[FrancesHinden]

Lurpoa, on 2011-March-28, 05:55, said:

Signalling what partner needs... that is the first thing...

No doubt.

This is the sort of answer that makes me vote for option 1.
The point about having rules rather than just 'signalling what partner needs' is that you don't always know what partner needs. Under approach 1, at least you know what partner's signal means. Under approach 2 you may have zero information, as opposed to getting the right information at least some of the time.

I think Justin is actually confusing things slightly. If you play in a regular partnership for long enough both approaches come to the same thing because you basically never see a position that you haven't seen before and discussed (unlike bidding sequences where new things come up all the time, it's a long time since I've seen a genuinely new signalling position).

The poll is more about where you start from:
I start from having a fairly simple set of rules (e.g. opening King lead asks for count, opening ace or queen for attitude, first discard attitude etc ). As time goes on, these rules become more complex
The other way round is to start by saying 'I tell partner what he needs to know'. As time goes on, you start to generate agreements about what it is that partner needs to know.

p.s. as others have mentioned, explaining your methods as 'I tell partner what he needs to know' is extremely frustrating to declarer if you have years of experience. But that's a different discussion.

[Lurpoa]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-March-28, 11:17, said:

This is the sort of answer that makes me vote for option 1.
The point about having rules rather than just 'signalling what partner needs' is that you don't always know what partner needs. Under approach 1, at least you know what partner's signal means. Under approach 2 you may have zero information, as opposed to getting the right information at least some of the time.

I think Justin is actually confusing things slightly. If you play in a regular partnership for long enough both approaches come to the same thing because you basically never see a position that you haven't seen before and discussed (unlike bidding sequences where new things come up all the time, it's a long time since I've seen a genuinely new signalling position).

The poll is more about where you start from:
I start from having a fairly simple set of rules (e.g. opening King lead asks for count, opening ace or queen for attitude, first discard attitude etc ). As time goes on, these rules become more complex
The other way round is to start by saying 'I tell partner what he needs to know'. As time goes on, you start to generate agreements about what it is that partner needs to know.

p.s. as others have mentioned, explaining your methods as 'I tell partner what he needs to know' is extremely frustrating to declarer if you have years of experience. But that's a different discussion.

Yes, all very, very valid considerations.


But don't we have false problem here ?

Both options, approaches, as you call them, are not mutual exclusive.

It is just that they belong to different levels of the overall "signalling framework".:


- "Signalling what partner needs" is a basic principle and belongs probably to the lowest level of the framework.

- While the "formal rules" belongs to the application level and the how (like UDCA....) belong to the implementation level.

Note that - and you have touched the subject - "what partner needs" is a problem in itself....

[awm]

I should mention that the original question here has nothing to do with falsecarding or choosing not to signal because it might help declarer. Nor is it really about situations where you have to decide whether to signal encouragement or discouragement based on what partner is likely to do (i.e. discouraging when partner leads ace and you have Qxx over Jxxx in a suit contract).

The question is more about what the signals mean. In other words, we can have an agreement like "we always signal attitude to partner's lead at trick one." Or we could have a more elaborate agreement like "we normally signal attitude to partner's lead at trick one; however there is the following list of exceptions... if dummy has a singleton in a suit contract we signal suit preference... if dummy is winning with the jack or below and we cannot beat it, we signal suit preference.... if partner leads the king at the five-level or higher we signal count..."

Or we could have an agreement that when partner leads we signal whichever of count/attitude/suit preference we think will be most useful to partner based on the auction and dummy.

Apparently some experts prefer the latter agreement. This has two main advantages: you don't need to remember a complicated rule like the one stated above, and if you come upon a situation that you've never discussed you might get it right. The big disadvantage is that sometimes what you think is most useful to partner and what partner thinks is most useful to partner are not the same... and you end up signaling suit preference (for example) but partner thinks you were encouraging a continuation (or giving count).

Personally I prefer the rule-based approach; yes it occasionally means we are signaling the "wrong" thing especially if our rule is a fairly simplistic one. But there is never a miscommunication about what the signal means, something that can lead to spectacular disasters and arguments.

[Free]

awm, on 2011-March-29, 11:30, said:

Personally I prefer the rule-based approach; yes it occasionally means we are signaling the "wrong" thing especially if our rule is a fairly simplistic one. But there is never a miscommunication about what the signal means, something that can lead to spectacular disasters and arguments.

