[blackshoe]

Around here, the most frequent question about carding, at any point in the play, is "standard carding?" The most frequent answer is "yes". If a question is asked at a defender's first discard, it will be "what are your discards?" The two most frequent answers (I think at about the same frequency, but that's an impression, not based on hard data) are "standard" and "odd/even". This seems to satisfy most declarers. I have from time to time tried to be more explicit, but declarer's reaction to that varies from eyes glazing over to annoyance to, as you say, cutting me off in the middle.

[Fluffy]

Chris3875, on 2012-June-29, 17:21, said:

I thought the director of the day was being a bit pedantic ....

North was playing a 3NT contract and had a long run of diamonds - part way through East threw off the 3 of hearts. North asked West about their signals and West replied that it was an encouraging card for hearts. North had in dummy the JTx of hearts and in hand the AQxx and played the J of hearts from dummy intending to finesse East for the King - East played a club (the 3 of hearts had been a singleton) - North called the director saying that she had based her play on the information given by West. .

I think declarer should learn that bridge is played clockwise., Finesing your LHO opponent when you have AQxx is impossible, try for an endplay next time. BTW, why did he complain? the finese worked!

---

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2012-July-02, 12:58, said:

How do you know that their agreement is not "We play 3s as encouraging, everything else as discouraging"?

Occam's Razor.

[bluejak]

Explain, please.

[barmar]

Actually, it's more common sense than Occam's Razor. An agreement that the only encouraging card is the 3 is silly. Playing odd/even discards you frequently don't have an appropriate card; this problem is magnified several times when there are only 4 encouraging cards in the entire deck.

Anything is technically possible, like the "grue" problem of induction (see Wikipedia). But some things are so unlikely that we normally dismiss them.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2012-July-03, 08:48, said:

Actually, it's more common sense than Occam's Razor. An agreement that the only encouraging card is the 3 is silly. Playing odd/even discards you frequently don't have an appropriate card; this problem is magnified several times when there are only 4 encouraging cards in the entire deck.

I don't think that David meant that the method was playable; I don't think he intended to suggest that "only 3's are encouraging" be taken literally at all. He was just demonstrating one of the problems with explaining a card according to what you think it is rather than what your agreements are. He exaggerated for effect and I think everyone understood what he was getting at.

The title of the thread is not an instruction on how to post. Honestly...

[bluejak]

Vampyr is correct. But in case there are other people who do not understand the point I was trying to make, let me clarify.

When partner plays the ♥3 it is clear misinformation to say "That is encouraging". Opponents have a right to know what you play, and how you make deductions, and even what you are going to do with problem hands.

Sure, I was exaggerating. But an opponent has a right to know whether a three is encouraging becuase

• odd cards are encouraging, or
  
• low cards are encouraging, or
  
• 3s, 7s and 9s are encouraging [and 4s and 5s are neutral], or
  
• odd cards are encouraging, but low odd cards more so, or
  
• the higher on this list it is, the more encouraging: 3 5 8 2 T 6 7 9 4

I was interested in Burn's description of Roman, aka Odd/even: I play odd encouraging, even discouraging plus Lavinthal. But I play [and we tell opponents] that the lower odd card, the more encouraging, so a 7 might be encouraging because it is my only odd card, but if followed by a 3, it is less encouraging.

Opponents have a right to make their own deductions, so telling opponents a card is encouraging is not good enough.

Where does Occam's Razor come into it?

[AlexJonson]

If you provide the opponents with an SC and it has your card play agreements, why should you have to talk about those agreements.

[blackshoe]

AlexJonson, on 2012-July-03, 14:12, said:

If you provide the opponents with an SC and it has your card play agreements, why should you have to talk about those agreements.

Because when you tell the opponents "it's on the card" you will get, as I once did, a supercilious "I don't look at convention cards, I ask questions". Aside from that there isn't room on most cards to completely explain everything about your carding agreements, particularly the nuances to which David referred.

[Chris3875]

Sorry - being Down Under I got my Easts and Wests mixed up - it was WEST who had the singleton 3. After reading all the posts I am wondering if "Our agreement is that the 3 of hearts (an ODD card) is normally encouraging for that suit" would be the simplest answer to the query ?

[Vampyr]

Chris3875, on 2012-July-03, 17:54, said:

Sorry - being Down Under I got my Easts and Wests mixed up - it was WEST who had the singleton 3. After reading all the posts I am wondering if "Our agreement is that the 3 of hearts (an ODD card) is normally encouraging for that suit" would be the simplest answer to the query ?

