ACBL convention chart ideas

[Zelandakh]

It seems that Bridgeguys have updated their database since I last looked for Dodds, admittedly several years back now. They now have this entry:-

 

Dodds Discards

This is a system similar to Italian Discards. Even cards are encouraging while odd discards are discouraging (Discouraging Odds) and ask for the suit of the same color. Source: Contract Bridge Play: The Language of Defense, authored by Mr. David N. King, 2004, Publisher: Bear Publications Worcester, ISBN: 0953137295 and also: http://www.omahabridge.org/MHemPubs/L_S_D2.pdf.

 

If anyone has a copy of the named publication, or indeed if anyone knows the author, perhaps they can state once and for all what the correct origin is.

[TimG]

On the other hand, a common question from declarer to denders is "Please describe your leads, signals, and discards." Players aren't all consistent about this,

I don't think I have ever heard "leads, signals, and discards" but I have often heard "leads and carding".

[jdgalt]

I always just ask, "Do you do any special carding?" It would be nice if there were always time to look at opponents' convention card before playing a hand.

 

(A suggestion for BBO's programming staff: When I've finished playing a round and am waiting to go to the next table, how about letting me view my upcoming opponents' CC?)

[Finch]

I cannot believe anyone plays a second discard as Roman [or Lavinthal or Revolving or whatever]. No doubt I am about to be proved wrong ...

 

 

OK....

Typical position:

I have a weak hand with one long suit and (say) Qxx and 10xx in the other two non-trump suits. Partner has our side's high cards, so I'm doing as much useful signalling as I can. Declarer is running trumps.

 

- first discard: discouraging or encouraging as appropriate in my long suit

- second discard: suit preference between the other two suits, to tell him where I have something compared to nothing.

 

There are a number of similar positions, but generally these are when I'm discarding from a long suit and having given primary attitude (or count) in that suit as my first discard, I'm now giving suit pref between the other two.

[aguahombre]

OK....

Typical position:

I have a weak hand with one long suit and (say) Qxx and 10xx in the other two non-trump suits. Partner has our side's high cards, so I'm doing as much useful signalling as I can. Declarer is running trumps.

 

- first discard: discouraging or encouraging as appropriate in my long suit

- second discard: suit preference between the other two suits, to tell him where I have something compared to nothing.

 

There are a number of similar positions, but generally these are when I'm discarding from a long suit and having given primary attitude (or count) in that suit as my first discard, I'm now giving suit pref between the other two.

Isn't this just common sense? Certainly disclosable if asked by declarer, but I doubt it is a "convention chart" item.

[blackshoe]

Isn't this just common sense? Certainly disclosable if asked by declarer, but I doubt it is a "convention chart" item.

ACBL GCC: 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.

So it is a "convention chart" item. While it's perfectly permissible to show suit preference with your second discard, it is not permissible to use a dual-message (Roman, Lavinthal, Revolving, whatever) method to do so.

[aguahombre]

So it is a "convention chart" item. While it's perfectly permissible to show suit preference with your second discard, it is not permissible to use a dual-message (Roman, Lavinthal, Revolving, whatever) method to do so.

When your fist discard says one thing, and your subsequent discard(s) say something else, that is not a dual message method. It is two messages. What Frances described really had nothing to do with Lavinthal, Revolving, Roman, or whatever. The first discard only contained one message. A second/third discard in the same suit ( e.g., high-low showing a card in the higher remaining suit) is one (different) message.

[nige1]

Law-makers' objection to odd-even signals is that they are effective but they are played by few players -- in particular: by few clients of professionals

 

Obviously, the ban has nothing to do with ethics or slow signals. Ethical problems are the same as normal. In either case, you must think what is the correct card to play and whether you can afford to play it.

 

• Playing hi-lo signals, if all partner's cards are hi or low, his signal may not be clear until he plays a second card of higher or lower rank. One of Victor Mollo's characters got round this witth ♣T98 by dropping the eight on the floor and while scrabbling for it, crying "low club coming up, partner".
• Playing odd-even signals, with no cards of appropriate parity, partner peters with cards of the wrong-parity. Again his signal may be unclear until he plays a second card.

