[nullve]

 gwnn, on 2016-January-13, 04:10, said:

I would punch anyone in the face who alerted like this

I'm morally with you, but it reminds me of Samuel Johnson's refutation of Bishop Berkeley's immaterialism.

[gwnn]

 nullve, on 2016-January-13, 10:56, said:

I'm morally with you, but it reminds me of Samuel Johnson's refutation of Bishop Berkeley's immaterialism.

I'll take it as a compliment.

[mycroft]

So, I do the same thing with those, that I do with Obvious Shift:

"So, on this hand with this dummy, what's your carding?"

"So, which HCPs does that work out to?"

...and if they won't (because clearly it's not "can't") do it I call the TD. I will note that "encrypted carding" is not allowed in the ACBL, so all information needs to be public knowledge.

You're allowed to have whatever crazy set of rules you can both remember. I'm entitled to the end result of all the public information.

I will note that every time I have asked about the Obvious Shift suit, they've told me (unless they've told me "doesn't apply because"). I've been very happy with their disclosure, as I usually am with people playing unusual systems.

[WellSpyder]

 mgoetze, on 2016-January-13, 10:07, said:

Here's something you will appreciate: at a fun event here in Germany I once played against a pair playing "Pi carding". Cards corresponding to digits near the decimal point are even/positive, and cards corresponding to digits further away from the decimal point are odd/negative.

I started to wonder why they preferred this to "reverse Pi" - then I realised that having a "one" as your most encouraging signal probably makes more sense than having it as your most discouraging one...

[gwnn]

I'm not sure, mycroft. The obvious problem is that some of the information used to be public, but now depends on one's memory. The funniest incident was me playing against a pair who were just playing for fun and played revolving discards, but they used a different name that I couldn't immediately place. The following dialogue occurred (a trick after the first discard had been played):

Me: "So you're playing {alternative name for revolving}"
He: "Yes"
Me: "What does that mean?"
He: "Well, that depends on the discard"
Me: "I mean, what did that card mean from last trick"
He: "What was it? Didn't pay attention."

I guess the proper procedure would have been me asking:
"What would a lo/hi ♣ on a ♦ mean?"
"What would a lo/hi ♣ on a ♥ mean?"
"What would a lo/hi ♣ on a ♠ mean?"
"What would a lo/hi ♦ on a ♣ mean?"
"What would a lo/hi ♦ on a ♥ mean?"
"What would a lo/hi ♦ on a ♠ mean?"
"What would a lo/hi ♥ on a ♣ mean?"
"What would a lo/hi ♥ on a ♦ mean?"
"What would a lo/hi ♥ on a ♠ mean?"
"What would a lo/hi ♠ on a ♣ mean?"
"What would a lo/hi ♠ on a ♦ mean?"
"What would a lo/hi ♠ on a ♥ mean?"

Similarly for the sum of the lowest four cards in dummy, which very often quickly disappear by the time the first discard occurs. I think it should be allowed, as it's not based on some esoteric knowledge, but I'd be more comfortable if there were a rule that required a prealert for it (defeating the purpose of the whole shebang).

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2016-January-12, 14:22, said:

Ugh.

Lots of pairs have different carding agreements depending on whether it's NT or a suit contract. When I'm in that situation, and I'm asked about our defense, I say something like "Since it's NT, we play ...." That way, the opponents know not to make assumptions on the next hand.

If the agreement is based on the cards in dummy, or the lead, that should be disclosed to avoid misleading the opponents. They should at least qualify it with something like "on this hand, we play ...."

Varying the carding agreements according to whether it is a suit or a NT contract is done for bridge reasons.

[barmar]

 Vampyr, on 2016-January-13, 13:59, said:

Varying the carding agreements according to whether it is a suit or a NT contract is done for bridge reasons.

That's irrelevant to the point I was making, which was about informing the opponents that the carding agreement depends on the type of contract, so they wouldn't generalize on the next hand.

[mycroft]

Well, if it's "I can't remember what was in dummy, so I can't tell you what our carding translates to" - either that's true, in which case we have a UI issue (for the other defender) and a few other things going around, or it's not, in which case we're back where we were with "you're playing games. Please refrain from doing so, or you will be unwelcome in this club."

It *should* be easy to figure out if they're "practising minimum disclosure" or if they're playing "drunk bridge" or the don't care equivalent.

[barmar]

Is a defender really required to tell declarer what was in dummy? He explained their agreement, and declarer should be able to work out the implications.

If you play odd-even first discard, and declarer doesn't remember what your first discard was, is your partner required to tell declarer what it was, or what suit it showed a preference for?

[mycroft]

If you're playing "if the parity of the lowest cards in dummy's suits is odd, we play right-side-up, else upside-down", and you get asked this at trick 6 - and that's your answer - I think you're deliberately playing something primarily designed to hide your system (*). I would expect in the ACBL it would be Pre-Alertable (note that the list of things in the Alert Procedure is a "includes" list, intentionally not complete, and this is sufficiently a "system[] fundamentally unfamiliar to the opponents" that even though it's carding, it should apply).

