[jdgalt]

I'd like to discuss some of the things in the ACBL convention charts (and things that could be allowed there but aren't).

There's one in particular -- I've heard from multiple sources that this is commonly played in Britain:
* Odd/Even attitude -- whenever a card play giving attitude is called for (NOT just on the first discard),
* an odd spot card means you like that suit, even means you don't (and the size of the even card may also give suit preference).

ACBL forbids this, even in Mid-Chart or SuperChart events.

The rationale for playing it is that, unlike regular or upside-down signals, declarer can't spoof your signal (that is, declarer can play something that makes your high card look like a low card, but he can't make your odd card look even).

Can someone please tell me: (1) Why is this forbidden? (2) If I could be allowed to play this by publishing a defense against it (an idea that seems to me as ridiculous as the rule itself), what would that defense have to contain or achieve?

[axman]

 jdgalt, on 2012-May-09, 19:00, said:

I'd like to discuss some of the things in the ACBL convention charts (and things that could be allowed there but aren't).

There's one in particular -- I've heard from multiple sources that this is commonly played in Britain:
* Odd/Even attitude -- whenever a card play giving attitude is called for (NOT just on the first discard),
* an odd spot card means you like that suit, even means you don't (and the size of the even card may also give suit preference).

ACBL forbids this, even in Mid-Chart or SuperChart events.

The rationale for playing it is that, unlike regular or upside-down signals, declarer can't spoof your signal (that is, declarer can play something that makes your high card look like a low card, but he can't make your odd card look even).

Can someone please tell me: (1) Why is this forbidden? (2) If I could be allowed to play this by publishing a defense against it (an idea that seems to me as ridiculous as the rule itself), what would that defense have to contain or achieve?

Your premise seems doubtful, if not dubious.

This came up in a discussion with BW [bobby wolff] about 15 years ago. He indicated that the motivation for the ban was that such a method is prone to failure, such as upon the occasions when no suitable [systemic] card is held...thereby invariably the player will be unable to conduct himself fairly.

[inquiry]

The real reason has nothing to do with declarer not being able spoofing the card. The problem is all too often one doesn't have an odd card when one is needed or an even card when one is wanted... and the speed at which the card is played seems to somehow be related the frequency of the opening leader getting the right meaning even when the wrong card is played. Not that the speed of play is intentional, or anything, but it has always been my believe that this is the argument.

odd and even discards, however, you have multiple choices... odd card in teh suit you want played, or an even card in another suit that can give suit preference, so that is much less "ethically challenged" (my term).

[gnasher]

 jdgalt, on 2012-May-09, 19:00, said:

I've heard from multiple sources that this is commonly played in Britain:

I think you have been misinformed.

[mjj29]

 jdgalt, on 2012-May-09, 19:00, said:

I've heard from multiple sources that this is commonly played in Britain:

It's legal (and reasonably common) in England as a discard system ('Italian' discards). It's not legal as a signaling system for the reasons (AIUI) that have been given.

[aguahombre]

 mjj29, on 2012-May-10, 10:35, said:

It's legal (and reasonably common) in England as a discard system ('Italian' discards). It's not legal as a signaling system for the reasons (AIUI) that have been given.

I don't understand the implication that signals while discarding are not a signalling system (or part of one). But that is not important here. "Aint gonna happen" in ACBL.

[paulg]

 aguahombre, on 2012-May-10, 11:00, said:

I don't understand the implication that signals while discarding are not a signalling system (or part of one). But that is not important here. "Aint gonna happen" in ACBL.

It is common to refer to "Leads, signals and discards" in the UK, so 'signalling system' normally just means the signals shown on partner's lead.

[bluejak]

I find it strange that while Americans understand discards, they often mean signals as either following suit or discarding. If so, what do you call signals that only apply when following suit, ie the English "signal"? It seems more sensible to have separate names as we do. I think it would be easier in these forums if we follow the English usage, ie a signal is when following suit, a discard when not.

The only difference between the English rule and the American rule is that subsequent discards to the first one could be Odd/Even in England, not in the ACBL. I doubt anyone cares.

The problem with Odd/Even signals is that, since you often have only two or three cards to choose from, it is relatively common to not have a suitable signal. If you want to encourage, and have no odd card, or discourage and have no even card, what then? The solution is often to play slowly, even if that is not done deliberately.

On the other hand, when you want to discard, you often have a several cards to choose from. Suppose you want to ask for a spade and have a balanced hand and are discarding on a diamond. Now an odd spade, a high even heart, and a high even club all ask for a spade.

Some people point out that you often have a choice with Lavinthal discards, but when you have one long suit, Lavinthal discards often make it difficult to ask for that suit, since that is the suit you can spare for discards.