 

 

• Sometimes playing hi-lo signals, if you can see lots of high (or low cards), then partner's first card is unambiguous,
• Similarly, playing odd-even sighals, if you can see lots of odd (or even cards), then partner's first card may be unambiguous.

[Vampyr]

Law-makers' objection to odd-even signals is that they are effective but they are played by few players -- in particular: by few clients of professionals

 

Eh?

[blackshoe]

So it is a "convention chart" item. While it's perfectly permissible to show suit preference with your second discard, it is not permissible to use a dual-message (Roman, Lavinthal, Revolving, whatever) method to do so.

 

When your fist discard says one thing, and your subsequent discard(s) say something else, that is not a dual message method. It is two messages. What Frances described really had nothing to do with Lavinthal, Revolving, Roman, or whatever. The first discard only contained one message. A second/third discard in the same suit ( e.g., high-low showing a card in the higher remaining suit) is one (different) message.

Read what I said. If your second discard sends only one message, that's fine. If it sends two, it is a dual-message method, and is illegal in the ACBL.

[nige1]

Eh?

Naturally enough, regulators aim to favour local players and handicap strangers and foreigners. Thus I'm told that the ACBL

• Allows popular local conventions e.g. Flannery, Short club, etc but
• Effectively bans conventions popular abroad e.g. Forcing pass, Multi,

For most competitions, I believe that the EBU defined a strong club as 16+ HCP or "extended rule of 25". This seems designed to outlaw the MOSCITO system, popular in Australia.

[Vampyr]

Naturally enough, regulators aim to favour local players

 

This is, as you say, natural, and is a good thing. Yet your comment seemed negative.

[nige1]

This is, as you say, natural, and is a good thing. Yet your comment seemed negative.

A matter of opinion. IMO: Good for some locals. Bad for innovators. Bad for foreigners. Bad for a level playing-field. Bad for global competition. Bad for the game.

[Cthulhu D]

A matter of opinion. IMO: Good for some locals. Bad for innovators. Bad for foreigners. Bad for a level playing-field. Bad for global competition. Bad for the game.

 

A better word than local would be incumbent.

[bluejak]

OK....

Typical position:

I have a weak hand with one long suit and (say) Qxx and 10xx in the other two non-trump suits. Partner has our side's high cards, so I'm doing as much useful signalling as I can. Declarer is running trumps.

 

- first discard: discouraging or encouraging as appropriate in my long suit

- second discard: suit preference between the other two suits, to tell him where I have something compared to nothing.

 

There are a number of similar positions, but generally these are when I'm discarding from a long suit and having given primary attitude (or count) in that suit as my first discard, I'm now giving suit pref between the other two.

Sorry, I worded it badly: of course, I play that myself. Maybe I should just not have included the general without thought. Ok, how about no-one plays the second discard as Roman?

 

Law-makers' objection to odd-even signals is that they are effective but they are played by few players -- in particular: by few clients of professionals

The regulation-makers objections, as clearly stated, is that Odd-even signals lead to ethical problems and are therefore banned.

 

Sure, you can say anything you like, but what you say is known to be not true in this instance.

[Vampyr]

A matter of opinion. IMO: Good for some locals. Bad for innovators. Bad for foreigners. Bad for a level playing-field. Bad for global competition. Bad for the game.

 

It is true that most sets of regulations stifle innovation -- I consider it a real shame that, for example, transfer openings are not allowed in the EBU. But consider this: if "world regulations" were introduced, what would they be modeled on? Just maybe the ACBL's, which are probably the most restrictive in the world? This would be a lot worse for innovators than the present conditions.

 

Apart from that, regulations are designed to suit the players who play under them. This is normal and desirable. Why would it ever be right to try to please anyone except your own punters?

[nige1]

Apart from that, regulations are designed to suit the players who play under them. This is normal and desirable. Why would it ever be right to try to please anyone except your own punters?

:) Reductio ad absurdum: Should the ACBL then come clean and just ban foreigners from winning its domestic competitions? :)

[ArtK78]

Law-makers' objection to odd-even signals is that they are effective but they are played by few players -- in particular: by few clients of professionals

 

Obviously, the ban has nothing to do with ethics or slow signals. Ethical problems are the same as normal. In either case, you must think what is the correct card to play and whether you can afford to play it.

