[Adam1105]

Are bridge signals different for trump contracts versus for NT contracts? Thank you.

[Vampyr]

Adam1105, on 2017-October-27, 06:44, said:

Are bridge signals different for trump contracts versus for NT contracts? Thank you.

They can be. What is more common is for leads to be different. Most people don't bother though.

[barmar]

With some partners I play odd-even discards against trump contracts, Lavinthal against notrump. The logic for this is that in notrump we don't want to waste a card in our long suit to ask for a lead of that suit. So if we're mostly going to signal by discarding in suits we're not interested in, there's no reason to require it to be even. But in a trump contract, cards in long suits tend to be less useful later in the hand, since they'll just be ruffed, so we can afford to discard them if they help partner figure out our hand better.

[Tramticket]

Adam1105, on 2017-October-27, 06:44, said:

Are bridge signals different for trump contracts versus for NT contracts? Thank you.

Yes

Even if your signalling systems are the same you will make different choices.

Take a trivial example, partner leads an ace at trick 1, you hold a small doubleton and you have agreed to signal attitude: in a trump contract you will often encourage hoping for a ruff; in a no trump contract you will generally discourage.

Many will change the signalling system to reflect the different objectives.

[msjennifer]

Most certainly signals can be played differently in a suit contract and a NT contract.It is for the pair to decide

what is and what is not since their are a.variety of signals available.

[PhilG007]

Adam1105, on 2017-October-27, 06:44, said:

Are bridge signals different for trump contracts versus for NT contracts? Thank you.

The short answer to this question is it depends on
partnership agreement There are so many methods of signalling it's vital
to establish beforehand what the method(s) shall be. And,of course,its
essential to remember what these agreements are when in play (!)
Another good reason not to have too many conventions on your agreements card(!)

[The_Badger]

Tramticket, on 2017-October-27, 08:57, said:

Take a trivial example, partner leads an ace at trick 1, you hold a small doubleton and you have agreed to signal attitude: in a trump contract you will often encourage hoping for a ruff; in a no trump contract you will generally discourage.

Sorry to take you to task, Tramticket, but that is slightly wrong. The classic way to deal with this situation is to have an agreement that the lead of an ace against a notrump contract asks partner to unblock an honour if holding one, and otherwise give a count signal. However, other players may play this differently, I admit, using the king as a lead to unblock.

[miamijd]

Can be, depending on partnership agreement. One very common difference is that many play some form of Smith (generally Reverse Smith) vs NT only

[Tramticket]

The_Badger, on 2017-October-28, 10:11, said:

Sorry to take you to task, Tramticket, but that is slightly wrong. The classic way to deal with this situation is to have an agreement that the lead of an ace against a notrump contract asks partner to unblock an honour if holding one, and otherwise give a count signal. However, other players may play this differently, I admit, using the king as a lead to unblock.

Yes, I play king for count / unblock and ace for attitude.

My point was meant be a more general one, that your objectives are often different in suit contracts compared with no-trump contracts (for example it would less common to unblock in a suit contract). Your signal will often be different and it is reasonable to structure your signalling system differently.

[RD350LC]

The_Badger, on 2017-October-28, 10:11, said:

Sorry to take you to task, Tramticket, but that is slightly wrong. The classic way to deal with this situation is to have an agreement that the lead of an ace against a notrump contract asks partner to unblock an honour if holding one, and otherwise give a count signal. However, other players may play this differently, I admit, using the king as a lead to unblock.

I tend to consider an ace lead in NT as a request to unblock. But when I have Kxx for example, and there is QJxx on the board-partner does not like it when I unblock.

[blackshoe]

RD350LC, on 2017-October-29, 08:25, said:

I tend to consider an ace lead in NT as a request to unblock. But when I have Kxx for example, and there is QJxx on the board-partner does not like it when I unblock.

Then he shouldn't have led the ace.