Defence Signals

[zasanya]

A pair I know to be ethical has the following signalling system.

" If we expect partner to win the trick or when we are sure partner will win the trick we play revolving discards. However if we expect declarer to win the trick or when we are sure declarer will win the trick our discard has no significance. "

Is this legal?

[campboy]

It's legal unless your regulating authority has a regulation prohibiting it, which I would think unlikely. There's the separate question of whether it's full disclosure, but so long as there's no bias to this random choice that partner's aware of, it is.

[billw55]

It sounds legal, although I would think they would miss some important opportunities to signal when declarer is winning the trick.

[RMB1]

At the weekend I had a yarborough and my signalling method was to follow suit from right to left - with the proviso that I do not sort my cards within suits.

[barmar]

At the weekend I had a yarborough and my signalling method was to follow suit from right to left - with the proviso that I do not sort my cards within suits.

Hmm, I've generally heard the advice that the broke defender should signal count religiously. While you can't contribute much to the defense in terms of winning tricks (although you should hold onto the beer card just in case), you can still help partner count declarer's hand. Conversely, the defender with all the points should not bother giving count at all.

 

Since declarer doesn't know that there's such a disparity, or which is which, the accurate count signals won't help him as much.

[mycroft]

Many regulating authorities require a signalling system to be played (although you can, and much frequently than in the bidding do, lie). They do this because people play "random discards" or "we signal rarely, but when we do it's whatever partner needs to know" - but in fact, due to partnership experience, their "random" is somewhat biased (and partner knows the bias), and when partner doesn't need to know something, there's still some information passed on (and again, partner knows the bias, but can't/won't explain it).

 

Having said that, what they said above.

[bixby]

It depends on local regulations. In the ACBL this would be illegal. The ACBL general Conditions of Contest provide: "A pair may not elect to have no agreement when it comes to carding. There have been pairs that say they just play random leads or that they lead the card closest to their thumb. They must decide on a carding agreement and mark their convention cards accordingly. Of course, some leeway needs to be given to fill-in pairs or very last minute partnerships." But you'd need to check the local regulations for the location you're interested in.

[barmar]

"...Of course, some leeway needs to be given to fill-in pairs or very last minute partnerships."

Not to mention LOLs and novices who simply don't know how to signal.

 

Although they probably just play the lowest card when it doesn't matter -- does that count as a "carding agreement"?

[CamHenry]

Not to mention LOLs and novices who simply don't know how to signal.

 

Although they probably just play the lowest card when it doesn't matter -- does that count as a "carding agreement"?

 

My local club contains a certain helping of "life novices". Many of these, when asked what signals they play, will tell you "we throw cards we don't want".

[barmar]

My local club contains a certain helping of "life novices". Many of these, when asked what signals they play, will tell you "we throw cards we don't want".

Unlike more advanced players, who routinely pitch aces and kings. :)

[Phil]

It depends on local regulations. In the ACBL this would be illegal. The ACBL general Conditions of Contest provide: "A pair may not elect to have no agreement when it comes to carding. There have been pairs that say they just play random leads or that they lead the card closest to their thumb. They must decide on a carding agreement and mark their convention cards accordingly.

 

Is "no agreement" the same as "we intentionally play random cards"? I don't think so.

 

(Notwithstanding that this is fertile ground for CPU's...)

[barmar]

Is "no agreement" the same as "we intentionally play random cards"? I don't think so.

That seems to be what the CoC implies, since it says you can't describe that as your agreement.

[jallerton]

Hmm, I've generally heard the advice that the broke defender should signal count religiously. While you can't contribute much to the defense in terms of winning tricks (although you should hold onto the beer card just in case), you can still help partner count declarer's hand. Conversely, the defender with all the points should not bother giving count at all.

 

Since declarer doesn't know that there's such a disparity, or which is which, the accurate count signals won't help him as much.

 

I've heard this advice too, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to agree with my partner to do this. Would such an agreement not be caught by the restriction on "encrypted signals"?

[Cthulhu D]

I've heard this advice too, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to agree with my partner to do this. Would such an agreement not be caught by the restriction on "encrypted signals"?

 

It is an encrypted signal yeah.

[billw55]

I thought this is just playing bridge. Encrypted? illegal? Yikes, I hope not.

[gnasher]

Encryption is in the eye of the beholder.

[Cthulhu D]

If we agreed that after an NT action in which we can tell declarer has 24 or 25 points, if one of us held 10+ HCP they'd signal natural count, otherwise upside down, that would be an encrypted signal. Agreeing to give natural count with a bust and discard randomly with a 13 count or better is the same agreement...

[sasioc]

My local club contains a certain helping of "life novices". Many of these, when asked what signals they play, will tell you "we throw cards we don't want".

 

This one of my pet hates, although when I've encountered it, it's usually phrased slightly differently (and less clearly), eg. "we throw what we don't want". This is used by players to either mean "attitude discards" or "no discard system" depending on who says it and they usually consider their chosen meaning of the explanation so obvious that any attempt to clarify causes confusion. The phrasing that they use in your club seems much more helpful though.

[barmar]

How is "we throw what we don't want" less clear than "we throw cards we don't want"? The only difference is "what" versus "cards", and the context makes it clear that the things we can throw are only cards.

[sasioc]

Some players use this to mean "we throw the suit we don't want (partner to lead)". I think it's pretty ambiguous, even if you don't, which suggests that it is not a helpful explanation to give to at least some opponents. I have seen players give this explanation and found them to be playing rev att discards or similar plenty of times and think they have disclosed this.

[blackshoe]

"I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean". If they can't or won't explain so you do understand, call the director.

[billw55]

Some players use this to mean "we throw the suit we don't want (partner to lead)". I think it's pretty ambiguous, even if you don't, which suggests that it is not a helpful explanation to give to at least some opponents. I have seen players give this explanation and found them to be playing rev att discards or similar plenty of times and think they have disclosed this.

I am skeptical that a pair playing reverse attitude discards is unable to correctly disclose it. I would tend to suspect deliberate concealment. Can't be proven of course.

[barmar]

Maybe I'm overly naive and trusting, but I think they're just the "life novices" that someone mentioned, who don't know how to send or read signals 90% of the time. Once in a blue moon they might play an 8 or 9, hoping their partner will notice the obvious signal (playing reverse attitude would be out of the question for this class of player).

[mycroft]

Bill, this isn't "reverse attitude", it's "Lavinthal without the suit preference". It doesn't matter if it's the 2 or the 9, if they pitch a card in that suit, it's a suit they don't want led.

 

I've seen this discarding system as well, and the people that play it can't understand why their opponents have so much trouble understanding "we throw what we don't want". I'll let you figure out why.

[billw55]

Bill, this isn't "reverse attitude", it's "Lavinthal without the suit preference". It doesn't matter if it's the 2 or the 9, if they pitch a card in that suit, it's a suit they don't want led.

 

I've seen this discarding system as well, and the people that play it can't understand why their opponents have so much trouble understanding "we throw what we don't want". I'll let you figure out why.

aha ok, I see what you are saying. Is that what sasioc meant? Rereading her post that I quoted, I'm still not sure.