Tell the opponents your agreements and let them figure out for themselves whether the 3 is odd or even. They should not have much trouble.

[bluejak]

AlexJonson, on 2012-July-03, 14:12, said:

If you provide the opponents with an SC and it has your card play agreements, why should you have to talk about those agreements.

The Laws of bridge give opponents the right to find out your agreements by asking questions and receiving full and accurate answers. You are constrained by those Laws.

As a matter of practicality, SCs never go into as much detail as good answers to questions do.

Chris3875, on 2012-July-03, 17:54, said:

Sorry - being Down Under I got my Easts and Wests mixed up - it was WEST who had the singleton 3. After reading all the posts I am wondering if "Our agreement is that the 3 of hearts (an ODD card) is normally encouraging for that suit" would be the simplest answer to the query ?

Easiest - and most correct - is to say "An odd card is encouraging" or whatever you play.

[mycroft]

I've been starting to ask if people are playing "Polish Standard" (which, at least a few years ago, meant "Low encourages") or "Modified Upside-Down"?

Just as a joke, mind you...

[bluejak]

Try asking them if they play Mosher defence to a 1NT opening.

[RunemPard]

This post made me laugh. I just keep picturing all the people at our club that would take it that way.

[mycroft]

I had an interesting one last week. I am dummy (so kept very mouth shut during the play).

Partner won the first trick in 4♠ and led trump. On that trick, declarer's RHO pitched the ♥2. Declarer asked about carding and was told "standard, odd/even discards". When asked what the ♥8 (note!) meant, she was told "odd is encouraging in that suit, even discourages". Declarer then led a diamond, which set up RHO's diamond suit.

At the end, I asked whethere there was any suit-preference implications to an even card, and was told no. Given that RHO really wanted a diamond, and played the 2, I'm *still* not sure I was given correct information (but I can't see why they would dissemble). But given that declarer clearly missed which even heart was played, it wasn't going to matter.

But under other circumstances, it would have been interesting, no?

And as a side note, is there a reason why people would play "odd encourages, even discourages" with no SP implications over rightside-up or reverse attitude?

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on 2012-July-05, 06:21, said:

The Laws of bridge give opponents the right to find out your agreements by asking questions and receiving full and accurate answers. You are constrained by those Laws.

As a matter of practicality, SCs never go into as much detail as good answers to questions do.

This is not without problems. We are "need to know" signallers with very few signalling conventions, and right-side-up for count, attitude or suit preference. When we believe we already know the layout, our carding means only that we don't want to keep what we throw away.

We are probably not as good at both of us knowing this on a given hand as (say) Zia, Schermer, Chambers, Hamman, etc. So, sometimes we get it wrong. But, here's the rub: what do we answer when declarer asks in follow-up, "Is this a signalling situation?" And should we answer separately so that partner doesn't hear? Sometimes it would be easy to say that nothing after trick whatever was a signal. Sometimes not.

No one has asked that, yet..surprisingly.

[barmar]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-17, 10:54, said:

But, here's the rub: what do we answer when declarer asks in follow-up, "Is this a signalling situation?" And should we answer separately so that partner doesn't hear? Sometimes it would be easy to say that nothing after trick whatever was a signal. Sometimes not.

I don't think it's a reasonable question. It's presumably not a matter of partnership agreement, but player judgement.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-July-17, 21:38, said:

I don't think it's a reasonable question. It's presumably not a matter of partnership agreement, but player judgement.

I think it's a reasonable question. If you know, from partnership experience, whether or how your partner will signal in a particular situation, it's an agreement.

[gnasher]

aguahombre, on 2012-July-17, 10:54, said:

We are probably not as good at both of us knowing this on a given hand as (say) Zia, Schermer, Chambers, Hamman, etc. So, sometimes we get it wrong. But, here's the rub: what do we answer when declarer asks in follow-up, "Is this a signalling situation?"

You answer according to your knowledge of your partner's habits, without reference to what's actually in your hand. Possible answers include "Yes", "No", "Probably", "I'm not sure", "It depends on whether he thinks I already know the layout", "He would signal if he had x but not if he had y".

Quote

And should we answer separately so that partner doesn't hear?

No, you should obey the rules about answering questions, then your partner should obey the rules about UI.