[Vampyr]

So many English players will play reverse count attitude but insist on standard count. This is not sound. Perhaps an English player can tell me why this weird agreement is common.

Also, the English use the word”relay” to mean “bye stand” and so end up with no word for “relay”. So they say “share” why why why?
“

[fromageGB]

When you say "play reverse count" I am not sure what you mean. Can you give an example? I play "standard count" which I take to mean - when following suit with small cards - play a second round card lower than the first round's to indicate an even number. I know of nobody who plays that to show an odd number and calls it "standard count". Perhaps they mean it has become more common and is therefore now normal, or standard? But it is not, where I play.

Your second line has me lost. I do not understand "bye stand" so perhaps you can give an example and context. (Maybe used elsewhere, but I have not played outside GB.) If you are referring to the case of say an 8 table 24 board bridge movement where table 1 plays the same 3 boards as table 8, we say we share the boards, and this is the normal use of the word "share". Something is divided among a number of people. Between tables 4 and 5 there is a chair on which boards are placed in transit (resting for one round) as they move round the room. This is a relay because the word means "to hand something over, or pass something on". As in a baton in a race that has usually 4 members of a team running consecutively. The boards are being passed on, but not played for a round. Hence "share and relay movement", and as an Englishman that seems entirely logical to me.

If we have no word for "relay" by your definition, can you give me a definition in English of what your word (in another language) means?

[sfi]

 Vampyr, on 2019-August-04, 20:50, said:

So many English players will play reverse count but insist on standard count.

Is "reverse attitude and standard count" what you mean?

If so, it works fine as long as you are clear about which is attitude and which is count. If it is unclear which message to send then you can easily have a conflict about which card to play, but those situations are likely to occur later on in the hand where you might have a conflict anyway.

I've encountered it a few times, and even been asked to play it once or twice. It's a bit odd but hardly unplayable.

[Vampyr]

 fromageGB, on 2019-August-05, 02:42, said:

When you say "play reverse count" I am not sure what you mean. Can you give an example? I play "standard count" which I take to mean - when following suit with small cards - play a second round card lower than the first round's to indicate an even number. I know of nobody who plays that to show an odd number and calls it "standard count". Perhaps they mean it has become more common and is therefore now normal, or standard? But it is not, where I play.

Your second line has me lost. I do not understand "bye stand" so perhaps you can give an example and context. (Maybe used elsewhere, but I have not played outside GB.) If you are referring to the case of say an 8 table 24 board bridge movement where table 1 plays the same 3 boards as table 8, we say we share the boards, and this is the normal use of the word "share". Something is divided among a number of people. Between tables 4 and 5 there is a chair on which boards are placed in transit (resting for one round) as they move round the room. This is a relay because the word means "to hand something over, or pass something on". As in a baton in a race that has usually 4 members of a team running consecutively. The boards are being passed on, but not played for a round. Hence "share and relay movement", and as an Englishman that seems entirely logical to me.

If we have no word for "relay" by your definition, can you give me a definition in English of what your word (in another language) means?

I meant reverse attitude. Have corrected now.

[Vampyr]

 fromageGB, on 2019-August-05, 02:42, said:

Your second line has me lost. I do not understand "bye stand" so perhaps you can give an example and context. (Maybe used elsewhere, but I have not played outside GB.) If you are referring to the case of say an 8 table 24 board bridge movement where table 1 plays the same 3 boards as table 8, we say we share the boards, and this is the normal use of the word "share". Something is divided among a number of people. Between tables 4 and 5 there is a chair on which boards are placed in transit (resting for one round) as they move round the room. This is a relay because the word means "to hand something over, or pass something on". As in a baton in a race that has usually 4 members of a team running consecutively. The boards are being passed on, but not played for a round. Hence "share and relay movement", and as an Englishman that seems entirely logical to me.

The “relay” boards should be moved back and forth between tables. They should not be “standing by”;for a round. That is a bye stand.

Quote

If we have no word for "relay" by your definition, can you give me a definition in English of what your word (in another language) means?

