Legal Signal?

[inquiry]

I have started using (online bridge, face to face chicago games) a signal that I like.

 

When I am known (either from my own bidding, or say a self-splinter by hidden hand) to hold a long suit (say six or more), i have been using middle spot card as positive attitude and low or high card as both negative attitude and suit preference. I believe such a signal maybe illegal in ACBL events. But I have been discussing signalling with a new ACBL partner. I haven't mentioned this one to him, well, because I think it might be illegal. Question is, is it?

 

 

Thanks

[campboy]

All three ACBL convention charts have the same rules for carding, which include

Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender’s first discard. Except for the first discard only right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are approved.

I asked about this exact method on the previous incarnation of the forum, but I was interested in whether it was permitted in the EBU. They have a similar prohibition against "dual-meaning" signals, and the response I got was that this method was "dual-meaning" and so not allowed.

[jeffford76]

All three ACBL convention charts have the same rules for carding, which include

 

I asked about this exact method on the previous incarnation of the forum, but I was interested in whether it was permitted in the EBU. They have a similar prohibition against "dual-meaning" signals, and the response I got was that this method was "dual-meaning" and so not allowed.

 

I don't think it's "dual meaning" - it's a suit-preference signal. There are just three suits in play instead of the usual two.

[campboy]

I don't think it's "dual meaning" - it's a suit-preference signal. There are just three suits in play instead of the usual two.

I made that same argument last time it was discussed, but I couldn't persuade anyone. Perhaps the ACBL will be more open to it.

[Siegmund]

At least in the case of 7-card suits, it's what I was taught was standard when I started playing. It's in, for instance, the old Eddie Kantar "Big Red" and his defensive-tips books, among other old standbys on defense. I've never heard anyone outside of a bridge laws forum suggest it was illegal or unusual.

There are a variety of other special meanings for unusual cards from long suits in e.g. the Journalist Leads book.

 

As it is explained in those books to beginners, a high card is supposed to be the highest you can afford, and low card is supposed to be the lowest you can afford, to minimize confusion when a 4, say, has to be high from 4-2 but low from 8-6-4. Holding a known long suit is a different animal since you can unambiguously identify more than two sizes of card without risk of confusion.

 

It IS a bit odd when you stare directly at the ACBL carding regulation. But the ACBL allows, for instance, the use of a trump echo to suggest an unusual defence, rather than to request a specific suit - so all I can conclude is that the one-sentence "signals" rule is intended only to apply to "normal" signaling situations, with considerable freedom with long suits, trump signals, alarm clock leads (and leads in general, for that matter, where "anything goes" is allowed if properly disclosed) and so on. Shame they don't spell it out.

[inquiry]

Well, as I read the convention charts, I could think of it two ways.

 

The middle spot card played (middle is positive attitude) -- one signal

The high (or low) spot card played is Suit preference.

 

That would be "legal" if understood that way. the card played had one meaning.

 

However, fogetting the middle spot card, The low or high spot card played could be read as (negative attitude AND suit preference) which I think is clearly illegal, which is why I don't play it in ACBL events. However, I would like to play it because I think it should be standard.

[paulg]

I thought this was American Expert Standard signalling. Richard Pavlicek, a bastion of sense in the bridge world, even has it in his 'expert standard' system. It would not even occur to me that the law makers intended this signalling method to be illegal.

[gnasher]

It's just a normal suit preference signal: high for the higher suit, low for the lower suit, middle for neither.

[mycroft]

I discussed this with my local National Director, and he said that while we couldn't play it *all the time*, because with 64 it's really hard to show a "middle" card, if we are *known to have* the suit, then it's legal. So, to trick 1, if we have shown 4+ in the suit then we play "middle encouraging for this suit, high or low encouraging for high or low suit" as a single-message signal.

[mgoetze]

All three ACBL convention charts have the same rules

 

I would say all three ACBL convention charts are rather short on rules and long on meaningless blathering which allows directors to rule whatever they feel like ruling at the moment.

[mfa1010]

The ACBL restrictions about defensive signals are obscure paranoid rubbish.

