[ONEferBRID]

OleBerg, on Jun 30 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

What is "dual message"?

Your signals are not in the encrypted category.
They are not "secret" since you have described them .

But, your hi/lo //odd/even signals on opening lead is a "dual message" system.

( I wish I could use it ... )

[OleBerg]

ONEferBRID, on Jun 30 2009, 09:26 PM, said:

OleBerg, on Jun 30 2009, 12:10 PM, said:

What is "dual message"?

Your signals are not in the encrypted category.
They are not "secret" since you have described them .

But, your hi/lo //odd/even signals on opening lead is a "dual message" system.

( I wish I could use it ... )

Allow me to ask again:

What is a "dual message" system?

[OleBerg]

Ok, maybe I've got it.

A "dual message" system is something that conveys two types of messages? In my case suit-preference and encouragement/discouragement?

So if the director is called, what if I state that small cards are suit-preference for the played suit, while high cards are suit-preference for the other suits?

Seems like just a reorganization of the other agreement; high for high suit, middle for the played suit, and low for low suit.

Well, before I started on this site, I would have believed that anyone who claimed such rules were in effect in ACBL, was trying to pull my leg. However, having read the strangest descriptions, from well-respected posters, I am ready to believe much more.

Still, a link to satisfy my curiosity would be nice.

[ArtK78]

I will explain what a dual message signal is.

First of all, as noted above, dual message signals are allowed on the first discard of each defender. Dual message signals include Lavinthal and Odd/Even discards.

Lavinthal discards are a discard of a suit in which a play is not desired (message one), with a higher card indicating a preference for the higher suit and a lower card indicating a preference for the lower suit (message two).

Odd/Even discards are a discard in a suit of an odd card if a play in that suit is desired or an even card if a play in that suit is not desired (message one). In the case of a discard of an even card, a high even card implies a preference for the higher ranking of the other two suits and a low even card implies a preference for the lower ranking of the other two suits (message two).

Until I found that it was not legal to play, I played a dual meaning signal at trick one if I was third hand and the lead was in a suit in which I was known to hold many cards (such as a suit that I had preempted). An even card indicated an even number of cards in the suit, and an odd card indicated an odd number of cards in the suit (count - message one). A high card was discouraging, and a low card was encouraging (upside down attitude - message two). This carding method was written up a number of years ago in The Bridge World. Quite frankly, I find it hard to understand why this particular method would not be legal, but it is clear from the regulation that it is not.

[ONEferBRID]

On opening lead of partner's Ace, you play:
Low card = Encourage
but a HIGH card sends a "dual message":
1) Discourage AND
2)Suit Preference depending on whether the card is odd or even....
You play of the 2 remaining suits:
odd = lower rank suit
even = higher rank suit.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I play Odd/Even ( or Roman ) Discard ( because generally it contains the most options to send your "message":
On the first discard (and the first only):
Odd = I like this suit
Even = Lavinthal( "hate" this suit and the size indicates suit preference).

[OleBerg]

Thank you for your replies. Still, to satisfy my curiosity; A link to the relevant rules?

[JanM]

From the ACBL General Convention Chart, under Carding (the Mid Chart and Super Chart refer to the GCC):

Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender’s
first discard. Except for the first discard only right-side-up or upside-down
card ordering strategies are approved. Encrypted signals are not approved.
In addition, a pair may be prohibited from playing any method (such as suit
preference systems at trick one), when they are deemed to be playing it in a
manner which is not compatible with the maintenance of proper tempo (much
like dual message signals). This decision may be appealed to the tournament
committee.

[jdonn]

I know for a fact I'm in a small minority (one?), but I dispute that a card that discourages the suit being led as well as encouraging another particular suit is a dual message, or at least that it should be considered one. If partner leads a spade, "I don't want you to play a spade" is redundant if your card also says "I want you to play a heart". That's one message, I want you to play a heart.

Say clubs are trumps and partner leads the ace of spades. Say I want to play low is encouraging, high is discouraging with even meaning I want the higher outside suit and odd meaning I want the lower outside suit. I see one message, which is your card tells partner what suit you want led. Some cards say spades, some say hearts, some say diamonds. What's the difference between "I want a diamond" and "I want a diamond plus I don't want a spade"?

To me a dual message would be more like showing count and attitude at the same time. "I have a high spade" and "I have an odd number of spades" is obviously two different messages.

