[Cthulhu D]

I'm interested to know what the consensus on carding agreements would be if you were building a new serious partnership today would be and could play whatever you like. I considered posting a big ass poll but that doesn't really help plus you need a monster poll.

Question is inspired because partner and I have been playing virtually the same basic carding agreements from day 3 of learning bridge to here, some way down the track (we switched to upside down attitude on day 3. At some point we agreed to under-lead sequences). The amusing upshot of this is we don't play anything that makes logical sense. Obviously this is not optimal, and given the recent Bird/Anthias effort and the fact that consistently the weakest part of our game is leads, defensive signally and generally playing the cards in defence, we're going to allocate some special effort to defence (noooooo). So I guess I was intrested in what's people's take on:

I've seen a fair bit of discussion (3/5 vs suits + English style 2/4th vs NT, Polish style 2/4th all the time, Slawinsky leads except when breaking a new suit through declarer). There are a ton of options and the differences are significant according to Slawinksy's analysis in 'Systems in Defence.' Bird & Anthias' work clearly has an impact here as well - they are suggesting Rusinow except K is the 'big lead' and asks for an unblock.

Here is a list of things that will hopefully spark some discussion.

Opening leads

• Honour leads
  
• small card leads
  
• NT vs Suit contracts
  
• What about when leading Partner's suit

Thoughts: For Honour leads, it seems like Rusinow except with K as the big lead is optimal vs NT (enabling the lead of unsupported aces) is the optimal system of honour leads, particularly in light of Bird / Anthias work suggesting that leading unsupporting aces is a good idea (I am aware of the limitations of that analysis). Do you do the same thing vs suits? Do you play something else? Do you make a hat?

For small card leads it is a ton less clear whether Slavinski, 2/4th or 3/5th are better/best small card systems, and whether you want to max

Breaking new suits through declarer

• Honour leads
  
• small card leads
  
• NT vs Suit contracts

Comments seem to indicate that whatever you are playing for opening leads except leading attitude through declarer is a good plan?

During the hand

• Suit Preference signals
  
• Defensive signaling (UDCA?) on partner's lead
  
• Defensive signals on declarer's lead
  
• Smith Echo vs NT

Suit preference (whether Odds/Evens, Lavinathal, or whatever) is a completely disconnected decision from the others, so less interested in that, more what other signals people make (UDCA, Mixed signals ala Slavinski?). Smith Echo seems mandatory.

[steve2005]

I like to keep it basic.

upside count and attitude is simply better.

In suit contracts I prefer K from AK cause sometimes you want to lead A of a suit (without holding K) so don't want to promise the K and want to be able to do it smoothly without thinking about violating our lead rules.

Against suit contracts don't need special discards, upside down will do fine.

Against NT. you need to signal the suit you want by discarding a suit you don't want because your saving your good cards for when you run the suit. That would be Lavinthal.

I haven't played it but have seen obvious switch played against me and it seems like a good idea. Either that or reverse Smith Echo.

[whereagles]

Bird/Anthias results suggest that any lead system should cater for

1. Distinguishing unsuported A lead from AK vs suit.
2. Being able to lead a top card from KQx+ vs NT.

For #1 the simple way out is to play Rusinow.
For #2 standard scheme with ace/queen as strong leads seems to be enough, but I suppose you can try the big K lead and Rusinow as well.

This only applies to suits your side has *not* bid. In breaking new suits the standard approach also seems ok, i.e. low/high = enc/disc and top of sequence (except K, which is from AK or KQ and now easy to tell).

Rubens/Rosler book "journalist leads" is still a great reference on the matter. It's old, extremely dense and boring to read, but it's like the "adventures in cardplay" of opening leads.

[foobar]

There's no right or wrong answer and here are some methods that I have played over the years with some observations (preferences with *):

• Upside down attitude (*) with upside down or standard count: IMO, both count methods are equivalent, with UDA getting the edge by way of spot conservation
  
• Suit preference (*): Might require significant amount of partnership discussion regarding count vs. SP on declarer's leads, but trump suit preference should be fairly straightforward
  
• 3/5th / 4th best / Slawinski (F/N style) / 2/4th (Polish) / Parity (*): It's annoying to prealert the "low from doubleton" in ACBL-land. More than the leads themselves, a more relevant partnership discussion might be general lead style (aggressive vs. passive), i.e., when partner leads a spot card and third hand needs to make a decision, how likely is partner have led from Hxx(x) vs. xxxx?
  
• Journalist / Rusinow / Jack denies / Coded T/9: Another topic for a religious debate. Jack denies can be useful, though there are vociferous objectors who pose "to whom" question. Rusinow vs. notrump probably has an edge, but the advantage vs. suits is unclear. My personal preference vs. suits is use A/Q for attitude and K from stronger holdings (asking for count) and vs. notrump, K for unblock / count.
  
• Obvious shift: Yet another topic for a religious debate; requires significant amount of partnership discussion
  
• 4th best vs. low from interest (*) / Smith echo (NT*) :
  
• Coded T/9 (*) through declarer in middle of hand
  
• Lavinthal / O/E / standard / upside-down discards: My personal preference is to play a method described in Bird's book that denies interest in suit while (presumably) giving count. Remaining discards in suit are suit preference

Anyway, this is just a laundry list of defensive methods, but do make sure that you have good agreements with partner regarding remaining count, returning partner's suit after winning, discards, etc.