[gnasher]

I discussed this with my local National Director, and he said that while we couldn't play it *all the time*, because with 64 it's really hard to show a "middle" card, if we are *known to have* the suit, then it's legal.

 

Is he saying that because a method is unworkable it's also illegal?

[mycroft]

ACBL GCC, carding:

"In addition, a pair may be prohibited from playing any method (such as suit preference systems at trick one), when they are deemed to be playing it in a manner which is not compatible with the maintenance of proper tempo (much like dual message signals)."

So, by regulation, yes.

[gnasher]

ACBL GCC, carding:

So, by regulation, yes.

The regulation refers to the manner of a pair who already play the given methods. He can't ban a pair in advance from playing the methods, because they're not playing them in any manner.

[pooltuna]

As long as I follow the rules for playing a card (i.e. I follow suit with any card I have in the led suit otherwise I may discard ANY card in my hand.) why does the ACBL care if I assign meanings to said card as long as the opponents can be aware of agreements regarding such a play. Essentially this is unenforcable and relies on the ethicallity of the defenders involved. Consequently it seems my ethics with regard to this are the opponents are entitled to know what I mean by the play not what I have. If I can encrypt the meaning tough cookies, opp! all you are entitled to know is the encryption method. Again this is essentially unenforcable and attempting to restrict my card play is buffalo chips.

[mycroft]

If you are playing it without a guaranteed "high, low, middle" card, then it's arguably a priori "not compatible with the maintenance of proper tempo", because apart from the "432, need to find a middle card" problem, there's an unanswerable "92, need to find a middle card" problem, that will cause tempo issues in all but a few pairs - in fact, the same tempo issues as odd-even signals to trick 1.

 

I don't make the rules, I just live with them.

 

Having said that, for pooltuna, the ACBL cares because it chooses to enforce its legal right to regulate what people play so that it's a "fair" game, for what the ACBL considers "fair". So does every other ZO, to different extents, of course. The ACBL considers unfair three things when it comes to carding: "encrypted" signals, where the key is unknown to declarer, "random" carding (which never is), and carding systems where the defenders will have frequent problems determining their "best lie", and where those problems will lead to UI passed through tempo (because that is very hard to prove and enforce violations, and very easy to play "this card means X, unless there's a hitch, in which case it means "I don't have the right card for what I want, don't believe me").

 

It's no more unenforceable than the regulations on bidding - if you choose to claim your play to mean one thing when it's actually another, when you're caught, you're gone (whereas if you play something that isn't allowed, but play it under Full Disclosure, you'll get caught earlier, but you'll be told to make a legal agreement). There really are a lot of the game of bridge that relies on the ethicality of the players involved and is effectively "unenforceable". That's why when we *do* get enough information to prove the C-word, they're *gone*.

 

So, the downside to the buffalo chips is that if you're ever seen to be carrying any, you'll be eating them. I'm sure you don't, of course.

[paulg]

If you are playing it without a guaranteed "high, low, middle" card, then it's arguably a priori "not compatible with the maintenance of proper tempo", because apart from the "432, need to find a middle card" problem, there's an unanswerable "92, need to find a middle card" problem, that will cause tempo issues in all but a few pairs - in fact, the same tempo issues as odd-even signals to trick 1.

 

"92" would not meet my personal definition of 'a long suit', nor OP's. To be honest neither would "432".

[ArtK78]

I was using a different carding method at trick one when third hand is known to have length in the suit led:

 

High or Low is attitude (your choice of method).

Even or Odd indicates number of cards held in the suit (even or odd - exact number can be inferred by context).

 

I learned of this idea from a Bridge World article many years ago.

 

I read the regulations to disallow such a method (it is clearly a dual meaning carding method). Based on this thread, it seems that most of the posters disagree with its prohibition.

[mycroft]

"92" would not meet my personal definition of 'a long suit', nor OP's. To be honest neither would "432".

I agree, Paul; that statement was in the context of my discussion with gnasher, wherein I was told by the senior TD in my area that as long as we have *shown* 4+ cards in the suit, we can do it; but we can't do it at trick 1 all the time.

[Finch]

I was using a different carding method at trick one when third hand is known to have length in the suit led:

 

High or Low is attitude (your choice of method).

