a small card and you cannot beat a fairly low card in dummy in a non-finesse situation, it is assumed that you do not like the suit and therefore you can move on to count. Another one is when declarer leads a suit - here giving an attitutde signal often helps declarer more than partner so skipping attitude completely is normal. One that comes up often on discards is giving impossible suit preference, for example showing like for a suit that you have previously shown out of. That is typically a way of showing dislike in the other suit. Other situations of this type are handled using the same logic.

In the end I think you will find good signalling an invaluable asset to your defensive play. Many situations can only be reliably resolved through defensive signalling. They also offer a way of deceiving a good opponent (one who pays attention to your signals) through falsecarding. That is a whole topic all on its own. For now, it is enough just to mention that your signals are not set in stone. If you know that your partner cannot make use of your signal and, particularly, if the information will enable declarer to do the correct thing, then you can (and often should) deliberately play the "wrong" card. Be careful with this though - a good partner will be watching your cards closely so do not mislead for the sake of it.

That last is an important phrase in this subject by the way. "A good partner". If your partner does not pay attention to your cards then it does not matter too much. As you get better yourself and want to play with better partners though, improving your own signalling will be a necessary part of that step up. Therefore I would strongly suggest that you start practising with giving and reading signals as quickly as you can. Discards are a small but important part of that.

[1eyedjack]

Having embraced a discard system (ANY discard system) your next phase will be going through a series of short-lived partnerships where the defenders use the signalling system as a substitute for thinking about the hand. No small proportion of the time you can work out what should be done without the benefit of a signal, and when you get a signal to suggest something else, there is a fair chance that he was stuck for a card that gave the appropriate signal. This should not dissuade you from doing the right thing.

[euclidz]

Thanks for all the helpful replies . . . I will look up and study 'Upside Down' which I presume is the opposite of HELD i.e. LEHD?

[euclidz]

Before I study up on 'Upside Down' . . . . previously, looking at options I read about revolving (McKenney) discards which appeared attractive because it offers the opportunity of choosing from two suits to indicate a preference e.g. both a low club and high heart indicates a spade preference that (to me) I can see occasions when that would be useful. I presume I am missing something?

[helene_t]

McKenney and revolving are two different things.

McKenny discards (known as Lavinthal or "suit preference" outside the UK) means that you discard a high card if you want the highest ranking of the two remaining suits, and a low card if you want the lowest ranking of the two remaining suits.

Revolving discards means that you discard a low card to encourage (as in UDA) and a high card asks for the next suit in revolving order, i.e. a high spade asks for a club (or a diamond if you are discarding on a club trick), a high club asks for diamonds (or hearts) etc. To add to the confusion, some play that a low card asks for the opposite, i.e. low spade asks for hearts (or diamonds) etc.

McKenney is a very bad idea in my opinion unless you have the agreement that it only applies when it is already obvious that you don't want the suit you dicard. Discarding a card in dummy's solid suit against a notrump contract obviously can't be an attitude signal so absent other agreements I would assume that if it means something it is a McKenney signal.

Revolving is probably technically fine in situations where you can aford a discard in any suit. But again I won't recommend it unless you are a very experienced player. The problem is that very often you don't have the ideal discard and partner therefore needs to know which aspects of your message he can trust. For example, it is probably often so that a high spade can be trusted to mean "I dislike spades", while the "but I like clubs" message is less reliable.

When you have to discard, your main thought should be practical: which cards can you afford to discard? is there one which you have to discard in order to unblock?

- If there is only one card you are sure you can afford you just discard that card without even thinking about what it means in your discard system
- If there are two spot cards in the same suit which you can afford to discard, you chose one of them on the basis of its systematic meaning

When I play more complex discard systems in which I could potentially send one of four messages to partner (suit1, suit2, suit3, dontcare), I find myself thinking in circles like: "I would like to tell partner that I want hearts but I can't afford any discard that will show that but maybe I can at least discorage diamonds, or maybe encourage clubs which partner probably can see can't be genuine". It is impossible to think like this in tempo, and besides, it is the wrong way of thinking.

