Dual meaning signal?

[WellSpyder]

EBU regulations include the following:

 

7 F 3 Dual meaning signals Dual meaning signals (when following suit) are not permitted. Examples of prohibited dual meaning signals: (a) One message (typically attitude) is given according to whether the card played is odd or even; a different message (typically suit preference) is given according to whether the card played is high or low. (b) One message (typically attitude) is given if a specific card (say a 6 or a 7) is played; a different message (typically suit preference) is given if any other card is played. It is, however, permitted to use a particular category of card to express doubt or no preference. For example, when giving suit-preference a partnership may agree that a middle card shows no preference between the two suits. Such dual meanings are permitted for discards.

 

I have encountered two problems recently with interpreting this. First, some opponents were playing "Italian" signals, whereby on partner's opening lead an odd card is encouraging while an even card is suit preference. I suggested to them - and then the TD - that this fell foul of the regulations. The TD decided that it was OK, I think because (i) odd cards were in principle all encouraging (so whether they were high or low didn't affect the signal) and (ii) SP was just an extension of the discouraging message rather than a separate meaning. I accepted this, of course (as I do with all TD rulings!) - and in any case, I didn't really think the system would help oppo much. But I thought this was actually the exact system the regulation was designed to prevent, and would welcome definitive guidance that I can show the people involved on a subsequent occasion.

 

Second, I have seen a number of sources recommend a particular signalling agreement whereby if (a) you have shown a 5-card or longer suit in the bidding, (b) partner leads the suit at trick 1 and (c ) you know he will be holding the trick, then you play a middle card to encourage, while playing high or low as SP. When I suggested this to one partner he was worried about falling foul of this same regulation. I see this as somewhat different from the previous signalling system since you are only using the relative rank of the card to indicate one of 3 meanings, but is there a definitive view from the EBU on whether this agreement meets this regulation or not?

[helene_t]

In the example given in the regulation, there are two binary signals that are combined to give four possible combinations. In the examples you give, there are only three possibilities.

 

Another difference is that in the examples you give, one could argue that the signal really only answers a single question with three possible answers:

 

Which suit do you prefer?

- low (or low even): lower ranking shift

- high (or high even): higher ranking shift

- middle (or odd): the same suit.

 

I don't know if either of those differences are material.

 

Anyway, I will just flog the dead horse by saying that the regulation is stupid and that I would therefore try to use any excuse possible (but not an impossible excuse, of course) to avoid enforcing it. So I would allow both of the two examples you mention.

[WellSpyder]

In the example given in the regulation, there are two binary signals that are combined to give four possible combinations. In the examples you give, there are only three possibilities.

 

Another difference is that in the examples you give, one could argue that the signal really only answers a single question with three possible answers:

I think that is how the TD viewed the issue on this occasion, but I don't think she had come across the question before.

 

In my mind there is one significant difference between the two examples I gave, In the second case, you will always have relatively high, low and medium cards when you have 5 or more cards in the suit. In the first case, it is far from obvious that you will always have an odd card, or a low even card, or a high even card.

[mycroft]

I am not EBU, but certainly the equivalent regulation in the ACBL is specifically designed to thwart Italian carding (as opposed to first discard), and it looks like a) is exactly this case. Yes, I know odd = encouraging is only one message, but even = discouraging, and size of even = suit-preference is two.

 

In both countries, the argument for this regulation is that in general, it is easiest to play the "lowest" from 98 or the "highest" from 43, but it is harder to play the "most odd" from KT86 or the "lowest even" from 953. As a result, the "right" card is played, but only after enough gurning that partner knows not to read this as a true signal.

 

Having said that, I had a lot of experience with this in Ontario, where they *would* play it anyway. What I learned was:

1. If you call the TD, they will express surprise that this isn't legal.
   
2. They'll go right back to playing it, and if you meet them tomorrow, and call the TD, see point 1.
   
3. Most of the time, as declarer, you will get more information from the card and the gurning than opening leader does.

 

There's a similar system (that I think is expressly illegal EBU, but has been ruled legal with caveats in the ACBL) I play, where "middle encouraging, high and low SP" (illegal per b). It's legal in the ACBL *provided we have promised length in the suit* so that it is known that we will have sufficient cards to choose effectively and in tempo. Otherwise, you get the "partner leads the A from AK, you hold 92. The board is unremarkable. How do you encourage?" issue - and yes, I've seen the "tank and pitch" signal actually work at the table.

