"Roman Leads"

[JoAnneM]

A pair from my club just returned from the Santa Clara Regional (ACBL) and came across a new opening lead convention - to them. The opps on opening lead were leading odd for continuation and even for non-continuation. And with the even leads they were signaling suit preference with high-low. The opps called this Roman Leads.

 

Why they didn't ask a TD if it was legal I have no idea, instead they came home and asked me. I looked at the convention chart and it looks to me like it would be illegal, but being just a club director and never having heard of this animal I defer to the experts.

[TylerE]

On what basis? I don't see anything in the GCC about leads at all. The carding section refers to plays when following suit and discards. Carding and Leads are two seperate headings on the Convention Card.

[JoAnneM]

I looked at the General Convention Chart and I do not see a separate section for leads, but under carding it talks about dual suit preference systems at trick one.

[blackshoe]

I don't think the layout of the system card is sufficient to say that "carding" does not include leads. The Conditions of Contest bear this out, as under "carding" they talk about both leads and later carding. The GCC talks of dual message strategies (which the leads in the OP are) and says they are only allowed on the first discard. While the section doesn't use the word "leads", I think this sentence applies to leads as well as other carding, so I would say that dual message (and in particular Roman) leads are illegal.

[RMB1]

If the Roman leads are that non-honour even card shows a lead from a bad suit and a non-honour odd card shows a lead from a good suit (with an honour, say); then how is this more "dual meaning" than fourth highest non-honour shows a good suit and second highest non-honour shows a bad suit ?

[campboy]

By my reading of the OP, the choice between even cards carries a secondary meaning. However, even if they weren't dual-meaning they would still be illegal since the GCC also says

Except for the first discard only right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are approved.

[jdonn]

By my reading of the OP, the choice between even cards carries a secondary meaning. However, even if they weren't dual-meaning they would still be illegal since the GCC also says

Except for the first discard only right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are approved.

I don't think that applies to leads. 4th best is neither rightside up nor upside down. But yes these roman leads seems illegal due to the dual message.

[RMB1]

Can someone give a fuller description of the leads that draws out their "dual meaning".

 

Or is the dual meaning because they play non-standard leads with non-standard signals. So the combination of lead and signal on that lead is dual meaning?

 

But is that any more dual meaning than Ace for attitude, King for count?

[blackshoe]

A high even spot card says "I don't like this side suit, I do like the higher of the other two". A low even spot card says "I don't like this side suit, I do like the lower of the other two". Two messages, and therefor illegal.

[aguahombre]

By my reading of the OP, the choice between even cards carries a secondary meaning. However, even if they weren't dual-meaning they would still be illegal since the GCC also says

Except for the first discard only right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are approved.

 

If the above quote is applied to non "dual meaning" signals, then is it also applied to such things as Foster Echoes, where the card played is second highest (neither rightside up nor upside down)?

 

How about the dual meaning of leading a Queen, when in addition to showing specific types of holdings it demands the jack be dropped?

 

The wording seems to make Smith Echoes or suit preference signals O.K., if "card ordering" doesn't apply to just attitude or count.

 

Also, JD's "4th best" argument is perfect for why it should not apply to the opening lead itself.

[Siegmund]

I would have assumed that there were no restrictions on lead agreements, only on signals. I am not 100% sure that is the ACBL's intention; but it has certainly been the longtime practice to allow any agreement at all about honours and nines. Some of those are systems where A/Q/T all have certain similarities in terms of shown holdings or requested signals as do K/J/9...

 

I also wish that the 'dual message' language were removed; it's a terrible description of Roman signals anyway. Just call them 'suit preference carding', each card meaning 'this suit', 'higher suit', 'lower suit' - it's perfectly legal when you discard from a 6- or 7-card suit (middle continue, unusually high for high switch, low for low switch) in standard signalling. I am happy to dismiss the notion of 'dual message' with a wave of my hand (either all signals are or no signals are)... if these leads run into any objection its going to be on the "only right-side-up or upside-down allowed" side.

 

For that matter I wish they allowed odd-even throughout the hand. But I dont think I am getting my wish anytime soon :)

[campboy]

By my reading of the OP, the choice between even cards carries a secondary meaning. However, even if they weren't dual-meaning they would still be illegal since the GCC also says

Except for the first discard only right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are approved.

I don't think that applies to leads. 4th best is neither rightside up nor upside down. But yes these roman leads seems illegal due to the dual message.

4th best is defined in terms of the normal ordering of the cards; it's quite different to odd-even.

 

If you don't think this bit applies to leads, why do you think the dual-meaning bit does? The wording is essentially the same.

[LH2650]

I checked the Official Encyclopedia of Bridge, and everything under "Carding" concerned following to a lead. Therefore I don't believe that the carding regulations can be extended to leads.

[olegru]

I think this sentence applies to leads as well as other carding, so I would say that dual message (and in particular Roman) leads are illegal.

I believe the best way to make GCC events fun for everybody is not only prohibit dual meaning leads and carding, but make illegal any moves (bids, leads, carding) with meaning (or even with sence).