I would suggest that the only reason to play this is to hide your carding; and that while it's not encrypted by the definition, if you use a key that is incredibly likely to be treated as unimportant and don't warn in advance, it's still improper. I would say the same thing of something difficult or impossible for declarer to work out, but still "available to all"; such as "if the sum of the digits of P^board# mod Q is odd, we play right-side-up, else upside-down, for P,Q = [large pseudoprimes that change every tournament]).

Again, the people that play "different" or "difficult to analyze unless you're used to it" systems (bidding or carding) that do it for the benefit it gets are very good at "doing the work" for the opponents. The people that play them to confuse the opponents - don't. The people who say "I can't remember" when in fact what they mean is "I don't have to tell you" - well, I'll leave that to your imagination.

(*) I am reminded of the pair that - pre-Announcements - played 1NT 12-14 VUL/15-17 NV. Oddly enough, when Announcements came in, they switched to the Normal Way. Similarly the pair that played 12-14 NT *overcalls*, until shortly after they were made aware of their requirement to Alert it (although, in that case, they weren't trying anything on. They just didn't realize how much of their "we don't get bad results" came from the opponents' lack of knowledge; until that went away.)

[Shugart23]

In a somewhat different vein, suppose M and M' are two different legal meanings of a call c and that

c =

M if P is true
M' otherwise,

where P is a proposition


I don't know that this is so strange...Lot's of multi-bids exist, which would be great to play if ACBL would allow them. I, in fact, was exploring the concept of my multi-1NT opening bid (varying a point range depending upon the Heart holding) which all but a few say is disallowed.

I was trying to think of any GCC allowable bids where what you describe occurs...Are there any ?

Partner and I defend against 1NT opening with a 2C bid which is a transfer to 2D which shows either a real Diamond suit OR shows a 5 card Major and a 5 card Minor (Hello convention).....Is this disallowed ?

[blackshoe]

 Shugart23, on 2016-January-18, 08:29, said:

Partner and I defend against 1NT opening with a 2C bid which is a transfer to 2D which shows either a real Diamond suit OR shows a 5 card Major and a 5 card Minor (Hello convention).....Is this disallowed ?

Hello is allowed in the ACBL at GCC level.

[gwnn]

There's a difference between Hello and "Hello if Justin Bieber is together with Selena Gomez, Suction otherwise." If you can't see the difference, it's hard for me to explain it.

[Shugart23]

yeah, I get it and not arguing just chatting...

here is another example....If I were to Open 1H and my meaning was either I have a natural Heart suit OR I have a NT distributional hand with a certain specific point range, that would be disallowed......But if I open 1C first (precision) and when partner bids 1D and now I bid 1H having that multi-meaning, this is allowed.....

Seems strangely inconsistent........

[mycroft]

The ACBL has a blanket license starting with opener's rebid - that's what makes the difference. 1♣!-1♦!; 1♥! has two opportunities to mess up the Precision pair's nice auction, in a way that 1♥! does not. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but people occasionally bid (frequently with multi-meaning bids, horror!) against a strong club.

Another one that seems inconsistent, but the legality is there: you can't overcall my 1NT 2♥ on the GCC to show "spades or the minors", but I can respond 2♥ to partner's 1NT to show "spades or the minors" :-).

[Shugart23]

Tha is why i wondered about the hello 2C overcall

[Zelandakh]

 Shugart23, on 2016-January-18, 14:03, said:

Tha is why i wondered about the hello 2C overcall

There is also an allowance for any 2♣ overcall of a natural 1NT opening. See section 7 from the "Competitive" section of the GCC. By contrast, the 2♥ overcall must have at least one known suit.

[barmar]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-January-18, 16:28, said:

There is also an allowance for any 2♣ overcall of a natural 1NT opening. See section 7 from the "Competitive" section of the GCC. By contrast, the 2♥ overcall must have at least one known suit.

I think the rationale is that double and 2♣ take up practically no bidding space; assuming they play Stayman, responder can still describe any hand he could have shown without the interference. So we allow the opponents significant flexibility with these overcalls, because they're easy to deal with. But higher overcalls make it harder for the opening side to bid constructively, so we require them to provide a little more specific information (at least one known suit).

[nige1]

There are many Bridge rules that seem pointless and unnecessary. Perhaps, some of them could be replaced with a new rule: You may not adopt a partnership agreement unless you can produce a plausible argument that it confers a bridge advantage other than by confusing or antagonizing opponents.

[barmar]

 nige1, on 2016-January-19, 10:48, said:

There are many Bridge rules that seem pointless and unnecessary. Perhaps, some of them could be replaced with a new rule: You may not adopt a partnership agreement unless you can produce a plausible argument that it confers a bridge advantage other than by confusing or antagonizing opponents.

Wow, that seems like an incredibly difficult rule to apply. One of the most common complaints about some laws and regulations is that they depend on the TD's judgement (what's "normal" versus "irrational", what are the logical alternatives, etc.), and this proposal seems like the worst example of that.