[lamford]

As a result, the "right" card is played, but only after enough gurning that partner knows not to read this as a true signal.

This leads to UI just as much as a BIT in the bidding does, so that should not be an argument against dual meaning signals. Pairs risk having to play cards that do not show what they want, regardless of the signalling system used.

[barmar]

This leads to UI just as much as a BIT in the bidding does, so that should not be an argument against dual meaning signals. Pairs risk having to play cards that do not show what they want, regardless of the signalling system used.

While ideally we shouldn't have to worry about the UI from hesitations in signalling, I'm pretty sure I've seen something written in ACBL regulations about playing a signalling method that doesn't make it difficult to play in tempo.

[mycroft]

I agree. But it's hard enough getting UI dealt with in the bidding, just try to get a ruling when it's something like this - or "card-play and stare", or "card-pitch vs card-play", or any of the myriad reasons I wanted screens set up at table 1 on a Wednesday night for many years at the Old Club, until the Usual Suspect moved away. The current Usual Suspects probably are only worth 5% on the game with their extracurriculars, not 10-15.

[jallerton]

EBU regulations include the following:

 

 

 

I have encountered two problems recently with interpreting this. First, some opponents were playing "Italian" signals, whereby on partner's opening lead an odd card is encouraging while an even card is suit preference. I suggested to them - and then the TD - that this fell foul of the regulations. The TD decided that it was OK, I think because (i) odd cards were in principle all encouraging (so whether they were high or low didn't affect the signal) and (ii) SP was just an extension of the discouraging message rather than a separate meaning. I accepted this, of course (as I do with all TD rulings!) - and in any case, I didn't really think the system would help oppo much. But I thought this was actually the exact system the regulation was designed to prevent, and would welcome definitive guidance that I can show the people involved on a subsequent occasion.

 

Second, I have seen a number of sources recommend a particular signalling agreement whereby if (a) you have shown a 5-card or longer suit in the bidding, (b) partner leads the suit at trick 1 and (c ) you know he will be holding the trick, then you play a middle card to encourage, while playing high or low as SP. When I suggested this to one partner he was worried about falling foul of this same regulation. I see this as somewhat different from the previous signalling system since you are only using the relative rank of the card to indicate one of 3 meanings, but is there a definitive view from the EBU on whether this agreement meets this regulation or not?

 

I share your concerns about the wording of this regulation.

 

In an old version of the Orange Book, the restriction applied only to specifically odd-even signals (in following suit), with one of odd & even being encouraging and the other suit preference. That was a perfectly clear regulation! Them some bright spark worked out that there could be similar analogous situations and decided to make the regulation more generic. However, I find the current wording "dual meaning signals" to be particularly unfortunate, in that it could be interpreted as not catching the original method it was intended to catch, whilst arguably catching by accident some mainstream signalling methods.

 

Suppose West leads an ace and East follows with the queen. How would you describe this signal?

 

Description 1: top of a sequence. That's a single meaning, surely. Or is it?

 

Description 2: denies the king and shows the jack. So the queen has two meanings; so does it not come under the umbrella of a "dual meaning"?

 

As you will have noted 1 have described the same standard signalling method in two different ways.

 

Or take your example when someone has shown a long suit and high/low cards are suit preference. It's OK to agree that a middle card is also suit preference (maybe for the suit led!), but it is described as "encouraging" then that is apparently a different meaning than either neutral or "suit preference" and suddenly the pair is playing a "dual meaning signal"!

 

Perhaps it would be better for the restriction to be placed on "dual message signals" rather than "dual meaning signals!.

[helene_t]

whilst arguably catching by accident some mainstream signalling methods.

What about (a version of) standard carding on partner's lead where a low spot card shows an odd number AND denies an honour?