Even or Odd indicates number of cards held in the suit (even or odd - exact number can be inferred by context).

 

I learned of this idea from a Bridge World article many years ago.

 

I read the regulations to disallow such a method (it is clearly a dual meaning carding method). Based on this thread, it seems that most of the posters disagree with its prohibition.

 

I am agnostic on the general principle of disallowing dual meaning methods.

I agree they should be allowed when you are known to have, say, 5+ cards in the suit led.

[jallerton]

All three ACBL convention charts have the same rules for carding, which include

 

I asked about this exact method on the previous incarnation of the forum, but I was interested in whether it was permitted in the EBU. They have a similar prohibition against "dual-meaning" signals, and the response I got was that this method was "dual-meaning" and so not allowed.

 

The EBU L&EC confirmed at their most recent meeting that this signal was legal.

The case discussed was specifically that of playing middle encourage, high/low suit preference from a known suit.

 

The problem is that the phrase 'dual meaning' is wrong, but we couldn't articulate what a better wording would be. It's not two meanings, it's using two different attributes of the cards at the same time (e.g. both odd/even and high/low).

Bluejak is going to have a go at re-writing this at least to end up with wording that means what was originally intended.

[Finch]

The post above was kindly done on my behalf.

[bluejak]

Bluejak is going to have a go at re-writing this at least to end up with wording that means what was originally intended.

Suggestions welcome.

[semeai]

Suggestions welcome.

 

To be overly technical, I suppose you want to require that there be a (total) ordering of the cards (with ties allowed), and that the signal's meaning may depend only on relative placement in this ordering.

 

For example, simplistic odd-even uses a total ordering of odd > even (with all odd and all even tied). Sophisticated odd-even uses low odd > high odd > high even > low even (no ties). Standard and upside down use the obvious orderings. There's also simplistic high/low with (6 and up) > (under 6) with all ties among the two groups.

 

Maybe you could say that "signals may convey information only using one dimension of the cards." or "signals may convey information only in terms of relative placement along one dimension of the cards."

 

This is maybe not the best wording and sounds pseudo-scientific, so maybe just using attribute rather than dimension is better. An example showing that non-standard total orderings like the "sophisticated odd/even" one above should then be given, though, to clarify that this is allowed even if it looks like two "attributes" because the cards are placed along one axis/dimension (perhaps a further explanatory comment stressing that even so, the signal must only use the relative placement is then necessary).

 

The second is clearer by mentioning relative placement, but maybe then an explanatory comment that e.g. simplistic odd/even (and simplistic high/low) is allowed is necessary.

[gnasher]

Suggestions welcome.

You may not play a signalling method where one aspect of the card played sends one category of message, and simultaneously another aspect of the card sends another category of message.

 

Examples of methods that are forbidden:

(1) A high odd card is encouraging and even; a low odd card is encouraging and odd; a high even card is discouraging and even; a low even card is discouraging and odd.

(2) An odd card is encouraging; an even card is simultaneously discouraging and suit-preference.

 

Examples of methods that are allowed:

(1) An odd card is encouraging; an even card is discouraging

(2) An odd card is encouraging unless followed by a lower odd card; an even card is discouraging unless followed by a lower even card.

(3) A high card is encouraging and a low card is discouraging, but a very high card is suit-preference for the higher suit.

(4) A high card is encouraging; a low card is discouraging; a middle card is neutral.

(5) A high card may be even or encouraging according to the circumstances; a low card may be odd or discouraging according to the circumstances

(6) At trick one an odd card is encouraging and an even card is discouraging; later in the play a low card is encouraging and a high card is discouraging.

(7) An odd card is encouraging; an even card shows an even number. (Obviously this is absurd, but I believe the committee's intention is to make it legal.)

(8) An odd card is shows an odd number and an even card shows an even number, except that a very high card of either parity asks for a switch whilst saying nothing about length. (This one is open to abuse, but so are all signalling methods.)

 

Or you could tell the Committee that it's impossible to explain what they mean in a way that's understandable to the members, and recommend that they just do away with the rule entirely.

Edited September 24, 2011 by gnasher