[bluejak]

The EBU bans "dual message" signals but not discards. The ACBL bans "dual message" signals but not first discards. I naively assumed this meant we had roughly the same rule [apart form that word 'first']. But on RGB I was convinced I was wrong.

Apparently when the EBU say "dual message" they mean it, ie it is when a card gives two messages, one based on [for example] whether it is odd or even, and one based on [for example] whether it is high or low.

Apparently when the ACBL say "dual message" they mean something completely different, ie whether the card is odd or even. Strange and unhelpful in my view.

Do these rules apply to leads? Certainly not in the EBU, since they refer to "signals [when following suit]". But it is difficult to be sure with the ACBL. My guess is no.

[barmar]

That GCC clause about dual-message signals has been confusing people for years.

I think they were trying to make a restriction on odd/even discards, but wanted to write the regulation in a more generic fashion, so they came up with the term "dual-message". But the term is never defined, isn't common bridge parlance, and the only example given in the regulation is odd/even. So AFAIK, no one has ever been given an example of a dual-message signal other than odd/even.

[peachy]

With regard to ACBL reg, the term used is not "signals", it is "carding strategies".

[blackshoe]

Which, it seems to me, includes leads.

[bluejak]

barmar, on Sep 14 2010, 02:47 AM, said:

That GCC clause about dual-message signals has been confusing people for years.

I think they were trying to make a restriction on odd/even discards, but wanted to write the regulation in a more generic fashion, so they came up with the term "dual-message".  But the term is never defined, isn't common bridge parlance, and the only example given in the regulation is odd/even.  So AFAIK, no one has ever been given an example of a dual-message signal other than odd/even.

The difference is, as it seems to me, that suppose you agree to signal such that an odd card is encouraging, an even card is discouraging, and also a Lavinthal signal. You have given two signals by different means, one by high/low, one by odd/even. The EBU considers that "dual message" because of the two messages so bans it. The ACBL considers that "dual message" because of the odd/even element so bans it.

Now, suppose you decide to signal such that an odd card is encouraging, an even card is discouraging, but there is no Lavinthal signal, ie high even and low even send the same message. You have given only one signal by odd/even. The EBU considers that not "dual message" because there are not two messages so allows it. The ACBL considers that "dual message" because of the odd/even element so bans it.

Without going in to what they should allow or ban, I do think the ACBL should re-write their regulation.

[olegru]

bluejak, on Sep 14 2010, 07:23 AM, said:

The difference is, as it seems to me, that suppose you agree to signal such that an odd card is encouraging, an even card is discouraging, and also a Lavinthal signal. You have given two signals by different means, one by high/low, one by odd/even. The EBU considers that "dual message" because of the two messages so bans it. The ACBL considers that "dual message" because of the odd/even element so bans it.

Sorry, but it is not what Roman discards (as I am playing them) are.
There is only one meaning for each card played.
If I discard even card I use Lavinthal, but if I discard odd card it means I like the suit.
If I discard, for example, 2 of spades there is only meaning "I like clubs." There is no any second meaning of this discard. There is nothing about spades.
If I discard 3 of spades there is only meaning "I like spades." There is no any second meaning of this discard. There is nothing about clubs.

There is no "dual message" from any card, each card has single certain mean which depends if it is high or low, even or odd.

[bluejak]

I play Roman discards exactly as you do, and that is with a dual message approach. What you have explained is giving a dual message.

[campboy]

I do not understand. The GCC says that you are not permitted* "dual-message carding strategies", without giving any examples. Then it says you are not permitted* to use any strategy which does not use the normal ordering of the cards (or its reverse), without giving any examples. Then it says you may not use encrypted signals, without giving any examples.

I do not think it is implied that any two of these are the same, nor that the second is an example of the first.

*except on the first discard

[olegru]

bluejak, on Sep 14 2010, 08:50 AM, said:

I play Roman discards exactly as you do, and that is with a dual message approach. What you have explained is giving a dual message.

Probably it is my English, sorry.
I was under impression that words "dual message" mean that one played card gives two messages in the same time. If played card means "I like clubs, I don't like spades" it is the "dual message".
But I am failing to see how message "I like clubs" could be called the "dual message approach” depends on particular agreement I used to deliver this single message.

[bluejak]

It is the discarding system as a whole that provides two messages. You tell partner whether you like the suit you discard or not: that is one message. You tell partner which of the other suits you prefer: that is the other message.