 

I am not sure what the regulation tries to achieve. My guess would be that the regulators think that if one can convey four or more different messages at once with a single spot card (say evenPos, oddPos, evenNeg, oddNeg) there is a disclosure problem since one will frequently not have four spot cards to chose between, so it must be accompanied by some fairly convoluted rules for which aspect of the signal is more reliable. And in practice, those rules are not spelled out but come down to gut feelings which are not shared by players who are not familiar with the methods.

 

This interpretation could explain the exception made for discards since when discarding one often has more choices.

 

If that is indeed the intention then I think it might be better dealt with through disclosure requirements. Not claiming this will be easy to spell out. But maybe it could be made a requirement that pairs indicate on the CC how they chose between two alternative spot cards: which binary message is conveyed (say pos-neg or oddNeg-other) and what is the ranking through which the message encoded (say 98765432 for standard and 35798642 for Italian).

[Zelandakh]

Or take your example when someone has shown a long suit and high/low cards are suit preference. It's OK to agree that a middle card is also suit preference (maybe for the suit led!),

Why can we not use the same trick for Italian carding? ♠A led against 4♥ - an odd card is SP for spades, a high even card is SP for diamonds, a low even card is SP for clubs. *waves hand mystically* There is no dual meaning/dual message here! Move along, move along!

[mycroft]

I wouldn't have an issue with that provided it only applies when you have promised length in the led suit (same as my agreement about "middle only encouraging", above). The EBU may have a different opinion.

[jallerton]

What about (a version of) standard carding on partner's lead where a low spot card shows an odd number AND denies an honour?

 

I am not sure what the regulation tries to achieve. My guess would be that the regulators think that if one can convey four or more different messages at once with a single spot card (say evenPos, oddPos, evenNeg, oddNeg) there is a disclosure problem since one will frequently not have four spot cards to chose between, so it must be accompanied by some fairly convoluted rules for which aspect of the signal is more reliable. And in practice, those rules are not spelled out but come down to gut feelings which are not shared by players who are not familiar with the methods.

 

This interpretation could explain the exception made for discards since when discarding one often has more choices.

 

If that is indeed the intention then I think it might be better dealt with through disclosure requirements. Not claiming this will be easy to spell out. But maybe it could be made a requirement that pairs indicate on the CC how they chose between two alternative spot cards: which binary message is conveyed (say pos-neg or oddNeg-other) and what is the ranking through which the message encoded (say 98765432 for standard and 35798642 for Italian).

 

I'm fairly sure that the regulation is trying to reduce UI issues when a player does not possess a card of the right category. Apparently, holding 753 and wanting to follow with an even spot to discourage, certain players had a tendency to break tempo whilst they searched for an even spot card. Playing standard/reverse signals, although you might want to play low from 987 tripleton or high from 432 tripleton, it is perceived to take less long for players to find their lowest or highest card.

 

Your observation about discards is correct. It is common for players to play out of tempo anyway when they make their first discard, so a pause before a ♦3 discard does not convey the message "I wish I could play an even ♦".

 

In principle I like the idea in your final paragraph, but the players who have discussed in this detail how to deal with the "wrong" spot cards are generally not the ones who have problems following in tempo!

[WellSpyder]

I think I understand the reason why the regulation exists, and also that it isn't necessarily that easy to ensure that it says exactly what it wants to say. But my main purpose in starting another thread on the issue was to try to get a clear statement from those involved in implementing the EBU regulation that, as interpreted by the powers that be:

(i) the regulation does/does not prohibit Italian signals when following to partner's lead

(ii) the regulation does/does not prohibit combining attitude and SP signals in the way described in the OP when the signaller has shown length (5+) in the bidding

[helene_t]

Apparently, holding 753 and wanting to follow with an even spot to discourage, certain players had a tendency to break tempo whilst they searched for an even spot card. Playing standard/reverse signals, although you might want to play low from 987 tripleton or high from 432 tripleton, it is perceived to take less long for players to find their lowest or highest card.

But the example you give is a single-meaning signal, just using parity instead of rank.

