[dellache]

You play in a team of 4 event against a strong field. At the beginning of the match you ask your opponents how they lead. ANSWER : "we lead random spot cards that show absolutely nothing".

Is that really allowed ?

[blackshoe]

Depends on where you are, I think. I'm pretty sure the ACBL says not allowed. Not sure about other jurisdictions.

[Oof Arted]

Not 100% sure but I think 'Random' are also dissallowed under EBU jurisdiction as well there used to be a mention of this in the OB

[jeremy69]

Quote

Not 100% sure but I think 'Random' are also dissallowed under EBU jurisdiction as well there used to be a mention of this in the OB

There was a pair who claimed that what they led from xxx was random. The L&E weren't disposed to believe this because of partnership understanding that was built up especially as they played nearly all their boards together. 3C2 of the current Orange Book says
"Regular play with a particular partner is likely to lead to knowledge, even if only implicit, of partner's habits. In such a case, "no agreement" or "random" is unlikely to be an accurate decription of the partnership agreement.

[bluejak]

The case Jeremy refer to shows the danger: on being questioned, the pair admitted to various agreements, eg they would not lead a 9 from 932 because it might be valuable, but they probably would always lead a 9 from 98x. They were not playing random at all, just a lot of different agreements about xxx dependent on situation.

I cannot really see how random can be illegal: nothing in the Law book suggests you can force a pair to signal in any way. The EBU's worry has always been that they do not believe it: pairs that say they play random do not because they build up implicit agreements.

[dellache]

My concern was : can they use a (non)convention that is impossible to verify by observation? Imo it opens a definite easy possibility for undetectable (at least by direct observation) cheating methods.

[bluejak]

What alternative do you suggest for a pair that does not see any need to signal?

[helene_t]

bluejak, on Dec 2 2009, 10:08 AM, said:

The case Jeremy refer to shows the danger: on being questioned, the pair admitted to various agreements, eg they would not lead a 9 from 932 because it might be valuable, but they probably would always lead a 9 from 98x.  They were not playing random at all, just a lot of different agreements about xxx dependent on situation.

You don't have to disclose the "agreement" not to waste a valuable card. Especially if they have no signal agreements I would expect them to avoid making leads that could cost a trick.

Of course if a lead of the 8 denies the 9 (or something like that) or that the lead of the 2 denies 982 then that must be disclosed.

Maybe "no agreement" is better disclosure than "random", even if we expect partner to play a random spot card in situations where we have no agreement. Since even if we have no agreement partner might chose the card that he thinks makes it easier for me to make inference.

dellache said:

Imo it opens a definite easy possibility for undetectable (at least by direct observation) cheating methods.

True but that's just too bad. It happens every time players claim not to have an agreement about something. We have to trust players to some extent. Maybe this is different in expert circles, but where I play most pairs are more likely to give too much disclosure (i.e. explaining what they personally think a bid or a card ought to show or what they can see in their own hand that it probably shows).

[hotShot]

The main problem is that no human can do something really random.
The secondary problem is that humans are great in discovering patterns (even if there are none).

[mich-b]

bluejak, on Dec 2 2009, 04:08 AM, said:

The case Jeremy refer to shows the danger: on being questioned, the pair admitted to various agreements, eg they would not lead a 9 from 932 because it might be valuable, but they probably would always lead a 9 from 98x.  They were not playing random at all, just a lot of different agreements about xxx dependent on situation.

This description only implies that the pair treats the 9 spot as an honor, and leads it only if in sequence.
So maybe they were in fact leading randomly from xxx , only treating 8 or lower as "x"?

[jeremy69]

The point here is that 932 was only one example but even so their leads from xxx are no longer random even if they ever were.
Maybe the answer is to compile 20 examples and take them both into a sound proofed booth and ask them what is led from the holding. Do you believe that any pair saying this and holding 765 1000 times will lead each card approximately the same number of times because I don't.
Another pair who said that whether they opened 1C or 1D with equal length was random. When they were told by a disbelieving authority that this was not legal they took to saying that they opened 1C or 1D dependent on the sum of the spot cards in the two suits. Even=1C and odd=1D. You'd have to be determined to find out if that were true!