Offtop

In the second day of NAOP B final last year, after I claim Director that I remember and can show every card played in a certain board (we were asked to move before result was submitted due to bridgepad problem and submitted result was not a real one) he reply "If you remember all cards played in the board you should not play in this event."

[blackshoe]

If a director said that to me, I would ask "Is that your personal opinion, or are you making a ruling?" If he said the latter, I would appeal.

[awm]

I think the concern (rightly or wrongly) is that signaling systems where there are more than two possible messages from a particular card (like odd/high even/low even meaning three different suits) can lead to tempo issues when you don't have the "right" card to make the signal you want. These tempo issues are hard to police and frequently have the effect of signaling partner more effectively (i.e. a quick odd card is encouraging, but a slow odd card tends to imply that perhaps I didn't have any even cards in the suit and therefore can be interpreted as suit preference). Tempo while signaling is a fairly frequent issue at the table and very hard for directors to deal with.

 

At the first discard it is normal to take some time, so it's not as much of an issue then.

[TylerE]

Wouldn't the same issue seem to point to them being allowed for opening leads?

[PrinceNep]

I think the concern (rightly or wrongly) is that signaling systems where there are more than two possible messages from a particular card (like odd/high even/low even meaning three different suits) can lead to tempo issues when you don't have the "right" card to make the signal you want. These tempo issues are hard to police and frequently have the effect of signaling partner more effectively (i.e. a quick odd card is encouraging, but a slow odd card tends to imply that perhaps I didn't have any even cards in the suit and therefore can be interpreted as suit preference). Tempo while signaling is a fairly frequent issue at the table and very hard for directors to deal with.

 

At the first discard it is normal to take some time, so it's not as much of an issue then.

Adam,

 

In addition to your point, I was also under the impression that "dual methods" were a system that declarer would NOT be able to interpret the meaning but the defense would. By leading odd/even cards to indicate two different suits as signals, the opponents are in a much better position to decipher the meaning while the declarer is not.

 

In the method listed above for opening lead, I don't see any reason why if the declarer asked what the meaning of the lead meant, that he wouldn't be able to figure it out. Declarer is in plenty of a position to understand the information and play accordingly.

 

I don't quite see why this method would be damaging so long as the opponents accurately describe their agreement when asked. It should be the responsibility of the declarer to ask for the lead/carding methods at trick one so that he can use the information accordingly.

 

This doesn't seem to me to fall into the "dual message" category anymore than when I lead "low" I'm asking for a continuation and when I lead "high" I'm asking for non-continuation.

[campboy]

In addition to your point, I was also under the impression that "dual methods" were a system that declarer would NOT be able to interpret the meaning but the defense would. By leading odd/even cards to indicate two different suits as signals, the opponents are in a much better position to decipher the meaning while the declarer is not.

No, that would be "encrypted signals"; the GCC also prohibits those.

[Pict]

I really wish all my opponents played this system of leads.

 

(I know, a bit off topic).

[bluejak]

The EBU bans "dual message" signals but not discards. The ACBL bans "dual message" signals but not first discards. I naively assumed this meant we had roughly the same rule [apart form that word 'first']. But on RGB I was convinced I was wrong.

 

Apparently when the EBU say "dual message" they mean it, ie it is when a card gives two messages, one based on [for example] whether it is odd or even, and one based on [for example] whether it is high or low.

 

Apparently when the ACBL say "dual message" they mean something completely different, ie whether the card is odd or even. Strange and unhelpful in my view.

 

Do these rules apply to leads? Certainly not in the EBU, since they refer to "signals [when following suit]". But it is difficult to be sure with the ACBL. My guess is no.

[barmar]

That GCC clause about dual-message signals has been confusing people for years.

 

I think they were trying to make a restriction on odd/even discards, but wanted to write the regulation in a more generic fashion, so they came up with the term "dual-message". But the term is never defined, isn't common bridge parlance, and the only example given in the regulation is odd/even. So AFAIK, no one has ever been given an example of a dual-message signal other than odd/even.

[peachy]

With regard to ACBL reg, the term used is not "signals", it is "carding strategies".

[blackshoe]

Which, it seems to me, includes leads.

[bluejak]

That GCC clause about dual-message signals has been confusing people for years.

 

I think they were trying to make a restriction on odd/even discards, but wanted to write the regulation in a more generic fashion, so they came up with the term "dual-message".  But the term is never defined, isn't common bridge parlance, and the only example given in the regulation is odd/even.  So AFAIK, no one has ever been given an example of a dual-message signal other than odd/even.

The difference is, as it seems to me, that suppose you agree to signal such that an odd card is encouraging, an even card is discouraging, and also a Lavinthal signal. You have given two signals by different means, one by high/low, one by odd/even. The EBU considers that "dual message" because of the two messages so bans it. The ACBL considers that "dual message" because of the odd/even element so bans it.

 

Now, suppose you decide to signal such that an odd card is encouraging, an even card is discouraging, but there is no Lavinthal signal, ie high even and low even send the same message. You have given only one signal by odd/even. The EBU considers that not "dual message" because there are not two messages so allows it. The ACBL considers that "dual message" because of the odd/even element so bans it.

 

Without going in to what they should allow or ban, I do think the ACBL should re-write their regulation.