[blackshoe]

"I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean". If they can't or won't explain so you do understand, call the director.

[billw55]

sasioc, on 2013-April-11, 06:12, said:

Some players use this to mean "we throw the suit we don't want (partner to lead)". I think it's pretty ambiguous, even if you don't, which suggests that it is not a helpful explanation to give to at least some opponents. I have seen players give this explanation and found them to be playing rev att discards or similar plenty of times and think they have disclosed this.

I am skeptical that a pair playing reverse attitude discards is unable to correctly disclose it. I would tend to suspect deliberate concealment. Can't be proven of course.

[barmar]

Maybe I'm overly naive and trusting, but I think they're just the "life novices" that someone mentioned, who don't know how to send or read signals 90% of the time. Once in a blue moon they might play an 8 or 9, hoping their partner will notice the obvious signal (playing reverse attitude would be out of the question for this class of player).

[mycroft]

Bill, this isn't "reverse attitude", it's "Lavinthal without the suit preference". It doesn't matter if it's the 2 or the 9, if they pitch a card in that suit, it's a suit they don't want led.

I've seen this discarding system as well, and the people that play it can't understand why their opponents have so much trouble understanding "we throw what we don't want". I'll let you figure out why.

[billw55]

mycroft, on 2013-April-11, 10:29, said:

Bill, this isn't "reverse attitude", it's "Lavinthal without the suit preference". It doesn't matter if it's the 2 or the 9, if they pitch a card in that suit, it's a suit they don't want led.

I've seen this discarding system as well, and the people that play it can't understand why their opponents have so much trouble understanding "we throw what we don't want". I'll let you figure out why.

aha ok, I see what you are saying. Is that what sasioc meant? Rereading her post that I quoted, I'm still not sure.

[RMB1]

billw55, on 2013-April-11, 11:21, said:

... Is that what sasioc meant? Rereading his post that I quoted, ...

sasioc is not a he.

[billw55]

RMB1, on 2013-April-11, 11:28, said:

sasioc is not a he.

oops! Fixed.

[gnasher]

There are two reasonable interpretations of "We throw what we don't want":

- We throw cards that we think we won't need later in the play.

- We throw cards from the suit that we don't want partner to lead.

And apparently one unreasonable one:

- We play high-low in the suit that we don't want partner to lead.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2013-April-02, 09:25, said:

Although they probably just play the lowest card when it doesn't matter -- does that count as a "carding agreement"?

Yes.

billw55, on 2013-April-10, 06:45, said:

I thought this is just playing bridge. Encrypted? illegal? Yikes, I hope not.

If you agree to do it then it is probably encrypted and thus illegal. But if you just do it because it seems sensible you have no agreement to play encrypted signals just using common sense.

As for Robin and his method of fooling partner who has the hand making all the decisions I find it difficult to think of a suitable term ....

billw55, on 2013-April-11, 06:46, said:

I am skeptical that a pair playing reverse attitude discards is unable to correctly disclose it. I would tend to suspect deliberate concealment. Can't be proven of course.

You remind me of a growing abuse in the EBU. recently I have had a lot of people, when asked what signals they play, say "Count". If you check up you will find it is reverse count [UDCA for colonists]. My view of the nasty little beasts who do this is not publishable, but the number seems to be growing.

[RMB1]

bluejak, on 2013-April-19, 08:45, said:

As for Robin and his method of fooling partner who has the hand making all the decisions I find it difficult to think of a suitable term ....

It wasn't a signalling method - partner had expressed the opinion that we might play suit preference when obvious when following suit, but otherwise he did not expect to signal on declarer's lead.

It wasn't even an agreement as to how to play when following suit - but it could have become an implicit one.

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on 2013-April-19, 08:45, said:

You remind me of a growing abuse in the EBU. recently I have had a lot of people, when asked what signals they play, say "Count". If you check up you will find it is reverse count [UDCA for colonists]. My view of the nasty little beasts who do this is not publishable, but the number seems to be growing.

I have seen this, too. I assume you would be happy to rule MI if no further clarification was forthcoming other than "count", and declarer thereafter got a decision wrong by assuming this meant "standard count" rather than reverse count. Would you also consider a PP? - it seems to me pretty inconceivable most of the time that people are doing this by accident....

Would you consider going further, and issuing a PP every time this happened even if declarer's play was unaffected in the end? I have sometimes considered reporting this "explanation" to a TD even when I have remembered to follow up and check which way round they show count, but have never done so yet.

[blackshoe]

You issue procedural penalties for violations of procedure. Whether an opponent's actions were influenced by the violation is irrelevant.

[mycroft]

The first time I hear this from a pair, I issue a warning, and an adjustment if appropriate.
The second time I hear this from a pair, I issue a penalty, and an adjustment if appropriate. If I have time, I'll go back through the previous rounds in this session and see if they have done this same misinformation at those tables, and issue the PP for each such case.

Once you know that this is very likely to mislead, continuing to do it implies intent to mislead.

[nige1]

zasanya, on 2013-April-01, 03:09, said:

A pair I know to be ethical has the following signalling system. "If we expect partner to win the trick or when we are sure partner will win the trick we play revolving discards. However if we expect declarer to win the trick or when we are sure declarer will win the trick our discard has no significance." Is this legal?

IMO, the pair need to disclose a little more:

• When they play "random" cards, they risk, later, having no suitable card for a "revolving discard" but
• If they take care to keep a suitable "revolving disard", then earlier supposedly "random" cards aren't "random".
• If early on, they can keep only one discard in a suit, and have no other cards to spare, what do they do when unsure who wlll win a later trick.

[Cthulhu D]

bluejak, on 2013-April-19, 08:45, said:

If you agree to do it then it is probably encrypted and thus illegal. But if you just do it because it seems sensible you have no agreement to play encrypted signals just using common sense.

Except of course after you have both done it a few times, you have an implicit agreement to play encrypted signals, and thus an illegal agreement.