[mycroft]

And specifically, it's an even card that passes both "I don't like this suit" and "I prefer this one of the other two" - note, not the same as "I like this suit"

But yeah, David, it's not the dual-message thing that catches out "odd encourage, even discourage" in the ACBL, it's the "only right-side up or upside down ordering is allowed". The GCC, of course, is a shining example of clarity that should be emulated around the world.

[Phil]

I played 'Alarm Clock" Smith with someone several years ago in a club.

Alarm clock is low-hi by opener to say "I like my lead", but hi-low by responder to say "I like your lead".

She said this was dual message carding. We just laughed at her.

However, given the fact that we are simply following suit, and playing a method different from the other seat, isn't she technically right?

[campboy]

I don't see why anything in the GCC requires you to play the same meaning in both seats.

[dburn]

It seems to me important to understand why it is that methods of the kind being discussed here are discouraged (or even criminalized) by the authorities.

Suppose that your spades are the seven, the five and the three. And suppose that in leading a spade, or in following suit to partner's lead of a spade, you wish to suggest that partner play a non-spade at his next turn to lead.

Unfortunately, if you play an odd spade to the current trick this will encourage partner to play a non-non-spade at his next turn to lead. This is a pity, because you do not have any even spades.

Instead, your spades may be the seven, the five and the two. At least you can prevent partner from playing a spade at his next turn to lead - the two will dissuade him from doing that. Unfortunately, you would rather he played a heart and not a diamond at his next turn to lead, but the two of spades will not achieve this.

Life would be a great deal easier if every time you had three low spades they were the eight, the five and the two - but unfortunately, life is not always like that. You must make the best of the cards you are dealt, so what are you to do?

Well, you or I would accept the cards Fate had dealt us, play a "wrong" spade in tempo and watch partner mess up the defence as usual. But certain people who are not you or I adopted a different approach: they played a "wrong" spade rather more slowly than they would have played a "right" spade if only they had one. Hence, a fast ♠2 would get a diamond lead from partner while a slow ♠2 would get a heart lead from partner as often as (indeed, more often than) not.

Rather than permitting such practices to go unchecked, the powers that be decided to remove temptation from the ungodly - chiefly because the godly would for the most part not even realise that they had been swindled. As usual, in so doing the powers that be restricted the creativity of the honest expert in favour of protecting the honest toiler from the machinations of the dishonest one.

And as usual, the remedy for this undesirable state of affairs lies in creating different regulations for different classes of game. In the Bermuda Bowl or the Venice Cup you should be allowed to play whatever carding methods (and indeed bidding methods) you like, subject to full disclosure and maintenance of perfect tempo. At lower levels, you should not.

[aguahombre]

I read every word of the above. It is very well thought out, for an elitist who believes only the lower levels ever have tempo issues.

[dburn]

aguahombre, on Sep 14 2010, 09:30 PM, said:

I read every word of the above.  It is very well thought out, for an elitist who believes only the lower levels ever have tempo issues.

Oh, there are those at the highest levels who also cheat like fury, and it is not to be supposed that the authorities' ban on "dual-message" carding was motivated by a desire to protect only the lower levels. Rightly has Bob Hamman condemned the Smith Peter as a licence to practice what Edgar Kaplan called "Black Magic".

The trouble is, of course, that as theoretically sound methods employed by honest experts make their way into the mainstream, perfectly honest but less expert players wishing to adopt such methods will do so with enthusiasm until they have the seven, three and two of spades and want a heart lead from partner. Then, they will... well, they're not cheating with that slow ♠2, merely coming to terms with the notion that the method does not actually always work. And if partner plays a heart anyway - well, maybe he worked that out all by himself.

Maybe not, though. For well it was said by the bard:

Weigh human actions carefully. Explain
The worst of them with charity. Mayhap
There were two sides to that affair of Cain,
And Judas was a tolerable chap.

[jallerton]

olegru, on Sep 14 2010, 03:26 PM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 14 2010, 08:50 AM, said:

I play Roman discards exactly as you do, and that is with a dual message approach.  What you have explained is giving a dual message.

Probably it is my English, sorry.
I was under impression that words "dual message" mean that one played card gives two messages in the same time. If played card means "I like clubs, I don't like spades" it is the "dual message".
But I am failing to see how message "I like clubs" could be called the "dual message approach” depends on particular agreement I used to deliver this single message.