I do not know what relay or bye stand would be called in another language.

[Vampyr]

 sfi, on 2019-August-05, 03:00, said:

Is "reverse attitude and standard count" what you mean?

If so, it works fine as long as you are clear about which is attitude and which is count. If it is unclear which message to send then you can easily have a conflict about which card to play, but those situations are likely to occur later on in the hand where you might have a conflict anyway.

I've encountered it a few times, and even been asked to play it once or twice. It's a bit odd but hardly unplayable.

I have to play this with most partners, and I really don’t understand why they like it.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2019-August-04, 20:50, said:

Also, the English use the word”relay” to mean “bye stand” and so end up with no word for “relay”. So they say “share” why why why?

The United States and Great Britain are two countries separated by a common language. (attributed to George Bernard Shaw)

[barmar]

I've encountered a number of Americans who play UDA as well, but I don't think it's common.

UDA makes sense: you don't want to waste a high card in a suit you like. Count signals are more arbitrary, there's nothing special about using high-low to show even count. I think the main justification for reversing them both is that when defending a suit contract, your attitude when partner leads a high card is often correlated with your count -- if you have 2, you want them to continue and give you a ruff. So you don't have to worry about whether partner will take it as attitude or count.

But I assume the people who play UDA have clear agreements about when they're giving which type of signal.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2019-August-05, 09:05, said:

I've encountered a number of Americans who play UDA as well, but I don't think it's common.

UDA makes sense: you don't want to waste a high card in a suit you like. Count signals are more arbitrary, there's nothing special about using high-low to show even count. I think the main justification for reversing them both is that when defending a suit contract, your attitude when partner leads a high card is often correlated with your count -- if you have 2, you want them to continue and give you a ruff. So you don't have to worry about whether partner will take it as attitude or count.

Yes, this sort of thing.

Quote

But I assume the people who play UDA have clear agreements about when they're giving which type of signal.

No more than anyone else. Mainly they seem to think that reverse count is somehow “hard”.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2019-August-05, 09:10, said:

No more than anyone else. Mainly they seem to think that reverse count is somehow “hard”.

I suppose. Some people prefer not to change too many things. So while they can be convinced to play UDA because there's good logic to it, they're less willing to learn a new count signal.

For me, I find it easier to think of them together -- I just invert all my signals.

I read recently that in countries where people drive on the left, pedestrians also generally pass oncoming walkers on the left as well. It's easier to have one switch in the brain.

[HardVector]

I don't think that UDCount really matters too much. I suspect that the reason is that it will be consistent with their LEADS if they are making standard spot card leads. So with a small doubleton, they will lead high-low and with 3 small they will lead low-high. Retaining the same meaning in signaling may be easier to remember. This is just a guess.

[StevenG]

Having played standard count all my bridge-playing life, I found that trying to play reverse count scrambled my brain. Yes, it WAS too difficult.

[perko90]

I'm an American that prefers upside-down (reverse) attitude and standard count. However, I'm not currently playing it because my partners prefer both upside-down C&A.

Popularity: I think UDA is slightly gaining in popularity. At an Open section in a local tournament, I'd say maybe 2-3 pairs out of 15-20 tables (30-40 pairs) play it. UDCA is definitely most popular, followed by all std.

As an aside, if you don't know whether you're giving count or attitude, that's a whole 'nother problem - not related to any conventional agreement.

UDA has a clear advantage: it's a card saver and brain saver. There's no need to do any calculation of whether playing a high spot to encourage could cost a trick. UDC, on the other hand, isn't as clear that it's an advantage. Actually, this is how I started playing UDA only. As a novice, I learned all standard. When I found out about upside-down carding, I suggested playing it with my partners. My main partner only agreed if I could prove the usefulness of making the switch. I could only prove the case for UDA and so that's the only thing we changed.

Why prefer std count? I think at least part of this is that "expert standard" when playing UDC, is to switch to std count after the suit is broken (present count). For me this extra wrinkle is enough to prefer std count.