Signalling the "wrong" thing can also lead to spectacular disasters.

[han]

I don't know what is best, I only know how I like to play bridge.

Monday my partner and I were defending 1NT. I led a disastrous high heart. Declarer won and continued the suit, partner winning the trick. This was left in dummy:


KQJx
XX
K8x
Kx


and I held:

Ax
2
10xx
xxxxx

My partner played the 10 of spades, I won the ace switched to the diamond 10.

Even though my partner never made a suit preference lead before, this clearly had to be one. Indeed, my partner had AQJx of diamonds, good spade 10 partner.

[JLOGIC]

han, on 2011-March-30, 03:16, said:

I don't know what is best, I only know how I like to play bridge.

Monday my partner and I were defending 1NT. I led a disastrous high heart. Declarer won and continued the suit, partner winning the trick. This was left in dummy:


KQJx
XX
K8x
Kx


and I held:

Ax
2
10xx
xxxxx

My partner played the 10 of spades, I won the ace switched to the diamond 10.

Even though my partner never made a suit preference lead before, this clearly had to be one. Indeed, my partner had AQJx of diamonds, good spade 10 partner.

Rule 3.16C should have covered this anyways.

[han]

awm, on 2011-March-29, 11:30, said:

But there is never a miscommunication about what the signal means, something that can lead to spectacular disasters and arguments.

Either your rules are very good or you and your partner have very little imagination.

And aren't arguments actually a good thing? Personally I much prefer the long and hard road to the top than the smooth road to the bottom.

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2011-March-30, 05:17, said:

Rule 3.16C should have covered this anyways.

I would expect this to be covered by very general rules. For example:
"During the play at notrumps, leads are normally attitude."
"When attitude is known, either suit preference or count."
"In declarer's suits, suit preference usually takes precedence over count. Count takes precedence when [a list of known exceptions]"

That sort of thing might be no more than a codification of what you'd regard as "telling your partner what he needs to know", but they're still rules, whether you write them down or not.

[rhm]

awm, on 2011-March-29, 11:30, said:

Personally I prefer the rule-based approach; yes it occasionally means we are signaling the "wrong" thing especially if our rule is a fairly simplistic one. But there is never a miscommunication about what the signal means, something that can lead to spectacular disasters and arguments.

Free, on 2011-March-30, 02:34, said:

Signalling the "wrong" thing can also lead to spectacular disasters.

"Misunderstandings cause far more disasters than inferior methods" (Michael Rosenberg)

Rainer Herrmann

[peachy]

2, but it requires high degree of ethics so as not to add "body language" or other UI when signalling. I would guess that most advanced partnerships use some form of 1, and even if ostensibly using 2, experienced partnership has rules there as well, so in the end, it is not just guessing.

[han]

peachy, on 2011-March-30, 08:27, said:

so in the end, it is not just guessing.

Hard to disagree with that.

[JLOGIC]

gnasher, on 2011-March-30, 06:00, said:

I would expect this to be covered by very general rules. For example:
"During the play at notrumps, leads are normally attitude."
"When attitude is known, either suit preference or count."
"In declarer's suits, suit preference usually takes precedence over count. Count takes precedence when [a list of known exceptions]"

That sort of thing might be no more than a codification of what you'd regard as "telling your partner what he needs to know", but they're still rules, whether you write them down or not.

Lol of course, you would expect every situation to be covered by the rules, because why shouldn't it be? In that case #2 is not necessary for you. It would be nice to play bridge in such a wonderful theoretical land. Every situation can be covered by rules, and any hand we post I'm sure you will have a rule that covers it, so this is not really a useful discussion for you.

Could you give an example of a situation that could come up where you would be forced into playing something suboptimal because your rules call for it, where you and your partner could both see that that is an inferior way of playing it at the table?

[bluecalm]

Btw guys, instead of arguing what is mainly semantics please tell me how you solve this one:
http://www.bridgebas...arding-problem/ with your methods.

[awm]

Here's an example hand that came up recently. At matchpoint scoring, we had the auction:

2♠ - 3♣ - 3♠ - 4♣ - All Pass

Partner lead the ♠A and dummy came down with:

♠Kxx
♥9xxx
♦Ax
♣QTxx

It appears obvious that continuing spades will not be useful. Declarer is likely to discard a heart loser on the spade king once he gets the lead. So the important question is whether I hold a high honor in hearts (making it safe for partner to switch to hearts and take our heart tricks now) or not. For example, say partner holds ♥Kxxx (his actual holding!); if I hold ♥Ax then we should play hearts now to beat the contract, whereas if I hold ♥Jx then partner switching could give declarer an additional trick by leading into his ♥AQx.