 

• Playing hi-lo signals, if all partner's cards are hi or low, his signal may not be clear until he plays a second card of higher or lower rank. One of Victor Mollo's characters got round this witth ♣T98 by dropping the eight on the floor and while scrabbling for it, crying "low club coming up, partner".
• Playing odd-even signals, with no cards of appropriate parity, partner peters with cards of the wrong-parity. Again his signal may be unclear until he plays a second card.

 

 

• Sometimes playing hi-lo signals, if you can see lots of high (or low cards), then partner's first card is unambiguous,
• Similarly, playing odd-even sighals, if you can see lots of odd (or even cards), then partner's first card may be unambiguous.

Strongly disagree with this.

 

(1) Odd-Even First Discards are played by a large number of American players. However, before they were banned, odd-even carding throughout the hand (not just at first discard) was played by a number of American players. Not a large number, but a significant enough number to be noticed.

 

(2) The reason for the ban on multi-meaning carding at any time other than a player's first discard is as stated previously - ethical problems that arise from subsequent plays when the player has run out of appropriate cards to play. This is a problem inherent in the method and was noticed during the time when such carding methods were permitted in ACBL play. As soon as it became apparent that even expert highly ethical players were having difficulties, the methods were banned except at a player's first opportunity to discard.

 

I like a method that was published in The Bridge World many years ago which, I believe, is not permitted under ACBL regulations, as it applies at trick 1 and not at a player's first discard. If third hand has a known long suit (for example, third hand opened 3♠) and his partner's opening lead is in that suit, then third hand plays a high or low even card to indicate attitude (whatever high or low means in your methods) and count (even number of cards) or a high or low odd card to indicate attitude and count (an odd number of cards). The only ethical problem that may arise is if you can't find the appropriate card for the situation, which should be rare when you are marked with 6 or more cards in the suit. But, in that case, partner may be able to work out that you don't have the appropriate spot from looking at his own hand and the dummy and declarer's play to trick 1. In any event, it is not a continuing problem, as it only applies to trick 1.

[Vampyr]

:) Reductio ad absurdum: Should the ACBL then come clean and just ban foreigners from winning its domestic competitions? :)

 

If ACBL players were staying away in large numbers because of the possibility, I would consider it the ACBL's duty to do this (Or anyway not allow foreigners to enter).

[nige1]

If ACBL players were staying away in large numbers because of the possibility, I would consider it the ACBL's duty to do this (Or anyway not allow foreigners to enter).

I'm beginning to see why we disagree. From a local point of view, foreigners are a minority whose interests are of secondary importance: "Bridge is a local game for local people". Viewed globally, however, locals to any given place are the minority, whereas foreigners are the overwhelming majority. Foreign travel is increasing and many people now play Bridge in different countries. Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules but they can't in the current tower of Babel. Also, IMO, conformity to world-wide rules would improve the game and legitimise international competition.

[gnasher]

Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules

Is that true? Speaking for myself, I'm quite happy to play under English rules in England, American rules in America, French rules in France, WBF rules in WBF events, and so on.

[Vampyr]

Is that true? Speaking for myself, I'm quite happy to play under English rules in England, American rules in America, French rules in France, WBF rules in WBF events, and so on.

 

So am I. I've played in about 15 countries, and I'm sure many posters have played in more. Who are these people you are talking about, Nigel, and can we hear from them? You say this so often, but no one has mentioned having problems playing in foreign jurisdictions except you. I'm very sorry about that, but I don't think that bridge regulations should be designed to suit one person.

 

I'd like to add that my experience is radically different from yours -- at all EBU tournaments I have been to, the overwhelming majority of players are English; at the club level, the overwhelming majority are Londoners.

 

In any case,the foreigners who do come seem as un-bothered as Andy and I about the regulations in force.

[nige1]

Is that true? Speaking for myself, I'm quite happy to play under English rules in England, American rules in America, French rules in France, WBF rules in WBF events, and so on.

