[PassedOut]

In the Bobby Wolff Autobiography thread, hrothgar helpfully provided the following link to Bobby Wolff's blog:

http://www.bridgeblo...com/bobbywolff/

There I read this passage I found quite interesting:

Bobby Wolff, on Dec 14, 2007, said:

These stealthy techniques usually involve partnerships putting their heads together and planning the most deceptive tactics available in order to confuse and, therefore, result in the opponents being misled and doing the wrong thing and getting the worst of it.  Let me cite a few examples:   

1.  Playing upside down signals even including upside down suit preference signals for the sole purpose of hoping the opponents misunderstand and, if given an opportunity, make the wrong choice.

I prefer to play udca myself, but I do so because I believe those signals are (slightly) better than standard signals -- not to deceive my opponents.

I wonder, though, about upside down suit preference signals. What, exactly, is the technical advantage of using them?

I suppose there could be an advantage if most often one wanted to show preference for a higher-ranking suit, but I don't see the basis for that.

[pclayton]

Rodwell is on record as saying there is no technical reason for UDSP.

[kfay]

It looks to me like Wolff is saying that an opponent would assume you to be playing standard suit preference and play accordingly without asking if this was actually your agreement.

While UDCA seems to have a slight edge I can't think of any reason why playing suit preference would be advantageous except that 'assumption is the mother of all ____ ____'

[rbforster]

I'm sure UDSP is just playing on the opps assumption of "normal" signalling, trying to trick them by playing deliberately contrary signals. Kind of like on defense if you lead a new suit, leading a high card to encourage partner to return it rather than a low one. That example is probably worse for technical reasons than the standard approach, but would no doubt mislead opponents who almost never ask for extensive carding agreements.

On the other hand, I suppose there is a slight technical reason to favor regular suit preference signals. Remember the primary signaling principle is to use your low cards for the most likely signal so as to save the important high ones to actually take tricks. If you have strength in the higher ranking suit, it's more likely that you might have been able to bid it during the auction (especially if it's spades) and have already told partner about your preference. So I would say that short of conditioning your suit preference signals on the auction, lower ranking suits are harder to show in the bidding and hence should be given higher priority to be shown with low cards. This argues for regular suit preference.

[jtfanclub]

Just looking at the next line...

"2. Describing shutout bids (weak and preemptive) but merely described as non-forcing rather than what they really are."

I always have the reverse...I open a precision 1♠ and partner bids 2♣, alerted as natural and nonforcing. We end up at 3NT and partner puts down some kind of monster like:

Kx
xx
Kxx
AJ8xxx

I've had opponents call the director because the bid was NOT weak and pre-emptive, merely invitational and nonforcing.

[awm]

The counterpoint to Rob's statement about suit preference is that the opponents usually explore their major suit fit possibilities. When my side is defending, we may or may not have had an opportunity to bid -- but the opponents have certainly bid something!

Often times declarer's approximate length in the majors can be discerned from the bidding -- if opponents had an eight-card major fit they would likely be playing there, and usually they try to find a major suit fit before settling into a contract. On the other hand, there's no particular reason the opponents will feel compelled to accurately share their minor suit length. For example, say one opponent opens 1NT, and they end in 3NT. Very frequently they will have a stayman auction which reveals opener's four card major holding (or lack thereof). Many people will not open 1NT with a five card major in any case, certainly not with 5422 shape. And almost no one opens 1NT with a six card major. Not one of these inferences is valid about the minor suits.

In any case, I know I play upside-down suit preference with one partner just because it's fun (and brief!) to describe our carding as "everything is upside down!" although to be fair we usually say "everything is upside down including suit preference."

[ArtK78]

I have to admit that I have never heard any logical argument in favor of regular suit preference vs. upside down suit preference. To me, they seem to be equivalent - both will have randome successes and failures over the other, and there is no logical reason for choosing one over the other (except that there is a long tradition in favor of regular suit preference, and the liklihood that one of the members of the partnership will forget to give upside down suit preference).

The argument that Rob gave above at least provides a bridge reason in favor of one method (regular suit preference) over the other (upside down suit preference). I don't think the argument is very strong, but at least it is an argument.