[iviehoff]

hotShot, on Dec 2 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

The main problem is that no human can do something really random.

Obviously not perfectly, but there's random enough.

In backgammon, human operated dice throws are random enough unless someone is deliberately cheating. And, in bridge, if manual shuffles aren't very random in practice, that's mainly because people are lazy to shuffle enough.

I suppose if you really wanted to lead a club at random, you could shuffle your hand (enough) below the table, and then take the uppermost club. There would also be some pip-counting methods you could use such as Jeremy mentions. But you'd have to be pretty determined.

[pran]

iviehoff, on Dec 2 2009, 03:27 PM, said:

hotShot, on Dec 2 2009, 01:21 PM, said:

The main problem is that no human can do something really random.

Obviously not perfectly, but there's random enough.

In backgammon, human operated dice throws are random enough unless someone is deliberately cheating. And, in bridge, if manual shuffles aren't very random in practice, that's mainly because people are lazy to shuffle enough.

I suppose if you really wanted to lead a club at random, you could shuffle your hand (enough) below the table, and then take the uppermost club. There would also be some pip-counting methods you could use such as Jeremy mentions. But you'd have to be pretty determined.

And I shall not believe for a moment that the common player who states that he in some specific situations chooses his play (or call) at random between alternatives always excercises a randomizing technique for his choice.

Instead I feel fairly sure that he thinks he is making his choice at random.

However, hotShot is correct: It is a known fact that a human cannot make a truly random choice without applying some randomizing aid. The dice in Backgammon is such an aid.

[blackshoe]

I googled "random carding in duplicate bridge". Got one hit. The South African Bridge Federation specifically disallows random carding. The ACBL GCC doesn't actually mention it, but the General Conditions of Contest say

Quote

Carding Agreements: - A pair may not elect to have no agreement when it comes to carding. There have been pairs that say they just play random leads or that they lead the card closest to their thumb. They must decide on a carding agreement and mark their convention cards accordingly. Of course, some leeway needs to be given to fill-in pairs or very last minute partnerships.

[Oof Arted]

mmmm I see my previous writ was concerning a 'Previous' OB as this one states under 10 A 6 The previous ban on Random has been abolished

[lamford]

More likely to be truly random is a pair's carding when declarer cashes a suit where they cannot win a trick. Some might play suit preference; few will give count, and most will genuinely have no agreement. They (usually) answer "of no significance" or "random" if they are asked. In practice, from three small - 8xx or less, the figures that a US friend of mine obtained from over 10,000 examples on OKbridge were that the smallest card was played about 56% of the time, the middle card only 16% and the top card 28%. It is clear that this is not random, and, of course, in many cases it will be either normal or reverse count or suit preference. I would guess that the bottom card is selected by most average players a much higher percentage than this, but they might equally well do so from four small.

I try to play truly randomly from QJ doubleton, and I believe my method (which is to use some pre-determined 50-50 feature which is obviously not known to my partner) is not disclosable. If, and it has never happened, I was asked what my partner plays from this holding, I could truly answer "random" ... but then I could use that about quite a few of her plays ... just joking pard.

[dellache]

bluejak, on Dec 2 2009, 10:54 AM, said:

What alternative do you suggest for a pair that does not see any need to signal?

There is a standard for every event. If they think they can claim they lead "random", I would just like that the rules *force* them to play "standard". If that seems odd let me take just one example :

Question : what do you lead from a doubleton 75 against suit contract ?
Only 2 Possible answers :
- always the 7 ;
- always the 5 ;
(let's forget the possibility that you lead "preferential for a return in another suit"...)

Generally speaking, I think the rule of what you lead from "yx" doubleton should be *deterministic*, and available to the defense. Otherwise it's not too difficult to see that undetectable and efficient cheating methods can take place.

What is true for doubletons should be true for any holding.

[Phil]

dellache, on Dec 2 2009, 03:50 PM, said:

bluejak, on Dec 2 2009, 10:54 AM, said:

What alternative do you suggest for a pair that does not see any need to signal?

