[Siegmund]

Returning to bridge...

It is a highly regional thing, in my experience. In the two states I have played in the most (Alaska and Montana) standard is the extreme-majority position even by the local experts. Play in Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake City, you better look at every pair's convention card. In general it seems the bigger the city, the greater the likelihood that a random opponent will be playing udca.
Opposite to OP, I find that UDCA is vastly more common on BBO than it is in any (north american) live venue I've ever played. At times I've joked "all my live partners play standard and all my internet partners play UDCA."

From a technical standpoint I think the difference between the two methods is too tiny to give either one a clear advantage.

One common situation I find more comfortable playing standard is playing doubletons (high to unblock and high to show two and high to show positive attitude all overlap -- while in UDCA somewhere around Jx, high to unblock and low to signal honestly come into conflict.
I also find the mental effort is reduced if 3/5 leads are combined with standard signals - and conversely 4th best leads with udca - so that first hand and third hand are "playing the same system."
Faced with a partner who is accustomed to 4th best and standard, I usually opt for converting him to 3rd and 5th rather than converting him to udca.

[UdcaDenny]

mikeh, on 2013-April-22, 11:50, said:

Sounds like a US Republican approach: simplistic solutions to complex problems avoid the need to actually think, but usually lead to inadequate real life results.

Maybe you have a better method showing both distribution and encourage or discourage at the same time. Please tell me as that would make everything much simpler.

[barmar]

Siegmund, on 2013-April-22, 19:52, said:

One common situation I find more comfortable playing standard is playing doubletons (high to unblock and high to show two and high to show positive attitude all overlap -- while in UDCA somewhere around Jx, high to unblock and low to signal honestly come into conflict.

In general, playing honors falls outside the usual count and attitude signals -- you don't waste them for mundane uses like this. If you play an honor under partner's honor lead, it's usually to show the next lower honor and deny the next higher one, but occasionally it's unblocking. Playing an honor in some other situation is usually an "alarm clock" signal.

[mikeh]

UdcaDenny, on 2013-April-23, 04:48, said:

Maybe you have a better method showing both distribution and encourage or discourage at the same time. Please tell me as that would make everything much simpler.

You remain in search of a simple solution to a complex problem. I don't think one exists.

Bridge, played at its best, is a subtle, complex game that has become ever more so as the years go by and good players, building on the work of others, look ever deeper into the game.

For example, if partner leads the A, in a situation in which he implies the K as well, and assuming a suit contract, what one wants to do with any holding will depend on a range of factors, including what we hold, what dummy holds, and what we infer from the bidding.

We can't just say we give attitude. Say dummy has a stiff: most would now play some form of suit preference, including being able to indicate that we want the suit continued despite the stiff. If dummy holds Qxx(x) we need to decide whether we want partner to cash the K or switch now, and of course we may have xx in the suit and want to ruff the 3rd round, and so on.

My own preference is to play Obvious Switch, but I have had trouble convincing partners to opt in to the method: I played it for several years in my most successful partnership and remain convinced that it is the best approach I have yet played. If interested, you can probably find a copy of Granovetter's A Switch in Time somewhere online. I didn't play it exactly as he wrote, but very close.

[UdcaDenny]

mikeh, on 2013-April-22, 11:50, said:

Sounds like a US Republican approach: simplistic solutions to complex problems avoid the need to actually think, but usually lead to inadequate real life results.

[billw55]

UdcaDenny, on 2013-April-23, 04:48, said:

Maybe you have a better method showing both distribution and encourage or discourage at the same time. Please tell me as that would make everything much simpler.

This seems like a misunderstanding. You don't show both at once. You show one or the other, depending on which you agree or judge to apply.

For example, when you encourage from (say) 82, you aren't giving count: you are encouraging because you hold doubleton. Consider from the other side: say I hold AKx on opening lead, and partner encourages. I cash the other honor, and he plays his other spot. No signal method I know of will (by itself) tell me whether he holds 82 or Q82.

Also consider holdings of three spot cards or four. The first signal is usually attitude, and the second is count - but not both at once!

[chasetb]

mikeh, on 2013-April-22, 11:50, said:

Sounds like a US Republican approach: simplistic solutions to complex problems avoid the need to actually think, but usually lead to inadequate real life results.

I'm glad you conceded after this remark that stupidity wasn't exclusively Republican, because the health care act shows something else - when Democrats try to think, they screw up even worse. As part of the bill, they now consider full time at least 30 hours a week over a certain period of time (I think for any business over 50 people), and you have to buy insurance if you don't have it. Where I work, the time period is a year. So what are larger businesses doing? They are cutting back hours for part-timers from 35-38 down to 28-29, and it's more difficult now to find a 2nd job. So, take home pay is reduced for a lot of people, and people who don't need insurance / make too much to qualify for gov't assistance is being forced to waste money on it...

[billw55]

chasetb, on 2013-April-23, 10:16, said:

So, take home pay is reduced for a lot of people, and people who don't need insurance / make too much to qualify for gov't assistance is being forced to waste money on it... pay the insurance companies.

And people say the republicans represent big business ...

[Siegmund]

Apologizing for being off-topic...

Quote

As part of the bill, they now consider full time at least 30 hours a week over a certain period of time....they are cutting back hours for part-timers from 35-38 down to 28-29.

At three of the four places I have worked, 30 hours has always been considered "full time" (including being allowed/required to participate in the company health plan)... and at the fourth, a minute over 20 hours was.
I was actually surprised to find out, after seeing your post, that up to 35 hours was still considered part time some places.

