Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why are these kinds of singal banned?
117 views
Skip to first unread message
Michael Tsang
May 23, 2012, 4:20:00 AM5/23/12
to
This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
Why is it banned?
Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
Why is it banned?
Lorne
May 23, 2012, 4:53:44 AM5/23/12
to
"Michael Tsang" wrote in message news:jpi6jh$b2s$1...@dont-email.me...
........
Why do you think it is banned? Encrypted signals are banned but if the
spade length in known to declarer this is not an encrypted signal. Or does
your governing body have different rules (you do not say where you are
from - I am quoting EBU rules).
Why do you think it is banned? Encrypted signals are banned but if the
spade length in known to declarer this is not an encrypted signal. Or does
your governing body have different rules (you do not say where you are
from - I am quoting EBU rules).
Frances
May 23, 2012, 5:22:47 AM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 9:53 am, "Lorne" <lorne_ander...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Michael Tsang" wrote in messagenews:jpi6jh$b2s$1...@dont-email.me...
This is an encrypted signal and hence is banned in at least the ACBL
and the EBU.
I don't know why they are banned, and personally I wouldn't.
> "Michael Tsang" wrote in messagenews:jpi6jh$b2s$1...@dont-email.me...
and the EBU.
I don't know why they are banned, and personally I wouldn't.
lowerline
May 23, 2012, 7:24:02 AM5/23/12
to
Op woensdag 23 mei 2012 10:20:00 UTC+2 schreef Michael Tsang het volgende:
If declarer is known to have 4 spades, partner already knows how many spades you have (by looking at dummy and his own hand). So why would I want to signal count?
Signals are considered encrypted when they are based on a key that is only known by the defenders (unlike your example). They are not allowed because this is against the notion of full disclosure.
Steven
Signals are considered encrypted when they are based on a key that is only known by the defenders (unlike your example). They are not allowed because this is against the notion of full disclosure.
Steven
Nick France
May 23, 2012, 8:14:29 AM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 4:53 am, "Lorne" <lorne_ander...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Michael Tsang" wrote in messagenews:jpi6jh$b2s$1...@dont-email.me...
I dont disagree with you often but I do here. Giving count (in a suit
other than spades) is an encrypted signal. It is based on information
known to the defenders but not declarer. It is the odd or even of the
defenders suit for their signals, not the 4 spades of declarer's hand.
Nick France
> "Michael Tsang" wrote in messagenews:jpi6jh$b2s$1...@dont-email.me...
other than spades) is an encrypted signal. It is based on information
known to the defenders but not declarer. It is the odd or even of the
defenders suit for their signals, not the 4 spades of declarer's hand.
Nick France
Nick France
May 23, 2012, 8:16:01 AM5/23/12
to
like them and thought people using them were cheating.
Nick France
vsp...@hotmail.com
May 23, 2012, 9:27:04 AM5/23/12
to
these signals in tempo.
Michael Tsang
May 23, 2012, 9:47:30 AM5/23/12
to
a defender is not known to the declarer, but is known to the other defender.
Dave Flower
May 23, 2012, 9:55:00 AM5/23/12
to
Suppose I lead ace from (a)A K 5 4 3 2 or (b) A K J 10 8 7. In either case, partner plays the six. The meaning of partner's play of the 6 is clear to me, but not to declarer. The signal is, de facto, encrypted. However, nobody suggests that it is illegal; full disclosure does not require that I say what the signal means, merely something on the lines of 'If it is a relatively high spade...'
Dave Flower
Frances
May 23, 2012, 10:34:55 AM5/23/12
to
time. I admit I'm not entirely sure why, I think it's at least partly
simply because people find them hard to understand. It's never been
discussed much, because the form of signal you describe is actually
quite poor in practice: there are very few auctions where (i) you know
for certain how many spades declarer actually has and (ii) it really
is a 4-4 fit (so odd/even between the defence's hands exists). Also,
as soon as declarer draws trumps he knows the trump parity anyway.
There are plenty of examples where encrypted signals are both useful
and in practice actually played. For example, the EBU has
specifically approved something which many players do anyway:
- if declarer is playing on dummy's entryless suit, then the hand
without the ace gives true count, the hand with the ace gives suit
preference/smith peters/false count (by agreement). Declarer might
never find out who actually has the ace, so will never know who has
given which signal.
Barry Margolin
May 23, 2012, 10:35:45 AM5/23/12
to
In article <jpi6jh$b2s$1...@dont-email.me>,
Encrypted signals are banned because declarer has no way to interpret
them.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
them.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Adam Beneschan
May 23, 2012, 10:54:51 AM5/23/12
to
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 4:24:02 AM UTC-7, lowerline wrote:
> Op woensdag 23 mei 2012 10:20:00 UTC+2 schreef Michael Tsang het volgende:
> > This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
> >
> > Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
> > holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
> >
> > Why is it banned?
>
> If declarer is known to have 4 spades, partner already knows how many spades you have (by looking at dummy and his own hand). So why would I want to signal count?
I think it means signaling count in the other suits.
> Op woensdag 23 mei 2012 10:20:00 UTC+2 schreef Michael Tsang het volgende:
> > This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
> >
> > Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
> > holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
> >
> > Why is it banned?
>
> If declarer is known to have 4 spades, partner already knows how many spades you have (by looking at dummy and his own hand). So why would I want to signal count?
