[matmat]

Played a live game last night. As a disclaimer, it's likely that I am either overly sensitive or outright paranoid about these things.

RHO is an okay player, quite cagey. LHO is very much an intermediate (fairly regularly forgets conventions etc).

Was declaring the first of a 4 board set, asked opps about carding. "Standard" was the reply.

I declared two more boards in that set. RHO did not give a correct count signal once, but I am pretty sure that he did give correct signals until I asked.

Now, I realize that I am not supposed to be putting much faith in the signals opps send to one another, but it still seems a little bit odd to cease or switch carding the moment you're asked about what it is.

thoughts?

[han]

Surely it is right to give less count when you know that you are playing against one of the few pairs that pays attention. Is there a problem?

It may pay not to ask until after you think they have made an important signal. Looking rather dense before you ask also helps, I have a natural advantage there. Or you could ask immediately, if they start to falsecard a lot then that can also be in your advantage.

[Lobowolf]

matmat, on Sep 16 2008, 12:33 PM, said:

Played a live game last night. As a disclaimer, it's likely that I am either overly sensitive or outright paranoid about these things.

RHO is an okay player, quite cagey. LHO is very much an intermediate (fairly regularly forgets conventions etc).

Was declaring the first of a 4 board set, asked opps about carding. "Standard" was the reply.

I declared two more boards in that set. RHO did not give a correct count signal once, but I am pretty sure that he did give correct signals until I asked.

Now, I realize that I am not supposed to be putting much faith in the signals opps send to one another, but it still seems a little bit odd to cease or switch carding the moment you're asked about what it is.

thoughts?

I've noticed this as well, and for that reason, I don't ask until it matters. If the first thing I'm doing is playing a suit where count is irrelevant to me, I don't ask. If I then switch to a suit where it matters, I don't ask until the answer would affect my decision (e.g. 3rd round finesse or drop). You get more honest signals before you let them know you're paying attention.

[matmat]

han, on Sep 16 2008, 12:38 PM, said:

Surely it is right to give less count when you know that you are playing against one of the few pairs that pays attention. Is there a problem?

It may pay not to ask until after you think they have made an important signal. Looking rather dense before you ask also helps, I have a natural advantage there. Or you could ask immediately, if they start to falsecard a lot then that can also be in your advantage.

probably right.

In this case I am fairly certain that RHO *knows* LHO doesn't count so count signals are useless. It just annoys me

[TimG]

I think lots of players make fewer honest signals when they think their opponents are paying attention.

As long as it does not become an agreement that they switch to upside-down once asked, I think it is OK. In the case that you speak of, it is unlikely that the intermediate player is paying any attention except in the most obvious of situations (like suit preference when giving a ruff) and I expect your better opponent would have given a true signal in a situation such as that.

[han]

It annoys you that people falsecard when they think declarer will notice but partner won't?

[DJNeill]

It's completely normal for a good player playing with a clueless partner to do non-standard things that their partner won't pick up on, even if it is not disclosed to the opponents. Operating, looking at opponents' cards, opening all 13-17 HCP hands with 1N, worse stuff.

I'm not saying this is good or bad, but what you need to assume if you know RHO is cagey and LHO clueless.

Thanks,
Dan

[jdonn]

IRL I never ask about carding until the moment I need to know, and if possible I give an innocuous glance at the convention card rather than ask the question. I am 100% sure that at least some people signal more honestly if they think you don't know or aren't paying attention to what they play. I think it's a huge tactical error to automatically ask about carding at the start of the hand when you are declarer.

[ASkolnick]

This is an interesting discussion about counting for the following reason.
I stopped playing with a partner who religiously gave count. I play with someone who almost never gives count even when he should. I am sure the answer is somewhere in the middle.

I am curious how often giving count as a defender, I am not talking about doubleton when partner leads Ace from AK, actually helps the defense versus the declarer. If I were to guess, I would guess rather infrequently it actually helps the defense. The major time it helps is when dummy has a side suit with no clear entry. Can anyone do a simulation on when count tells declarer versus being necessary? Ceratinly when declarer has 4 opposite 3 missing the Jack, the last thing you want to do is give count of the hand.

[pclayton]

jdonn, on Sep 16 2008, 10:06 AM, said:

I think it's a huge tactical error to automatically ask about carding at the start of the hand when you are declarer.

LOL, totally, especially if they think you are a good player.

The signal to noise ration just dropped dramatically. I wonder why?

However, I tend to think the average player with non-standard carding methods (certainly O/E and Lavinthal, to a lesser extent UDCA), will still go out of their way to signal.

[jdonn]

Yes, the more complicated the signals the less it matters, and it matters much less if the opponents are very bad or very good. In any case it can't hurt to wait before asking and it can definitely help, so I still recommend it, particularly at pairs.

[cherdano]

Can only be good for you if they try to fool you but you notice it?

[Trinidad]

Don't ask. Look at their convention card before you pull your cards from the slot for the first hand.

Rik

[pclayton]

cherdano, on Sep 16 2008, 11:09 AM, said:

Can only be good for you if they try to fool you but you notice it?

If you are sure they were fooling you, yeah. I can't tell most of the time.

[MFA]

ASkolnick, on Sep 16 2008, 01:19 PM, said:

This is an interesting discussion about counting for the following reason.
I stopped playing with a partner who religiously gave count.  I play with someone who almost never gives count even when he should.  I am sure the answer is somewhere in the middle.

I am curious how often giving count as a defender, I am not talking about doubleton when partner leads Ace from AK, actually helps the defense versus the declarer.  If I were to guess, I would guess rather infrequently it actually helps the defense.  The major time it helps is when dummy has a side suit with no clear entry.  Can anyone do a simulation on when count tells declarer versus being necessary?  Ceratinly when declarer has 4 opposite 3 missing the Jack, the last thing you want to do is give count of the hand.

A simulation is not the answer.
Being able to determine when to give count is a defensive ability, one must train. Ideally, partner just gave count when you needed to know to solve your problem. Tough, yes, but one could come close to that.