[Mbodell]

jdonn, on Jun 30 2009, 02:35 PM, said:

I know for a fact I'm in a small minority (one?), but I dispute that a card that discourages the suit being led as well as encouraging another particular suit is a dual message, or at least that it should be considered one. If partner leads a spade, "I don't want you to play a spade" is redundant if your card also says "I want you to play a heart". That's one message, I want you to play a heart.

Say clubs are trumps and partner leads the ace of spades. Say I want to play low is encouraging, high is discouraging with even meaning I want the higher outside suit and odd meaning I want the lower outside suit. I see one message, which is your card tells partner what suit you want led. Some cards say spades, some say hearts, some say diamonds. What's the difference between "I want a diamond" and "I want a diamond plus I don't want a spade"?

To me a dual message would be more like showing count and attitude at the same time. "I have a high spade" and "I have an odd number of spades" is obviously two different messages.

Isn't the "problem" such that it is one that people found that dual message signals created problems when you don't want a spade but you aren't sure what else you want. Now an in tempo high spot might say "I want a heart" but a slow high spot might say "I don't want spades but I'm not sure what I want". I took that as the "justification" for the dual use message bits.

I mean what about a discarding scheme where my discards give count in the suit I'm discarding. And, as a general style agreement, I tend to discard suits I don't like. Is that a dual-message system? Who knows.

[ArtK78]

Actually, the problem is one of tempo. When players were playing dual meaning carding at various times during the hand (instead of just at their first discard), it was very often the case that they did not have a card that fit the message that they wanted to convey. This caused breaks in tempo, and the reason for the breaks in tempo was clear to the player's partner. So, on account of the methods, UI was being conveyed. I saw this occur on a number of occasions.

It is my understanding that the ACBL's solution to this problem was to prohibit use of these methods at any time other than at the player's first discard.

[helene_t]

Mbodell, on Jul 1 2009, 01:17 AM, said:

Isn't the "problem" such that it is one that people found that dual message signals created problems when you don't want a spade but you aren't sure what else you want.  Now an in tempo high spot might say "I want a heart" but a slow high spot might say "I don't want spades but I'm not sure what I want".

True but by the same argument, playing standard attitude, a slow low card might mean "I want to encourage but I can't afford a high card" or "I don't like your suit but if I encourage you might switch to something that is worse".

If a pair play methods which they are not able to apply in a consistent tempo, then they have a problem with their tempo. Then one might speculate if for that particular pair the tempo problem could be reduced by switching to different methods, but I think it's wrong to prohibit everyone from playing said methods.

BTW agree with Josh, but maybe "dual message" is jargon for "more than two alternative messages".

[gnasher]

I've always thought that the ACBL's solution to this problem is excessive, unfair and vaguely offensive.

All methods, both in the bidding and in the play, sometimes lead to situations where you have to think about what to bid or play, and the act of thinking conveys UI. I don't understand why dual-message carding is treated differently from any other method.

There are already rules to deal with breaks in tempo and the resulting UI. If playing a particular method causes you to receive UI, your actions are constrained by the Laws. If you receive UI and don't do what the Laws say you should do, your score gets adjusted.

By banning the methods entirely, the ACBL appears to be saying not only "We don't trust you obey the rules", but also "The only people we don't trust are the people who want to play dual-message carding."

[cherdanno]

jdonn, on Jun 30 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

I know for a fact I'm in a small minority (one?), but I dispute that a card that discourages the suit being led as well as encouraging another particular suit is a dual message, or at least that it should be considered one. If partner leads a spade, "I don't want you to play a spade" is redundant if your card also says "I want you to play a heart". That's one message, I want you to play a heart.

Say clubs are trumps and partner leads the ace of spades. Say I want to play low is encouraging, high is discouraging with even meaning I want the higher outside suit and odd meaning I want the lower outside suit. I see one message, which is your card tells partner what suit you want led. Some cards say spades, some say hearts, some say diamonds. What's the difference between "I want a diamond" and "I want a diamond plus I don't want a spade"?

To me a dual message would be more like showing count and attitude at the same time. "I have a high spade" and "I have an odd number of spades" is obviously two different messages.

Well, you may be semantically right, but this is clearly not what the ACBL meant. I think it is pretty clear they wanted to outlaw o/e signals.
Obviously whoever wrote that segment of the GCC was either not aware it would apply to the common "suit preference by 3rd hand at trick one when he has shown a long suit"-agreement (explained by echo above). I.e. either they were not aware it would apply in that situations, or wasn't aware that agreement exists and is quite common.

