[barmar]

 WellSpyder, on 2017-February-13, 04:39, said:

Yes, i think that might help clarify the meaning a bit. But I'm not sure it clarifies what is actually intended by the current regulation. Taking the example of the Italian signal with which I started this thread. An odd card has the single meaning "I like this suit", a high even card has the single meaning "I like the higher of the other two suits" and a low even card has the single meaning "I like the lower of the other two suits". Isn't the issue more about attributing meaning to two different attributes of the card played (its rank, parity, suit, colour or whatever)?

Except that this signalling system is given in the Blue Book quote in the OP as an example of a dual-meaning signal. Parity is attitude, rank is suit preference.

[Zelandakh]

 barmar, on 2017-February-13, 09:16, said:

Except that this signalling system is given in the Blue Book quote in the OP as an example of a dual-meaning signal. Parity is attitude, rank is suit preference.

This is the point though Barry. The regulations wish to restrict the method but most of the descriptions would make it legal. In particular this is a single message signal (suit preference) with 3 different possibilities. That one of the suits is the current one and might be described by some other pairs as attitude is not the fault of the signal itself!

[nige1]

If an NBO allows dual-meaning discards, then when following-suit, during the early play, you may want to retain an appropriate card to discard, later.

For example, suppose, you hold 378 of the suit led, and you want to be able to discard a high-even card, later. Obviously, that affects your choice of card to play, now. You must follow suit with the 3 or the 7 (whichever accords best with your normal carding agreements). Inevitably, this results in complex second-order dual-meaning inferences. These are hard for defenders to explain and for declarer to understand.

Regulations about signalling methods can be harder to understand than the methods, themselves. Few people read relevant regulations. Fewer understand them. Players who do understand them are often adept at rationalising non-compliance.

It's unfair to expect the director to apply over-sophisticated regulations to complex signalling variations.

Perhaps the WBF should permit a few specific signalling-methods -- making sure to allow some effective methods -- but forbid all others.

[barmar]

 nige1, on 2017-February-14, 12:50, said:

Regulations about signalling methods can be harder to understand than the methods, themselves. Few people read relevant regulations. Fewer understand them. Players who do understand them are often adept at rationalising non-compliance.

I'm not even sure if the regulators really understand what they've written. I think there's something specific they wanted to prohibit, but rather than state it specifically they tried to come up with some descriptive language that would include it, and failed totally.