There is a standard for every event. If they think they can claim they lead "random", I would just like that the rules *force* them to play "standard". If that seems odd let me take just one example :

Question : what do you lead from a doubleton 75 against suit contract ?
Only 2 Possible answers :
- always the 7 ;
- always the 5 ;
(let's forget the possibility that you lead "preferential for a return in another suit"...)

Generally speaking, I think the rule of what you lead from "yx" doubleton should be *deterministic*, and available to the defense. Otherwise it's not too difficult to see that undetectable and efficient cheating methods can take place.

What is true for doubletons should be true for any holding.

You seem to be confusing random from undisclosed. In fact the answer to your question is neither the 7, nor the 5, but both.

A better example would be what do you lead from Kx because there are bridge reasons for leading the K, whereas with 7-5 there are none.

I will frequently randomize my spots. There is nothing in the rules that forces me to follow my agreements and to play spot cards in a pre-determined order. I am happy to disclose this to my opponents.

[dellache]

Phil, on Dec 2 2009, 08:57 PM, said:

dellache, on Dec 2 2009, 03:50 PM, said:

bluejak, on Dec 2 2009, 10:54 AM, said:

What alternative do you suggest for a pair that does not see any need to signal?

There is a standard for every event. If they think they can claim they lead "random", I would just like that the rules *force* them to play "standard". If that seems odd let me take just one example :

Question : what do you lead from a doubleton 75 against suit contract ?
Only 2 Possible answers :
- always the 7 ;
- always the 5 ;
(let's forget the possibility that you lead "preferential for a return in another suit"...)

Generally speaking, I think the rule of what you lead from "yx" doubleton should be *deterministic*, and available to the defense. Otherwise it's not too difficult to see that undetectable and efficient cheating methods can take place.

What is true for doubletons should be true for any holding.

You seem to be confusing random from undisclosed. In fact the answer to your question is neither the 7, nor the 5, but both.

No Phil, you just don't see my point.
I'm not sure it's wise to describe any cheating methods on a forum, so please see private message in your mailbox.

Regards.

[suokko]

dellache, on Dec 2 2009, 11:49 PM, said:

Phil, on Dec 2 2009, 08:57 PM, said:

dellache, on Dec 2 2009, 03:50 PM, said:

bluejak, on Dec 2 2009, 10:54 AM, said:

What alternative do you suggest for a pair that does not see any need to signal?

There is a standard for every event. If they think they can claim they lead "random", I would just like that the rules *force* them to play "standard". If that seems odd let me take just one example :

Question : what do you lead from a doubleton 75 against suit contract ?
Only 2 Possible answers :
- always the 7 ;
- always the 5 ;
(let's forget the possibility that you lead "preferential for a return in another suit"...)

Generally speaking, I think the rule of what you lead from "yx" doubleton should be *deterministic*, and available to the defense. Otherwise it's not too difficult to see that undetectable and efficient cheating methods can take place.

What is true for doubletons should be true for any holding.

You seem to be confusing random from undisclosed. In fact the answer to your question is neither the 7, nor the 5, but both.

No Phil, you just don't see my point.
I'm not sure it's wise to describe any cheating methods on a forum, so please see private message in your mailbox.

Regards.

It is not cheating to deviate from your agreements. And you are bound to disclose it opponents if it is common.

For example I lead normally 1/3/5 but I do lead wrong spot card occasionally when I judge that partner is less likely to need the count that declarer. Another good reason is when selecting lead from some funny combinations like KTx. I will lead T from that for example.
Or possible when leading tough dummy's suit or declarer's suit. Here it is theoretical best not to lead 3rd so I select 2nd (dummy's) or 4th (declarer's). In fact leading from many 4 card holdings vs NT I select 4th to preserver my important looking spot card for late use.

This happens so often that I have implicit agreement with my regular partner about psychic leads. So it would be cheating not to disclose this to opponents.

But when opponents bid the slam then there is less likely that partner needs the count from my lead but declarer would like to know the count. I don't want to commit to signaling in trick one. This probably could be disclosed in wbf cc front page in psychic area.

But not disclosing this kind of implicit agreements would be cheating (I think many even don't disclose these kind of implicit agreements.