 

I see your point, though. I have 742 and want to discourage while giving low suit preference. So I have to chose which of the two aspects of the signal is more important or will be seen as more reliable by partner, and maybe also if I can play the 4 and the 2 in "unnatural" order to convey the message that I don't have an odd card. Etc.

[paulg]

I think I understand the reason why the regulation exists, and also that it isn't necessarily that easy to ensure that it says exactly what it wants to say. But my main purpose in starting another thread on the issue was to try to get a clear statement from those involved in implementing the EBU regulation that, as interpreted by the powers that be:

(i) the regulation does/does not prohibit Italian signals when following to partner's lead

(ii) the regulation does/does not prohibit combining attitude and SP signals in the way described in the OP when the signaller has shown length (5+) in the bidding

With a meeting coming up next month, albeit with most of the time to be spent discussing Benji Acol, now is the time to formally ask the L&EC. Of course it is the same issue as the Benji one - most know what they think is intended, but the written word is king at the end of the day.

[Vampyr]

I thought that with any method involving odd/even, the higher an odd card, the less encouraging it is.

[helene_t]

With a meeting coming up next month, albeit with most of the time to be spent discussing Benji Acol

OMG, are people attending those meetings voluntarily?

[Trinidad]

I'm fairly sure that the regulation is trying to reduce UI issues when a player does not possess a card of the right category. Apparently, holding 753 and wanting to follow with an even spot to discourage, certain players had a tendency to break tempo whilst they searched for an even spot card.

Players can also hold 765 playing standard signals. The agreement is simple: the 5 is more discouraging than the 7.

 

For Italian signals it is the same. From encouraging to discouraging the order is: 3-5-7-9-even. So, if you want to discourage with 753, you play the 7. No need to think.

 

I really don't understand why odd-even signals (when following suit) are disallowed and odd-even discards are allowed. In my experience, there are far more BIT issues on the first discard than when following suit. After all, when following suit, you simply have to play the card that sends the clearest message (e.g. the 7 from 753), but when you are discarding you have 3 suits to chose from. You may discard an odd card in the suit you want or a high or low even card in a suit you don't want. If you discard on diamonds and want hearts, you need to check whether you have (and can afford to play):

- an odd heart (3, 5, 7, 9)

- a high spade (♠8 or ♠6)

- a low club (♣2 or ♣4)

 

This thinking is more complicated than in standard discards. There you are looking for:

- a high heart

- a low club or spade

 

And it is also much more complicated than in odd-even signals (3-5-7-9-even).

 

So, the most BIT sensitive (the odd-even discard) is allowed and the not BIT sensitive (the odd-even signal) is disallowed. SAD! ;)

 

Rik

 

Edit: removed redundant line.

[Zelandakh]

I really don't understand why odd-even signals (when following suit) are disallowed and odd-even discards are allowed.

Against 4♠, you hold ♥532 on partner's ace lead and want to encourage in diamonds. A switch to clubs would be a disaster. You can play the 2, encouraging the disastrous switch; the 3, strongly suggesting missing the best switch but avoiding the disastrous one; or the 5, nebulous, hoping that partner will make an intelligent guess but risking the disastrous shift. Which risk is the lesser? Are you sure that you can calculate this in tempo every time? Do you think the average club player is able to do so?

 

The reason for their being disallowed as signals but not for discards is quite simple - a pause on the first discard is normal and passes less UI than a pause following suit on a random card during the play. Moreover, with a free choice of discards a player is less likely to be put in the position of not having a sensible way of sending the desired signal. Your analysis is flawed because you are only considering the case of having all odds when wanting to discourage, which is simple to resolve using the rule of lower cards sending a stronger signal but the issue more often comes with the second signal, not having a discouraging (even) card of the correct size. Here it is not always the case that we want to signal with the highest odd card and calculating the effects of each (false) signal takes some time for the majority of players.

[paulg]

With a meeting coming up next month, albeit with most of the time to be spent discussing Benji Acol, now is the time to formally ask the L&EC. Of course it is the same issue as the Benji one - most know what they think is intended, but the written word is king at the end of the day.