So am I. I've played in about 15 countries, and I'm sure many posters have played in more. Who are these people you are talking about, Nigel, and can we hear from them? You say this so often, but no one has mentioned having problems playing in foreign jurisdictions except you. I'm very sorry about that, but I don't think that bridge regulations should be designed to suit one person. I'd like to add that my experience is radically different from yours -- at all EBU tournaments I have been to, the overwhelming majority of players are English; at the club level, the overwhelming majority are Londoners. In any case,the foreigners who do come seem as un-bothered as Andy and I about the regulations in force.

Our opinions are moulded by our differing experiences. For example,

• In discussion groups. many foreigners criticise EBU regulations (e.g. fielding, alerting doubles) and ACBL regulations (e.g. convention card, stop-card, systems).
• AFAIR there has been recent discussion about ACBL Multi regulations (When you are allowed to play it at all, you must provide opponents with two official approved defences and allow them to consult their home-brew 1000 page defence at the table). This seems to have annoyed some foreigners.
• In the recent Spring Fours.I'm told that many of the teams were from Scotland and elsewhere. When I played at the Young Chelsea, there were many foreigners. Reading Bridge Club also had many foreign visitors (but I admit we did have an open-door systems policy).
• A charming young French pair were about to join Reading Bridge Club, until they found themselves on the wrong end of an EBU alert-ruling.
• If fewer foreigners now play Bridge in England perhaps it is because of EBU regulations :) :) :) Although I suppose you might argue that is a good thing.:) :) :)
• Players are a tolerant lot. Even if they're prepared to learn a different set of regulations for each country they visit, many say they would be happier not to have that chore.

[gnasher]

Our opinions are moulded by our differing experiences. For example,

 

In discussion groups. many foreigners criticise EBU regulations (e.g. fielding, alerting doubles) and ACBL regulations (e.g. convention card, stop-card, systems).

 

AFAIR there has been recent discussion about ACBL Multi regulations (When you are allowed to play it at all, you must provide opponents with two official approved defences and allow them to consult their home-brew 1000 page defence at the table). This seems to have annoyed some foreigners.

So your "experience" of this problem consists of reading posts in internet forums?

 

In any case, I don't see any reason to suppose that unifying regulations will reduce the volume of criticsm. If, for example, we made everybody play under WBF alerting rules, there would be criticism from all over the world.

 

In the recent Spring Fours.I'm told that many of the teams were from Scotland and elsewhere. When I played at the Young Chelsea, there were many foreigners. Reading Bridge Club also had many foreign visitors (but I admit we did have an open-door systems policy).

I don't understand how you get from "There are overseas visitors at some events." to "Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules". If anything, the presence of overseas visitors at our events suggests that they are happy to play under other countries' rules.

 

A charming young French pair were about to join Reading Bridge Club, until they found themselves on the wrong end of an EBU alert-ruling.

Your solution appears to be that the French Pair should be forced to play under regulations that don't suit them even when they are in France, solely so that they can be better prepared for an encounter with one of the less charming citizens of Reading.

 

If fewer foreigners now play Bridge in England perhaps it is because of EBU regulations http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif Although I suppose you might argue that is a good thing.http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

 

Do you actually have any evidence that "fewer foreigners now play Bridge in England"? From a quick look at the list of teams at the Spring Fours, I would say that English events are doing rather better at attracting overseas visitors than they used to.

 

Apart from this French pair who had a bad experience at a provincial bridge club, do you know of any other overseas player who has chosen not to play bridge in England because of the regulations?

 

Players are a complacent lot. Even if they're prepared to learn a different set of regulations for each country they visit, many say they would be happier not to have that chore.

So you keep saying, but I'm still waiting to hear who these "many" are. You have made what feels like 1000 posts on this subject, but I cannot remember anyone agreeing with you that the regulations across the world should be made uniform. Many of the users of this forum do actually play in multiple juriusdictions. If they were all craving uniformity, don't you think that one of them might have said something by now?

[bluejak]

Wherever they play, most would prefer to play under the same rules but they can't in the current tower of Babel.

Absolutely not. If when you go abroad it is the same as at home, why go abroad?

 

A large number of lesser players only want to allow what they have been taught, so - for example - if people in some English clubs visit the USA they would like people to be forced to play Benjaminised Acol. How on earth you think this stimulates global play is beyond me.

 

But lots of people enjoy the challenge of a different environment, a different type of bridge, lots of things different. I don't even really mind playing in Scotland despite its awful alerting rules!