So it's obvious what partner needs to know. Our usual agreement is to give attitude at trick one. So is my signal:

(1) Since continuing spades is obviously non-useful, I should signal suit preference between the red suits.
(2) Since we agreed to signal attitude at trick one, I should discourage spades if I want a heart shift and encourage spades if I don't.

In either case we can easily do the right thing if we are on the same page as to what my card means (or if we are lucky and my "encouraging" card and my "lower red suit" card happen to be the same in our carding style). But if we disagree as to what's going on we are very likely to do the wrong thing! Note that this isn't really a case where partner can "work it out" -- how does he know what my heart holding is except via my signal? If you think it's "obvious" to give suit preference, keep in mind that it could also be that both red suit shifts from partner give a trick and a passive spade continuation is the least-bad action!

I think there is a difference between going wrong in a situation where I do not have the information to make a correct decision and happened to guess wrong... and going wrong in a situation where partner signaled me the correct decision and I couldn't understand what he was doing.

[inquiry]

awm, on 2011-March-30, 14:29, said:

Here's an example hand that came up recently. At matchpoint scoring, we had the auction:

2♠ - 3♣ - 3♠ - 4♣ - All Pass

Partner lead the ♠A and dummy came down with:

♠Kxx
♥9xxx
♦Ax
♣QTxx

It appears obvious that continuing spades will not be useful..

This one would fall under a generic rule that most people use. This rule is "if dummy has a strong holding such that continuation does not seem useful, partner signal will be S/P. Usually, perhaps this is when partner leads an honor against NT and dummy hits with that as "his suit", but it would apply here, as we are not getting a spade trick as dummy has a stong holding for this auction (I raised, partenr has six, so this kills that suit).

[bluecalm]

Quote

(1) Since continuing spades is obviously non-useful, I should signal suit preference between the red suits.
(2) Since we agreed to signal attitude at trick one, I should discourage spades if I want a heart shift and encourage spades if I don't.

This is only matter of agreement. Some people play discourage = obvious switch preference in those situations.
I think the rule: "attitude is always about current suit, to give info about other suits we always play S/P" is less error prone. There are still situations when you have to know if S/P to given suit is always true (hearts here) or just partner had to played some card (low here wouldn't mean diamonds, just "lack of hearts" and if hearts and diamonds were reversed high card would mean just "no diamonds help, partner").

[gnasher]

JLOGIC, on 2011-March-30, 14:10, said:

Lol of course, you would expect every situation to be covered by the rules, because why shouldn't it be? In that case #2 is not necessary for you. It would be nice to play bridge in such a wonderful theoretical land. Every situation can be covered by rules, and any hand we post I'm sure you will have a rule that covers it, so this is not really a useful discussion for you.

I think you've misunderstood me - what I meant was that the two approaches are basically the same. Even if you don't write down any rules, the reason you and your partner are usually on the same wavelength is that you have an implicit agreement about what the rules are.

For example, you have an implicit agreement that when dummy has KQJx you don't show attitude in the suit. Other people might have an explicit agreement that when dummy has KQJx they don't show attitude in the suit. But it's the same agreement.

Quote

Could you give an example of a situation that could come up where you would be forced into playing something suboptimal because your rules call for it, where you and your partner could both see that that is an inferior way of playing it at the table?

No, because my rules tend to contain weasel words like "usually" or "in general".

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-March-30, 17:55

[JLOGIC]

Quote

I think you've misunderstood me - what I meant was that the two approaches are basically the same.

You're right, in that case I agree they are mostly the same.

[zasanya]

Seems to me that 1 is actually simpler .Make rules and stick to them.Beginner to advanced would do well to follow this IMO.
If and when one reaches expert level and gets an expert partner rule 2 takes over.It is after all not so easy to work out whether a signal is needed or not.I recall reading somewhere that Belladonna and Garozzo never signaled except in hold up situations.

[han]

I think most has been said already. I would just like to add that one doesn't need to be a genius to guess awm's preference from the poll options:


1. Have formal rules, accept they are not always best
2. Signal what partner needs, accept some misunderstandings