As a side note, I really wish upside-down attitude was called "standard." After all, it's most consistent with the way we treat spot cards in all other situations. If you want your suit led back, you lead .... small. If you want a switch, you lead ... a high spot ("top of nothing").

[fromageGB]

 perko90, on 2019-August-05, 14:14, said:

As a side note, I really wish upside-down attitude was called "standard." After all, it's most consistent with the way we treat spot cards in all other situations. If you want your suit led back, you lead .... small. If you want a switch, you lead ... a high spot ("top of nothing").

I think maybe it is. I play attitude leads, and small to say you like the suit is standard. I don't play attitude following suit, but those I know that do think it is standard to play a high one when they want it continued. Reverse attitude is low to encourage. So I think the standard is the opposite for leading and following. And that is confusing.

[perko90]

 fromageGB, on 2019-August-06, 04:23, said:

I think maybe it is. I play attitude leads, and small to say you like the suit is standard. I don't play attitude following suit, but those I know that do think it is standard to play a high one when they want it continued. Reverse attitude is low to encourage. So I think the standard is the opposite for leading and following. And that is confusing.

I think we're saying the same thing. Showing encouragement as low when leading and high when following is confusing and unfortunate to be called "standard." I was merely wishing that reverse attitude when following was considered standard because it's both technically superior and more consistent with leading conventions (which are always low encourages).

[Tramticket]

 fromageGB, on 2019-August-06, 04:23, said:

I think maybe it is. I play attitude leads, and small to say you like the suit is standard. I don't play attitude following suit, but those I know that do think it is standard to play a high one when they want it continued. Reverse attitude is low to encourage. So I think the standard is the opposite for leading and following. And that is confusing.

Of course the terms standard leads and standard signals refer to historical norms. There is a huge variety of methods now, but I admit that I still like standard attitude and count. But I have been persuaded to try reverse attitude and confess that it has merit when following suit. But I still prefer standard attitude when discarding.

You think it confusing to play high to encourage when following suit, but low to encourage when following suit? My current favourite is reverse attitude as the primary signal when partner leads a suit, standard attitude as the primary signal when discarding, standard count (if applicable) when following suit on declarer's lead and 2nd & 4th's on lead. But many mix it up far more than this...

[pescetom]

 Tramticket, on 2019-August-06, 12:30, said:

You think it confusing to play high to encourage when following suit, but low to encourage when following suit?

Yes

[barmar]

 perko90, on 2019-August-06, 10:36, said:

I think we're saying the same thing. Showing encouragement as low when leading and high when following is confusing and unfortunate to be called "standard." I was merely wishing that reverse attitude when following was considered standard because it's both technically superior and more consistent with leading conventions (which are always low encourages).

Indeed, when I've taught UDCA to some people, they invariably ask if this also changes how you lead from doubletons.

Which brings up another question. There are some pairs that lead low from small doubletons. It's unusual enough that ACBL requires them to pre-alert it. If you do this: why?

[paulg]

 barmar, on 2019-August-07, 08:23, said:

Which brings up another question. There are some pairs that lead low from small doubletons. It's unusual enough that ACBL requires them to pre-alert it. If you do this: why?

It means that the lead of a small card is an attacking lead, either from a doubleton or from an honour. This aims to distinguish it from a lead from a longer, weaker, suit.

[HardVector]

 barmar, on 2019-August-07, 08:23, said:

Indeed, when I've taught UDCA to some people, they invariably ask if this also changes how you lead from doubletons.

Which brings up another question. There are some pairs that lead low from small doubletons. It's unusual enough that ACBL requires them to pre-alert it. If you do this: why?

The primary advantage lies in the ability to distinguish between xxx holdings and Hxx holdings. With 3 small, you lead the high one indicating no interest. If you combine this with leading a low card from doubletons, partner is not guessing what you have. If you lead a low card, you either have something there, or you have a worthless doubleton. If you lead a high card, you have literally no interest in the suit.