[Antrax]

mikeh, on 2013-April-23, 09:18, said:

My own preference is to play Obvious Switch, but I have had trouble convincing partners to opt in to the method: I played it for several years in my most successful partnership and remain convinced that it is the best approach I have yet played. If interested, you can probably find a copy of Granovetter's A Switch in Time somewhere online. I didn't play it exactly as he wrote, but very close.

http://www.scribd.co...-Time-Chapter-0
(The other chapters are linked from there)
I really enjoyed OS when we played it.

[UdcaDenny]

billw55, on 2013-April-23, 09:57, said:

This seems like a misunderstanding. You don't show both at once. You show one or the other, depending on which you agree or judge to apply.

For example, when you encourage from (say) 82, you aren't giving count: you are encouraging because you hold doubleton. Consider from the other side: say I hold AKx on opening lead, and partner encourages. I cash the other honor, and he plays his other spot. No signal method I know of will (by itself) tell me whether he holds 82 or Q82.

Also consider holdings of three spot cards or four. The first signal is usually attitude, and the second is count - but not both at once!

I was joking offcource. People often miss the subject and come with long stories. My point was that I think its more useful to know if p wants me to continue with the suit or not instead of telling me his length.

[Wackojack]

Playing UDCA and giving count with 3 (xyz) cards when partner plays a top hon. What is normal? Play:
y then z?
x then z?
x then y?
If you always play the highest x first and partner continues, do you choose y and z next according to suit preference?

I am sitting East and maybe should have rased to 3♣but stuck with that now.

---

Partner leads A♣. You play UDCA with an agreement that you play attitude on K and play count on Ace. Would you automatically play the 10?

[Stephen Tu]

I think normal is play highest you can afford from a trick taking perspective, to minimize chance of partner misreading signal. Here the T is useless since Q can win 3rd round so you throw it. Thereafter suit pref applies if you have a choice.

[Zelandakh]

Wackojack, on 2015-September-24, 11:43, said:

If you always play the highest x first and partner continues, do you choose y and z next according to suit preference?

This.

Wackojack, on 2015-September-24, 11:43, said:

Partner leads A♣. You play UDCA with an agreement that you play attitude on K and play count on Ace. Would you automatically play the 10?

The correct answer to this depends on other aspects of your signaling such as whether you include "alarm clock" or the like. You can certainly afford the ten followed by suit preference but some use an honour signal differently and would prefer the 8.

[barmar]

If you play the 8 then T, isn't there a good chance that partner will think you were showing the T8 doubleton, rather than the T being suit preference?

You can do this if you've raised, so partner knows you're unlikely to hold a doubleton.

[1eyedjack]

Antrax, on 2013-April-24, 01:08, said:

http://www.scribd.co...-Time-Chapter-0
(The other chapters are linked from there)
I really enjoyed OS when we played it.

Warning. You need to pay $9 to download it. But they don't tell you that until after they have captured your email address in a login screen.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2015-September-25, 09:59, said:

If you play the 8 then T,

If you were to play the 8 first the second card has to be the 5 unless you are desperate for something deceptive.

[phil_20686]

TLDR: Signalling is, fundamentally, quite a deep problem, and whether you play standard or UDCA makes almost no difference.

Playing that you always give attitude when your partner leads and always count when declarer leads is obviously terrible.

E.g. Say that you have xxxxx in a suit and declarer starts cashing AKQJT9 of the suit. Clearly here you would use your cards to signal suit preference so that partner knows which suit he can safely pitch on the five discards he has to make. Informing him that you will be following suit for 5 more rounds doesn't really help him.

Similarly, if partner leads a K and dummy puts down AJTx it seems pretty superflous to give an attitude signal, you might play count (in a suit) or suit preference (vs NT). Partner leads an A and Qxx, QJxx or QJx comes down against NT is another situation where giving attitude would be a total waste.

The toughest situations are usually where declarer plays low towards honours and partner might want to duck. E.g. when declarer plays low to KQx in the dummy. Its sometimes right to play count here (so partner can judge whether to continue with Axxx) and sometimes right to play attitude (e.g. ducking from AJxx). Some people have fairly simple rules and hope to work around them by having the opportunity to signal about this suit in one of the others. Other people have an exhaustive list of cases in their system files for this type of carding situation.

[gordontd]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-17, 15:43, said:

If you are comparing only standard & upside down, it really makes close to no difference which you play. I play one way in one partnership and the other way in another for attitude signals and neither is obviously coming out ahead.
"expert standard" (i.e. the most common method seen played by good players) in the UK is probably standard count & reverse attitude; UDCA is IMO rarer than standard

While I agree that Std Count UDA has become much more popular in the last few years, I'm not sure that it's yes the most common expert method. I've never understood its advantage, so perhaps you can tell me? I did once ask a top player (one of our England team) and he told me what he thought was the advantage of UCA. When I said "yes, but why do you stick with Std Count?" he said "Oh, it's just what I'm used to"!

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2015-September-27, 04:03, said:

While I agree that Std Count UDA has become much more popular in the last few years, I'm not sure that it's yes the most common expert method. I've never understood its advantage, so perhaps you can tell me? I did once ask a top player (one of our England team) and he told me what he thought was the advantage of UCA. When I said "yes, but why do you stick with Std Count?" he said "Oh, it's just what I'm used to"!

I think SCUDA avoids using a possibly crucial high card when you want the suit led or continued for the attitude part, and you are most likely to have three cards in a suit that you are giving count in, so that reverse count will also more often waste a possibly crucial high card?