[xcurt]

cherdanno, on Jul 1 2009, 10:19 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jun 30 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

I know for a fact I'm in a small minority (one?), but I dispute that a card that discourages the suit being led as well as encouraging another particular suit is a dual message, or at least that it should be considered one. If partner leads a spade, "I don't want you to play a spade" is redundant if your card also says "I want you to play a heart". That's one message, I want you to play a heart.

Say clubs are trumps and partner leads the ace of spades. Say I want to play low is encouraging, high is discouraging with even meaning I want the higher outside suit and odd meaning I want the lower outside suit. I see one message, which is your card tells partner what suit you want led. Some cards say spades, some say hearts, some say diamonds. What's the difference between "I want a diamond" and "I want a diamond plus I don't want a spade"?

To me a dual message would be more like showing count and attitude at the same time. "I have a high spade" and "I have an odd number of spades" is obviously two different messages.

Well, you may be semantically right, but this is clearly not what the ACBL meant. I think it is pretty clear they wanted to outlaw o/e signals.
Obviously whoever wrote that segment of the GCC was either not aware it would apply to the common "suit preference by 3rd hand at trick one when he has shown a long suit"-agreement (explained by echo above). I.e. either they were not aware it would apply in that situations, or wasn't aware that agreement exists and is quite common.

They wanted to outlaw signals that create tempo problems. Third hand having a long suit is unlikely to create such a situation, everyone at the table has perfect knowledge that the signaller has many playable spots to choose from.

One thing is certain, whoever drafted the GCC did a lousy job, there are numerous situations where the language is very murky.

[CSGibson]

xcurt, on Jul 1 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

...

One thing is certain, whoever drafted the GCC did a lousy job, there are numerous situations where the language is very murky.

Murkiness is sometimes a good thing; it allows for flexibility to do the right thing. (I'm not saying that's how it's being used here, just a general observation)

[OleBerg]

CSGibson, on Jul 2 2009, 07:23 AM, said:

xcurt, on Jul 1 2009, 06:54 PM, said:

...

One thing is certain, whoever drafted the GCC did a lousy job, there are numerous situations where the language is very murky.

Murkiness is sometimes a good thing; it allows for flexibility to do the right thing. (I'm not saying that's how it's being used here, just a general observation)

Murkiness is sometimes a bad thing; it allows for flexibility to do the wrong thing. (I'm not saying that's how it's being used here, just a general observation)

[MFA]

gnasher, on Jul 1 2009, 09:52 AM, said:

I've always thought that the ACBL's solution to this problem is excessive, unfair and vaguely offensive.

All methods, both in the bidding and in the play, sometimes lead to situations where you have to think about what to bid or play, and the act of thinking conveys UI.  I don't understand why dual-message carding is treated differently from any other method.

There are already rules to deal with breaks in tempo and the resulting UI.  If playing a particular method causes you to receive UI, your actions are constrained by the Laws.  If you receive UI and don't do what the Laws say you should do, your score gets adjusted.

By banning the methods entirely, the ACBL appears to be saying not only "We don't trust you obey the rules", but also "The only people we don't trust are the people who want to play dual-message carding."

I agree 100% with gnasher, although I'd have had a hard time coming up with reasonably diplomatic words about such stupid rules.

The example in the OP demonstrates how utterly absurd this is. We have bid and shown a 7-card suit, and now it's forbidden to have more refined T1 agreements, when partner cashes the ace, than: high is encouraging - small is discouraging (or vice versa)?!

Paranoia strikes again.

[benlessard]

Its not only the UI but its the impossible ruling you have to do afterward if there was a BIT and a side feel damaged.


Echo smith is a bit of a problem so imagine dual meaning.

[akhare]

jdonn, on Jun 30 2009, 05:35 PM, said:

I know for a fact I'm in a small minority (one?), but I dispute that a card that discourages the suit being led as well as encouraging another particular suit is a dual message, or at least that it should be considered one. If partner leads a spade, "I don't want you to play a spade" is redundant if your card also says "I want you to play a heart". That's one message, I want you to play a heart.

Well said -- you are no longer in a minority of one .

Basically, it's essentially SP at T1 and the denomination of the card indicates what suit (including an odd asking for continuation)...