Those who employ upside down suit preference, especially without warning, may be playing on the surprise factor. However, it is unusual for an opponent's suit preference signals to influence the declarer's play, as the use of a suit preference signal normally results in a defensive play for which declarer has no counter. Nevertheless, full disclosure is important, and the onus of full disclosure falls more heavily on a pair employing an unusual signalling method than on a pair employing a common signalling method.

[JanM]

UDSP is (for some reason I don't understand) much harder for declarer to adjust to than are UDCA. So even if you're not trying to confuse the opponents (certainly everyone knows that Meckwell use UDSP), you may get an advantage because you cause the opponent to use extra brain cells to figure out your SP signals. And those are brain cells that might be needed for other things, like analyzing the hand or calculating percentages, etc.

[han]

I thought Meckwell stopped using UDSP, do they still play it?

[mycroft]

In my regular partnership in Ontario, we played upside-down everything, including suit preference (with a special line on the card and the "special carding" box clearly checked), for one simple reason: my partner found it much easier to remember than "upside-down count, attitude, discards, attitude leads to NT, but standard suit preference."

I wonder what Mr. Wolff thinks about revolving Lavinthal...

Michael.

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on Dec 17 2007, 04:11 PM, said:

I wonder what Mr. Wolff thinks about revolving Lavinthal...

Probably makes him dizzy.

[JanM]

Hannie, on Dec 17 2007, 02:32 PM, said:

I thought Meckwell stopped using UDSP, do they still play it?

Yes. See their Shanghai convention card meckstroth-rodwell.pdf

Under signals it says "UD CT/ATT/SP"

(edit: Made link to ecatsbridge "clickable")

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2007-December-17, 22:26

[PeterGill]

(1) If you scroll nearly to the bottom of the 2001 Eric Rodwell interview
at http://www.bridgemat...com/rodwell.htm
Eric does not see any advantage for UDSP or normal SP.

(2) However, I agree with Jan Martel , rather than Eric Rodwell....
For example, Morse's decision of which club pips to play in 5HX on page 15 of
www.greatbridgelinks.com/gblTOUR/Worlds03/Bul_03.pdf .....
uses more brain cells against UDSP than against normal SP.

Peter Gill.

[PassedOut]

PeterGill, on Dec 20 2007, 10:46 AM, said:

For example, Morse's decision of which club pips to play in 5HX on page 15 of
www.greatbridgelinks.com/gblTOUR/Worlds03/Bul_03.pdf .....
uses more brain cells against UDSP than against normal SP.

Interesting deal. The writeup does not say what club spots Morse played, but I'm guessing ♣5, ♣7. I wonder how Eric read Jeff's ♣6 as low.

[mycroft]

Number of hands played against standard carding: 4000/yr
Number of hands played against UDCA: 3500/yr
Number of hands played with one of the above two: 7500/yr.

Number of hands played with or against standard suit preference in non-discard situations: ~15 000/yr.
Number of hands played against UDSP: 50/yr (mostly against RM).

*Of course* it takes more brain cells - there's less trained memory. One of the (many) things that differentiates a world-class player from the likes of me is the number of situations that are "mindless" plays - requiring no thought at all - because the expert has seen it so often before. Not only does it mean he'll get them right and without revealing tempo, but it means he has more brain power for the rest of the decisions.

Of course, it also takes more brain cells to play against (ACBL here, obviously other places have other issues) Polish Club, Raptor NT overcall, 12-14 NT, Revolving Lavinthal, or anything else that comes up rarely, too (I guess, given the person originating this discussion, I should add "4-card majors"). I will admit it takes more work for me to work out what's going on with Odd/Even Discards when they come up - simply because I don't play it, so I have to work it out each time, instead of looking at the card and saying "not diamonds, but clubs" (of course, I'm willing to put in the time, because of *why* I don't play it).

There's nothing inherently harder about UDSP; it's just uncommon to the point of requiring the sort of work from experts that novices have to do to every trick. If people are playing it for the surprise factor, and doing their legal (or illegal) best to maximize that surprise, that's wrong. If they're playing it without a surprise, making it clear that that's what their doing - for whatever reason; in my opinion (although I do realize that this is debatable) even including "it forces my opponents to think harder" - it's legal, deal with it. If you want to get it trained into mind memory, so you don't have to expend the energy next time you play against RM, play it for 6 months!