[Zelandakh]

euclidz, on 2015-March-03, 13:44, said:

Before I study up on 'Upside Down' . . . . previously, looking at options I read about revolving (McKenney) discards which appeared attractive because it offers the opportunity of choosing from two suits to indicate a preference e.g. both a low club and high heart indicates a spade preference that (to me) I can see occasions when that would be useful. I presume I am missing something?

I played them for a while too and there are certainly cases where they are helpful. Many play them at NT but not against a suit contract. For me this is again an unnecessary added level of complexity for you at this stage of your development. One thing to understand about them is that they only apply to the first discard - thereafter you revert to natural, either standard or udca. So you have to learn the basic method either way. There is nothing wrong with the method though - as with most things you get pros and cons. I would just suggest familiarising yourself with the basics first and then play with Lav/Mck once you are comfortable with that without having to spend time concentrating on it.

helene_t, on 2015-March-03, 14:31, said:

Revolving discards means that you discard a low card to encourage (as in UDA) and a high card asks for the next suit in revolving order, i.e. a high spade asks for a club (or a diamond if you are discarding on a club trick), a high club asks for diamonds (or hearts) etc. To add to the confusion, some play that a low card asks for the opposite, i.e. low spade asks for hearts (or diamonds) etc.

The first of these may be revolving in your area but revolving is IME more often used to refer to the pure suit preference method where a low card shows like for the next lower suit and a high card for the next higher suit. That is, if you are signalling in the middle suit it is identical to Lav/Mck. However if signalling in the highest or lowest suit it is effectively reverse Lav/Mck. Again, I would not suggest either of these methods at this time.

[kenberg]

euclidz, on 2015-March-03, 07:14, said:

I have avoided using any form of discard system because I am often forced to discard something I don't want to discard.

Indeed, this can be a problem. Personally, I am fine with "standard carding". But I want to start by asking just what you mean.

Suppose, for example, the auction is 1H-3H-4H, declarer wins the opening diamond lead and cashes three rounds of hearts, you discarding on the third heart. Are you saying that you might discard the deuce of spades opr the 8 of spades and there is no significance to your choice? You just pull some spot card and play it?

I assume that is not exactly what you mean, but what would the 8 mean?

If the deuce means "I either don't want to encourage a spade switch, or I am not sure that I want a spade switch, or maybe I have some values in spades but I don't really believe that it is best to tell you and an eavesdropping declarer about my spade values", and if the 8 would normally ancourage a spade switch, then I think you could say "standard carding" rather than "no system" and everyone will be happy.

Generally I find the problem with selecting a discard is that I am not sure what message I want to send. Once I decide on the message, the sending is usually easy. As for udca, often I send negative signals and then standard is the system that allows the use of small cards. In the heart contract above, say partner had started with the king of diamonds taken by the ace. Looking at his hand, the dummy, and my play to trick 1 usually gives him guidance as to whether to continue diamonds when he gets in. So if I discard the spade deuce, I suppose he will consider a club switch. Not because the spade deuce is a coded signal for clubs but rather because he has to play something and I have discouraged spades. Playing upside down, I would have had to play either a high spade or a small club. Playing any club could be wrong, and I may not wish to toss out a high spade.

I have played upside down and right side up and maybe udca is superior, it is said to be by people who know more than I do. But it's not a lot superior.

And I agree with the several comments advising against o/e.

I play pick-up a fair amount on bbo. Standard is fine, udca if partner prefers it, o/e first discard if s/he really insists.

[ggwhiz]

For pickup games stick to something widely used and put it in your profile, either standard or UDCA (upside down count and attitude)will cover general defense and discards but if you put in McKenny or Lavinthal you severely limit the number of pickup pards that know what they are.