To summarise, Odd/Even discards work well and rarely have difficult decisions leading to ethical problems. Odd/Even signals continuously have difficulties and ethical consideratins cause a lot of problems.

[Zelandakh]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-10, 17:48, said:

The solution is often to play slowly, even if that is not done deliberately.

Of course, even with standard or upside-down signals you can use tempo to help out, for example if partner leads a queen you might play a slow encourgaing card with Txxx and a fast one with JTxx...

Of course I agree with your general point, that you have more cards to choose from in discard situations than for signalling and that means the occasions for UI come less often. They do still turn up though. And they turn up with increasing frequency on the second, third, etc discard. In this respect I do not think the ACBL rule on this is unreasonable.

[jdgalt]

I understand the objection -- and of course when you have to discard, there is understandably a pause anyway (it's like the skip-bid situation that was ultimately formalized with the STOP card), so allowing the practice there causes fewer problems.

But I hope ultimately, technology will rid us of the problem entirely by making it impossible for a player to know when his partner has paused (as is already true when using screens). BBO would be a great place to implement such a capability -- simply don't show me any action of the other three players at the table until all three are done (or the auction ends, or it's my turn to do something), then send all their actions at one time. Better yet would be for the system to always take some fixed minimum time (say 20-30 sec) before sending that bunch of actions; that way if everyone responded instantly I won't be aware of that either.

[Phil]

Even if you could use these methods, why would you want to?

[barmar]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-10, 17:48, said:

I find it strange that while Americans understand discards, they often mean signals as either following suit or discarding. If so, what do you call signals that only apply when following suit, ie the English "signal"?

I think the word that's often used is "carding", and "signalling" refers to the general process of passing information via defensive cardplay.

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, but the intent is clear from context, so it's not a problem. My approach is if someone asks for any of these, I describe them all.

[bluejak]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-May-11, 01:19, said:

Of course I agree with your general point, that you have more cards to choose from in discard situations than for signalling and that means the occasions for UI come less often. They do still turn up though. And they turn up with increasing frequency on the second, third, etc discard. In this respect I do not think the ACBL rule on this is unreasonable.

It was not that I think it unreasonable, just irrelevant. 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 ...

 barmar, on 2012-May-11, 13:21, said:

I think the word that's often used is "carding", and "signalling" refers to the general process of passing information via defensive cardplay.

My American American partner uses 'carding' to mean leads, signals and discards.

[Zelandakh]

 bluejak, on 2012-May-11, 16:49, said:

It was not that I think it unreasonable, just irrelevant. 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 ...

You should visit the Acol Club on BBO David - there are several there who like to play DODDS on every discard. I have also been asked to play Lavinthal for all discards, as well as (at least) one partner who played this without even discussing it beforehand. I have personally always declined the invitation to play such methods when they have come along.

[shintaro]

 Zelandakh, on 2012-May-13, 08:59, said:

You should visit the Acol Club on BBO David - there are several there who like to play DODDS on every discard. I have also been asked to play Lavinthal for all discards, as well as (at least) one partner who played this without even discussing it beforehand. I have personally always declined the invitation to play such methods when they have come along.

Not all Z I would not play DODDS even if Paid

[blackshoe]

is DODDS an acronym? What's it stand for?

[Cthulhu D]

 blackshoe, on 2012-May-13, 13:57, said:

is DODDS an acronym? What's it stand for?

It's actually Dodds, in true bridge style it's some dude's name. Anyway, it works like this:

• Discarding an even card is encouraging
  
• Discarding an odd card asks for the suit of the same colour.
  
• Discarding an encouraging card for the suit you are showing out of shows that you are unable to signal for what you want, or have nothing to say.

I am pretty sure this is horrible, but lots of people around here (Oz) play even is encouraging and odd is Lavinthal! (I can almost understand revolving here) on all discards AND when following suit(!!?!) which may actually be worse.

[jdgalt]

The mind boggles at the concept of Cthulhu in Oz. Somehow I don't think a pail of water will do the trick this time.

[Cthulhu D]

 jdgalt, on 2012-May-13, 19:58, said:

The mind boggles at the concept of Cthulhu in Oz. Somehow I don't think a pail of water will do the trick this time.

It was a tramp steamer last time! I guess that's coming up trumps?

[Zelandakh]

 Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-13, 18:56, said:

It's actually Dodds, in true bridge style it's some dude's name.

Is it really? I always just thought of it as Discouraging ODDS. Learn a new thing every day! I have to be honest and say I never heard of it before playing on BBO and when I looked for references to it at the time could find none at all. I actually thought the opponents were joking when they explained it too lol. Note also that it is necessary to ask what the opps mean by DODDS since I have had at least one pair describe an odd card as asking for the suit of the same RANK. Noone has ever given me MrC's third line in their description either.