Michael.

[MFA]

mycroft, on Dec 28 2007, 11:49 AM, said:

If people are playing it for the surprise factor, and doing their legal (or illegal) best to maximize that surprise, that's wrong.  If they're playing it without a surprise, making it clear that that's what their doing - for whatever reason; in my opinion (although I do realize that this is debatable) even including "it forces my opponents to think harder" - it's legal, deal with it.

I don't quite get your point. Can you give an example of when it could be wrong?

For myself I find it perfectly ok, for instance, if a pair plays UDSP just because they hope that the opponents are too lazy to study the CC (where it is indicated, of course)! Would you also find that ok?

[Rossoneri]

MFA, on Dec 29 2007, 01:25 AM, said:

mycroft, on Dec 28 2007, 11:49 AM, said:

If people are playing it for the surprise factor, and doing their legal (or illegal) best to maximize that surprise, that's wrong.  If they're playing it without a surprise, making it clear that that's what their doing - for whatever reason; in my opinion (although I do realize that this is debatable) even including "it forces my opponents to think harder" - it's legal, deal with it.

I don't quite get your point. Can you give an example of when it could be wrong?

For myself I find it perfectly ok, for instance, if a pair plays UDSP just because they hope that the opponents are too lazy to study the CC (where it is indicated, of course)! Would you also find that ok?

I guess there would be people who frown on it, but then again, it's your onus to study look at your opponent's CC.

[mycroft]

Yes, I would frown upon it - well, if it isn't *clear* (in the ACBL, there's a big "special carding - please ask" box. If it's just labelled, and didn't have that box marked, I think they aren't doing enough). Not sure it's technically *illegal*, but it's certainly not in the spirit of full disclosure.

David Stevenson has a couple of examples of this from England, with a similar "so you think this is fair?" (note, things have changed - partly as a result of this - in the new Alerting system in England):

- An agreement to open the shorter/weaker minor when holding a balanced hand outside of NT range. It's noted on the card, but its express purpose is to inhibit that lead from people who don't read.
- One pair played 12-14 NT Vul, 15-17 NV. Yeah, read that again. Technical merit? Probably negative. Power? Well, even if you read it on the card, and it was marked on the card, you'd probably read it as standard variable NTs, and you'd never work out the proper defence at the table - at least the first time. Should pick up about 2 (ACBL, 4 anywhere else) matchpoints/NT opening I would guess, given there won't be time in a 3 board round to get two NT openings.

Legal? probably. Fair? no.
Michael.

[the hog]

mycroft, on Jan 3 2008, 12:31 AM, said:

Yes, I would frown upon it - well, if it isn't *clear* (in the ACBL, there's a big "special carding - please ask" box. If it's just labelled, and didn't have that box marked, I think they aren't doing enough). Not sure it's technically *illegal*, but it's certainly not in the spirit of full disclosure.

David Stevenson has a couple of examples of this from England, with a similar "so you think this is fair?" (note, things have changed - partly as a result of this - in the new Alerting system in England):

- An agreement to open the shorter/weaker minor when holding a balanced hand outside of NT range. It's noted on the card, but its express purpose is to inhibit that lead from people who don't read.
- One pair played 12-14 NT Vul, 15-17 NV. Yeah, read that again. Technical merit? Probably negative. Power? Well, even if you read it on the card, and it was marked on the card, you'd probably read it as standard variable NTs, and you'd never work out the proper defence at the table - at least the first time. Should pick up about 2 (ACBL, 4 anywhere else) matchpoints/NT opening I would guess, given there won't be time in a 3 board round to get two NT openings.

Legal? probably. Fair? no.
Michael.

Mike ,I do not understand your viewpoint on this. Do you have "pre alerts" in England? If so, I can see nothing wrong with playing stuff that makes the opponents lives difficult.

[blackshoe]

It seems that Mike doesn't think it's "fair" for a pair to disclose their carding agreements strictly IAW the regulations of the SO - he says in his message that in his opinion one must go further than that. He's entitled to hold that opinion, of course, but he's not entitled, as a director, to enforce that opinion on others, nor, as a player, to expect the director to do so.