[MrAce]

Title of the topic is "carding in expert partnership"

How do we define an "expert partnership" ?

Is it 2 expert players playing together who never played before, or 2 expert players are partners and have experience with each other ?

If it is 2 expert players who has experience with each other,I'd think they will use #2, eventhough they set their rules i am pretty confident they also have the most important rule which is "logic overrides all the rules" and they are flexible rather than blindly rule followers.


I can't think of a pair, who sets rules, and decides to follow them blindly, just because they don't have enough confident in theirs or partner's logic, and expect to be called an "expert partnership"

Another thing, when you decide to follow your rules regardless, then you are putting your "rules" into competition, not your logic. If the boards comes in a way that fits your rules u are happy, if not ......

Don't get me wrong, #1 is perfect strategy for beginner to intermediate level players. I think all advanced players should try to establish #2 style and keep on working untill they can. And all "Expert Partnerships" which this topic is about, MUST have already mastered it.

[rhm]

zasanya, on 2011-March-30, 23:30, said:

Seems to me that 1 is actually simpler .Make rules and stick to them.Beginner to advanced would do well to follow this IMO.
If and when one reaches expert level and gets an expert partner rule 2 takes over.It is after all not so easy to work out whether a signal is needed or not.I recall reading somewhere that Belladonna and Garozzo never signaled except in hold up situations.

Signaling misunderstandings are not uncommon even in established expert partnerships. Of course expert partnerships tend to have fewer misunderstandings in general. That's why they are experts. But signaling misunderstandings in expert partnerships are at least not uncommon when compared to other misunderstandings.
Of course it is true that a lot of scenarios, which baffle lesser players, are no problem to these partnerships.
However this is counterbalanced to some degree by the fact that better players tend to look deeper into a position and see more possible ways how the unseen cards may be distributed, which may require more different strategies to deal with.

It is interesting that there are individuals tournaments for invited experts, where everybody playing does agree from the beginning to the use of count signals. Now I am not claiming that this is proof that count signals are superior: My guess is the reason rather is to reduce the chance for silly signaling misunderstandings in defense.
If there would be a common standard how to signal and the best brains would usually come to the same conclusion what is the best signal in uncommon situations arising at the table, nobody would bother to impose count signals for such tournaments.

Rainer Herrmann