[helene_t]

dellache, on Dec 2 2009, 09:50 PM, said:

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.

You can't force players to make agreements, much less to make deterministic agreements.

Some may believe that systematic leads are counterproductive as they are more helpful to declarer than to partner. Or that they won't be able to remember the spot cards played anyway so that it is of no use to partner, so you might as well play random so at least declarer doesn't benefit either. Some may prefer not to have lead agreements because they think they might not be able to remember the agreements themselves.

You may think that is silly but from the perspective of those players it makes perfect sense.

[Rossoneri]

I have a convention card which partner used the word "Deception" under Carding Methods. I rarely see this on anybody else's convention card!

[dellache]

suokko, on Dec 3 2009, 12:33 AM, said:

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.

I'm not talking about deviating from agreements, which is sometimes a good idea. I'm talking about the agreements themselves. A lot of posters explain that it is sometimes fine to deviate from 4th best, deceive declarer on count, etc. This is absolutely obvious and very well known : you DO have agreements, you sometimes deviate from them, there's usually a good reason why you decided to deceive declarer, your partner is also deceived (but it doesn't matter on the board). Afterwards, as an opponent, I can check that you really did deviate from your agreement (for example, if you play online bridge, I can look at what you lead in similar situations if I'm suspicious... actually I won't do that).

If you really play "random" leads AS AN AGREEMENT, how can you deviate from this agreement? It seems difficult . How can your opponents check that you are really leading "random"? also difficult, and usually impossible. I'm not really at ease when opponents play an agreement that is IMPOSSIBLE to check aterwards even on 100000 deals. Cheaters could even use this "white noise" to send hidden signals, based on an undisclosed secret.

As nobody even thought about this on this forum, I think I have my conclusion : I'm getting paranoid.

[suokko]

dellache, on Dec 3 2009, 09:46 AM, said:

I'm not talking about deviating from agreements, which is sometimes a good idea. I'm talking about the agreements themselves. A lot of posters explain that it is sometimes fine to deviate from 4th best, deceive declarer on count, etc. This is absolutely obvious and very well known : you DO have agreements, you sometimes deviate from them, there's usually a good reason why you decided to deceive declarer, your partner is also deceived (but it doesn't matter on the board). Afterwards, as an opponent, I can check that you really did deviate from your agreement (for example, if you play online bridge, I can look at what you lead in similar situations if I'm suspicious... actually I won't do that).

If you really play "random" leads AS AN AGREEMENT, how can you deviate from this agreement? It seems difficult  . How can your opponents check that you are really leading "random"? also difficult, and usually impossible. I'm not really at ease when opponents play an agreement that is IMPOSSIBLE to check aterwards even on 100000 deals. Cheaters could even use this "white noise" to send hidden signals, based on an undisclosed secret.

As nobody even thought about this on this forum, I think I have my conclusion : I'm getting paranoid.

Maybe you are little paranoid.

A point against random leads is huge disadvantages in amount of information available to declarer compared to defenders. In normal deals defenders gain a lot more from signals than declarer.

Have you ever played with real beginner who doesn't know what leads and signals are? I have had this experience. I did do a lot worse choices in defense than if I had random partner who knew signals. Whole defending turns to guessing instead of knowing the hands.
For a guess how much my errors cost: Without signals I'm in 50-50 guess in about every 4th board which I defend (every 8th board played). Now in match points defensive error is in average about 30%. So about 4% of end score was lost in my defensive errors that were caused by missing information. Of course in IMPs it is easier because setting matters more and often one of guesses doesn't set the hand.

The cheating with hiding agreements and claiming random can work only in events where you play very few hands against same opponents. You can once hit the random brilliance but finding it many times in a row is impossible. In long team match after analyzes noticing that defenders were fielding hidden information.

Possibility detection method would be having devices to recording games from all tables in all events. In case of cheating claims this data would be analyzed by an appeals committee. Cracking the hidden message (if there is any) from large amount of playing data should be possible. It is only about solving if one of defender used often some information that shouldn't be available to them. This is pretty much same as learning to read some ancient language but with a smaller number of words (Also one don't have to solve language but only existence of language in case cheater changes the method). Too bad this kind of analyze would take large amount of work and devices that don't exists yet.

