# BBO Discussion Forums: Re: Defensive Carding Combinations - BBO Discussion Forums

Page 1 of 1

## Re: Defensive Carding Combinations

### #1Codo

• Posts: 6,373
• Joined: 2003-March-15
• Location:Hamburg, Germany
• Interests:games and sports, esp. bridge,chess and (beach-)volleyball

Posted 2003-April-01, 18:31

Hi all,

you may all know the sentence from basketball, football or other sports: Defence wins championships.
It  is never so true then in bridge. Just because 50 % of the time you are defending and just 25 % of the time declaring.

My favourites are udca, O/E, and suit preference.

I highly recomment the book " A switch in time" about the obvious shift. I play according to their methods with one of my regulars pards and we nearly always get all our tricks in defence.
Of course, No signaling system is always good, but in the long row, the obvious shift principle works best for me.

Kind Regards

Roland
Kind Regards

Roland

Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
0

### #2inquiry

• Posts: 14,563
• Joined: 2003-February-13
• Gender:Male
• Location:Amelia Island, FL
• Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2003-April-02, 02:32

I agree with yzerman almost 100%. However, I disagree in two small areas. First he likes standard count, I prefer UDCA, but obviously either of us can play the other way... it is not a  big issue. Second, he suggested that if ATTITUDE can not be right on opening lead, he gives count. I give suit preference.

Now there is some problem with suit preference, for the simple reason you have to play some card and you may not have a suit to prefer. But if the original suit will not be continued, a which suit to switch too is often most useful signal. Without a real preference, try to find a signal that can not be real. Partner usually can work out the one suit he should never lead, so signal for that one. You can then give PRESENT COUNT later in the suit originally lead to give partner the count.

But the one thing everyone should be able to AGREE on... you and your PARTNER need to AGREE on signalling and signalling preferences.

Ben
--Ben--