[mikeh]

I am not going to touch upon approaches to leads, either opening or mid-hand, but instead suggest a resource for signalling.

I have played most systems, and currently play udca, with odd-even discards, and lots of suit preference in trump. If I were to suggest one simple change to most non-experts, it would be to forget about giving count in trump and instead give suit preference. The only exception is when both you and partner know or expect that one of you will be ruffing, and now count in trump may allow partner to know if another ruff is possible.

Having said all of that, I actually think that the best carding method I have ever played is Obvious Switch, outlined in Granovetter's book A Switch in Time.

The partnership in which I played that method was the most successful partnership I have ever played in. Part of that was our very complex relay bidding method, a lot of it was that my partner was a brilliant player (who has since lost all interest in the game), but our defence was pretty good as well. It is a lot of work to learn and is definitely a partnership thing. You can't play obvious switch by yourself

Granovetter at one point sets out, iirc, 10 rules for application of the obvious switch principle, and in my partnership, while we used those rules, we did flip one of them.

We realized fairly early on that obvious switch was extremely powerful but that a good declarer could learn a lot about our holdings by watching our signals, so we soon adopted a style in which all obvious switch carding stopped around trick 4 or 5. In principle, you can keep giving information far deeper into the hand, but generally speaking you ought not to need it by then .

[Trick13]

Here are some ideas I have collected, many from this site.

King asks for count, and therefore use Rusinow leads for the other honours, down to the 9.

Rusinow is off:

• When leading partner’s unsupported suit
  
• When leading a suit bid by dummy
  
• After pre-empting, if you lead a side suit
  
• When leading a suit partner has signalled for

Leading 3rds and 5ths (or 3rd and low) can make leader's length clear at trick 1.

After you have led your highest or smallest card indicating some count, you play your remaining small cards to show suit preference.

Leading partners suit: I much prefer to always show length, whether you have supported or not but this is not universal.

When leading low from your own known 5-card suit show suit preference - low/high for another suit, a middle card to encourage return of the suit.

The default switch is attitude but a length showing lead can be made in these cases:

• The switcher is known to have no high cards in the suit.
  
• In a cash out situation when there is only one suit involved (here the honour position is known or placed by assumption that we can beat the contract).
  
• Similar to above, where we need to cash exactly the right number of tricks in a side suit before trying to give partner a trump promotion (otherwise declarer will discard a loser in that suit).
  
• Similar to above, when dummy has a doubleton we would lead length so that partner knows whether or not it is safe to continue with a third round as a safe exit.

When giving partner a ruff, when you have a preference for the suit to be returned choose the highest non-winner you can afford or a low card. Try a middle card if you don’t have an entry. Note that partner will be strongly tempted to under-lead an Ace to get you in for a second ruff, so if you strongly signal for a suit, have the Ace or King. To suggest an uppercut when giving partner a ruff, lead your lowest asking partner to ruff high.

Show attitude on partner's leads, count on declarers leads.

Reverse attitude and count seem logically more economical.

When following in trumps, show suit preference. With three small trumps, after showing preference with your first card, show count in another suit (say the lowest suit where you length in unknown) with your remaining two cards.

When signalling with a high card, always play the highest card you can afford.

Look out for tactical situations that may override the usual meaning of a card (such as unblocking, playing the known card, leading to a card to set up a pin, or trying to win or setup a trick).

When not to signal

• When it may cost a trick
  
• If it will help declarer more than the defenders
  
• If partner is weak and is unlikely to get the lead
  
• Against a slam (unless it’s right)
  
• Don’t advertise a 5-card suit if you have a likely entry (or vice versa)
  
• Try not to reveal a 3-3 break to declarer
  
• Don’t sacrifice a high card for a signal if you will get a chance to signal later
  
• If declarer’s count is known, don’t show count.

When not to falsecard

• When partner is strong
  
• When declarer knows the layout

[Cthulhu D]

I think leads from an honour is relatively clear (Rusinow) but small card leads ate less clear.

What is the position on 2/4th English style, 2/4th polish style or 3/5th? It seems american expert standard is English 2/4 vs NT and 3/5 vs suits, wears Polish adherents play Polish regardless, but what is the theoretical merit? Combine is the other possibility

[inquiry]

t

 Cthulhu D, on 2014-September-17, 01:07, said:

I'm interested to know what the consensus on carding agreements would be if you were building a new serious partnership today would be and could play whatever you like. I considered posting a big ass poll but that doesn't really help plus you need a monster poll.

Getting consensus is not possible. We can not even agree if the primary signal at trick one should be count or attitude, or if we should play standard or upside down signals (or maybe roman). Bat it is clear to defend strongly your need extensive carding agreements that go a long way past "standard" or "udca." You need things like trumps suit preference, obvious switch, smith echo, etc; and a good understanding of when a signal should no longer have the normal meaning but carry a different meaning. One example, if your primary signal at trick one is attitude, when is it instead count or suit preference? When is trump suit preference instead trump Count, etc. Some of my agreement can be found in the following post. carding list