[bluejak]

Forget cheating for a moment. What legal basis do you have for making a pair agree to lead either the 5 or the 7 from 75? There are arguments in this thread that it is undesirable to allow random leads, but that is not my point, how can you legally stop it?

People have also argued it is stupid to play random. Well, now, suppose your partner never notices what you play - and there are plenty of very poor players out there who do not. Why should you signal? For declarer's benefit? How can you legally be forced to signal?

Of course one of main worries is that pairs are not disclosing. Like my example earlier where a pair had agreements but just called them all random, that is a worry, but at least non-disclosure is illegal.

[jeremy69]

Quote

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

10A6 is about calls not signalling.

[barmar]

bluejak, on Dec 3 2009, 04:37 AM, said:

Forget cheating for a moment. What legal basis do you have for making a pair agree to lead either the 5 or the 7 from 75? There are arguments in this thread that it is undesirable to allow random leads, but that is not my point, how can you legally stop it?

How do you force them to agree on whether to open 4-card or 5-card majors? Whatever allows that, applies just as well to leads and signals, doesn't it?

You have to be careful when trying to apply laws and regulations like this in novice games. They're not being unethical when they deviate from agreements frequently, they just don't know what they're doing and can't remember everything they're supposed to do. But players who have the skills to make and use signals are expected to establish agreements about them, and generally follow those agreements.

[lamford]

Oof Arted, on Dec 2 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

I see my previous writ was concerning a 'Previous' OB

I know this thread has caused a lot of mud-slinging, but I think a writ is going just a bit too far

[bluejak]

While the argument about bidding agreements has some force, I still feel that telling a pair they have to have carding agreements, and presumably they have to follow them, sees an untenable position.

For example, one of my partners has the view that there should be no signalling when defending against slams. So, when following suit to a slam, if I hold 642 I pick whichever card suits may fancy: it has no meaning. Are you telling me this is illegal? Or, at least, could be made illegal?

You see, if I open 1♥, I have to have some sort of agreement with partner, so it can be regulated. But I do not think carding is the same: I do not need to signal to partner if I do not want to, surely?

[aguahombre]

Zia/Bob H explain, as do we, "standard signals when given". Or, we have signalling agreements, but if we think we already know what is going on we don't signal for declarer's benefit. That is very different from not having or disclosing any carding agreements at all.

I cannot imagine that anyone who claims no carding agreements is telling the truth.
They might randomize their leads with certain holdings --but not all of them.

[bluejak]

Yes, but if you go back to the OP it was about random spot cards, there was no suggestion of leading low from KQJx. Are you sure all people have and follow agreements about spot cards?

[aguahombre]

having general agreements, yes. Following them, not necessarily. Hence, a proper disclosure would be std or upside down, priority on attitude or on count, etc and the caveat that they don't signal frequently or faithfully or whatever.

"We have no special agreements about spot cards" and "we don't signal very much" would keep the pair off the radar. Claiming all spot cards are totally random would challenge me to try to break the code.

[shintaro]

lamford, on Dec 3 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

Oof Arted, on Dec 2 2009, 11:34 AM, said:

I see my previous writ was concerning a 'Previous' OB

I know this thread has caused a lot of mud-slinging, but I think a writ is going just a bit too far

Now now Paul or I might whisper in a certain Ladies ear what someone writ further up this thread

[helene_t]

aguahombre, on Dec 4 2009, 06:41 AM, said:

I cannot imagine that anyone who claims no carding agreements is telling the truth.
They might randomize their leads with certain holdings --but not all of them.

I would agree with that, unless they are noobs or one of them is a substitute and they had less than 10 secs to make agreements.

Anyway, there is a difference between having no agreements, and having the agreement to lead randomly. If we have no agreement about how to lead from xxx, I might still not lead randomly from xxx: maybe we do have an agreement of leading from xx, or from Hxx, and when holding xxx I might consider whether I want partner to be able to make the inference that I don't have xx, or that I don't have Hxx.

[mjj29]

I also think there's a difference between 'Random' and 'whichever is least useful in my hand / most likely to mislead declarer'. Declarer can still make inferences from the latter, even if they are more tenuous. I don't have a problem with people describing their discards as the latter.