OMG, are people attending those meetings voluntarily?

 

I've given up helping the SBU write Conditions of Contest and other regulations because of the playing community, so I have every sympathy for the volunteers on the EBU committees. I have no idea why they do it!

 

<rant>

It is very frustrating trying to create a compact document that delivers everything that is needed, only to find one group of people exploiting every loophole to their advantage, a second group complaining about them, and a third group saying that you cannot make 'common sense' adjustments for unforeseen circumstances once the event has started.

 

The USBF seems to address this problem by having complex documents created by a team of a dozen people, but a smaller NBO just does not have the resources to develop and maintain the 600-page documents that are really required (and even the USBF seems to end up missing vital elements, such as an alerting policy and screen regulations). The players, and directors, don't want a 600-page CoC either.

</rant>

[barmar]

The USBF seems to address this problem by having complex documents created by a team of a dozen people, but a smaller NBO just does not have the resources to develop and maintain the 600-page documents that are really required

Isn't a common solution by many small NBOs to simply adopt the WBF rules?

 

I think the main problem they run into is that WBF events are mostly played with screens, and their regulations assume this. So they need to be tweaked for traditional styles of play.

[paulg]

Isn't a common solution by many small NBOs to simply adopt the WBF rules?

As it happens the main problem is not screens, but when you want to do something that the WBF doesn't. For example, this weekend's SBU event is a dual-elimination knockout with both long triads, where one team wins and two lose a life, and short triads, where two teams win and only one loses a life - traditional tie-break procedures need to be tweaked.

 

And then there is the much more contentious 'how to select a team from a trial'. Do you permit a winning team of four to pick the third pair? Does the third pair have to have played in the trial? What if a team of five wins, with one player having two partners? Do you let people play who are not eligible to play for the country in the target event? Do you let people play who do not want to play for the country in the target event, but their team mates do? What happens when they win?

 

The list of such questions always seems endless and every event throws up more. It is also inevitable that the vast majority of selectors are participants with a good chance of winning, which is one reason that late changes to the CoCs are dangerous.

[barmar]

The list of such questions always seems endless and every event throws up more. It is also inevitable that the vast majority of selectors are participants with a good chance of winning, which is one reason that late changes to the CoCs are dangerous.

I thought we were just talking about things like bidding and alerting regulations, not the more general conditions of contests. But I guess they're all just part of the same regulatory framework.

 

But it doesn't have to be specifically the WBF rules. A small NBO could mix and match, e.g. adopting the EBU CoC with the WBF bidding system regulations.

[Jeremy69A]

The School Uniform regulations at the place I used to work had significant detail and, of course, students could have a lot of fun with phrases like "logos on outdoor coats or jackets must not be bigger than the size of two postage stamps" Any idea how big a stamp from the Pitcairn Islands is? Much of this was resolved by adding one line that said "or any other item deemed unsuitable by the headteacher" Perhaps the time has come for a simple, brief, addition to the Blue Book?

 

It is getting harder to find volunteers for both the Selection and Laws & Ethics committees. It does not help when a frenzy of abuse from social media follows decisions whether they are right or wrong. The Blue Book is half the length its predecessor was partly in response to comments about 72 pages of regulation. Its reasonable to write regulations as clearly as possible and the wording of what you can or can't agree to open a strong artificial two will no doubt be looked at even if it would be preferable to watch paint dry. I'm not looking forward to the meeting and I bet I'm not the only one! The members of the committee can rest assured that whatever they decide will be put to the court of Facebook, this forum, Twitter, Bridgewinners and found deficient. A couple of the regular posters on this forum are amongst the worst and most guilty in this regard IMO.

[WellSpyder]

Jeremy - feel free to get in touch next time you need a volunteer for the L&E.

 

My posts on this thread have not been intended to criticise the wording of the regulation, let alone the people who wrote it, merely to get guidance on how to interpret it. But if change is being considered, I wonder whether a more direct reference to how the signal is made rather than what it means might be helpful, eg: signals must be based on one characteristic of the card played rather than two, for example its size or its parity, but not both.