No, there's nothing wrong with your English. With diamonds as trumps an agreement that:

♠2 means I like clubs
♠3 means I like spades
♠8 means I like hearts

is indeed a single meaning for each individual card.

Mycroft said:

And specifically, it's an even card that passes both "I don't like this suit" and "I prefer this one of the other two" - note, not the same as "I like this suit"

There would only be a dual meaning to even cards if your agreement was, for example:

♠2 means I like clubs AND I do not like spades
♠3 means I like spades
♠8 means I like hearts AND I do not like spades

As has been eloquently explained by Mr Burn, there is a very good reason for not permitting odd/even signals when following suit. However if the authorities wish to ban the first agreement I have outlined then they have not achieved their objective if all they are doing is banning "dual meaning" meaning signals.

[WellSpyder]

I agree with Jeffrey that the EBU use of the term "dual meaning" isn't really any better protected from semantic confusion than the apparent ACBL use of the term (you could, for example, argue that a McKenney/Lavinthal discard had a dual meaning - both "I don't want this suit" and "I do want the higher (or lower) of the other two suits").

However, I also think that in practice it is easy to recognise what the EBU is referring to when you see it. In my mind it is easier to think about it not in terms of how many meanings are assigned to playing a particular card, but in terms of how many aspects of the card played are assigned a meaning - if both odd/even and high/low are involved in assigning the meaning then you have a "dual" signalling system.

[axman]

dburn, on Sep 14 2010, 08:30 PM, said:

It seems to me important to understand why it is that methods of the kind being discussed here are discouraged (or even criminalized) by the authorities.

Suppose that your spades are the seven, the five and the three. And suppose that in leading a spade, or in following suit to partner's lead of a spade, you wish to suggest that partner play a non-spade at his next turn to lead.

Unfortunately, if you play an odd spade to the current trick this will encourage partner to play a non-non-spade at his next turn to lead. This is a pity, because you do not have any even spades.

Instead, your spades may be the seven, the five and the two. At least you can prevent partner from playing a spade at his next turn to lead - the two will dissuade him from doing that. Unfortunately, you would rather he played a heart and not a diamond at his next turn to lead, but the two of spades will not achieve this.

Life would be a great deal easier if every time you had three low spades they were the eight, the five and the two - but unfortunately, life is not always like that. You must make the best of the cards you are dealt, so what are you to do?

Well, you or I would accept the cards Fate had dealt us, play a "wrong" spade in tempo and watch partner mess up the defence as usual. But certain people who are not you or I adopted a different approach: they played a "wrong" spade rather more slowly than they would have played a "right" spade if only they had one. Hence, a fast ♠2 would get a diamond lead from partner while a slow ♠2 would get a heart lead from partner as often as (indeed, more often than) not.

Rather than permitting such practices to go unchecked, the powers that be decided to remove temptation from the ungodly - chiefly because the godly would for the most part not even realise that they had been swindled. As usual, in so doing the powers that be restricted the creativity of the honest expert in favour of protecting the honest toiler from the machinations of the dishonest one.

And as usual, the remedy for this undesirable state of affairs lies in creating different regulations for different classes of game. In the Bermuda Bowl or the Venice Cup you should be allowed to play whatever carding methods (and indeed bidding methods) you like, subject to full disclosure and maintenance of perfect tempo. At lower levels, you should not.

While burn correctly relates the reasons espoused by bridge authorities for the banning in general of such methods, he does not give the correct reasoning to justify such rules. That is because there is no valid reason to ban the adoption of methods.

If bridge authorities were thinking clearly they would realize that once communication between partners is limited to calls and plays together with agreements thereby attached is more than a sufficient impediment to successfully solving the 53+ nonillion possible deals. And to prevent a pair from free choice of method destroys the game for the very reason that possibilities are destroyed.

This does not mean that players ought to play such methods; nor does it mean that players capable of playing such methods in a fair way should play such methods. It does mean that the bridge authority ought to vigilantly attempt to solve players’ problems by identifying methods that crop up that players are likely to have difficulty in using fairly, and to publish advice that the use of the method will carry with it a requisite standard of fair play- and a commensurate reduction of score [and other remedies] for every breach.

Thus, in the normal course of events, word will get around that players having tried the method and realizing that 7 cards out of ten they are afraid that partner will act upon the signal and thus their ‘subconscious’ compels a breach of law [tipping partner off]- and thus will conclude that the system really does not work on the whole and will seek some better way.