> Signals are considered encrypted when they are based on a key that is only known by the defenders (unlike your example).
> They are not allowed because this is against the notion of full disclosure.
However, I can imagine the rule makers deciding to ban them on the grounds that they look too much like something that isn't full disclosure. Possibly, they thought it really did violate the rules, or at least the spirit of the rules if not technically the letter, although I think this is an incorrect application of the rules. It's also possible that they're worried about other players complaining that it seems too much like secret signals (although this wouldn't explain why they're banned by the SuperChart).
The other theory, that they're banned because they can't be used in tempo, is plausible too.
-- Adam
> Steven
Adam Beneschan
May 23, 2012, 11:00:30 AM5/23/12
to
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 7:34:55 AM UTC-7, Frances wrote:
> On May 23, 9:20 am, Michael Tsang <mikl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
> >
> > Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
> > holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
> >
> > Why is it banned?
>
> Encrypted signals of this form are banned and have been for a long
> time. I admit I'm not entirely sure why, I think it's at least partly
> simply because people find them hard to understand. It's never been
> discussed much, because the form of signal you describe is actually
> quite poor in practice: there are very few auctions where (i) you know
> for certain how many spades declarer actually has and (ii) it really
> is a 4-4 fit (so odd/even between the defence's hands exists). Also,
> as soon as declarer draws trumps he knows the trump parity anyway.
It's occurred to me that there's another potential disadvantage. Say that you follow to a heart trick with a card that means "I have an odd number of hearts if I have an odd number of spades, and an even number of hearts if I have an even number of spades." If declarer can figure out how many hearts you have--or if he decides that he cannot make the contract unless you have a specific number of hearts, so he plays based on that assumption--he can then figure out how many spades you have too. That's a line of reasoning not available to declarers when the defenders don't use encrypted signals. It's only a tiny disadvantage--but since the advantages also seem tiny, maybe it's enough to cancel it out. Anyway, I agree that while it's fun to talk about things like this in theory, it's definitely not worth the mental effort.
> On May 23, 9:20 am, Michael Tsang <mikl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
> >
> > Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
> > holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
> >
> > Why is it banned?
>
> Encrypted signals of this form are banned and have been for a long
> time. I admit I'm not entirely sure why, I think it's at least partly
> simply because people find them hard to understand. It's never been
> discussed much, because the form of signal you describe is actually
> quite poor in practice: there are very few auctions where (i) you know
> for certain how many spades declarer actually has and (ii) it really
> is a 4-4 fit (so odd/even between the defence's hands exists). Also,
> as soon as declarer draws trumps he knows the trump parity anyway.
-- Adam
sbt
May 23, 2012, 11:36:07 AM5/23/12
to
In article <barmar-89AB1A....@news.eternal-september.org>,
Not to be contrarian, but if he knows his bidding has shown 4 spades
(and he should) and the defenders' carding agreement is disclosed, then
he can interpret the signal: standard from odd and upside-down from
even. I don't see where this type of signal is at all useful, but the
declarer knows at least as much about it as the defenders. In fact, I
don't see why the defenders would need to give count here at
all...declarer has 4, they can see how many were in dummy and in their
hand, so they have the count without any signal!
--
Dennis Cohen
(and he should) and the defenders' carding agreement is disclosed, then
he can interpret the signal: standard from odd and upside-down from
even. I don't see where this type of signal is at all useful, but the
declarer knows at least as much about it as the defenders. In fact, I
don't see why the defenders would need to give count here at
all...declarer has 4, they can see how many were in dummy and in their
hand, so they have the count without any signal!
--
Dennis Cohen
Frances
May 23, 2012, 11:48:40 AM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 3:35 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <jpi6jh$b2...@dont-email.me>,
banning them?
> In article <jpi6jh$b2...@dont-email.me>,
> Michael Tsang <mikl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
>
> > Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
> > holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
>
> > Why is it banned?
>
> Encrypted signals are banned because declarer has no way to interpret
> them.
>
> --
> Barry Margolin
> Arlington, MA
That isn't really a 'because'. Why should that be a reason for
>
> > This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
>
> > Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
> > holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
>
> > Why is it banned?
>
> Encrypted signals are banned because declarer has no way to interpret
> them.
>
> --
> Barry Margolin
> Arlington, MA
banning them?
Barry Margolin
May 23, 2012, 2:19:31 PM5/23/12
to
In article <230520120836074857%dogb...@chaseabone.com.invalid>,
defenders have 8 between them, but he doesn't know if they're 4-4, 5-3,
etc. So he doesn't know whether the defenders started with even or odd
numbers in their hands, and thus can't tell whether they're giving
standard or upside-down signals.
> I don't see where this type of signal is at all useful, but the
> declarer knows at least as much about it as the defenders. In fact, I
> don't see why the defenders would need to give count here at
> all...declarer has 4, they can see how many were in dummy and in their
> hand, so they have the count without any signal!
Of course they know how many spades they each have. But they use this
method when they're showing attitude, or count in OTHER suits.
sbt <dogb...@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <barmar-89AB1A....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <jpi6jh$b2s$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Michael Tsang <mik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
> > >
> > > Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
> > > holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
> > >
> > > Why is it banned?
> >
> > Encrypted signals are banned because declarer has no way to interpret
> > them.
>
> Not to be contrarian, but if he knows his bidding has shown 4 spades
> (and he should) and the defenders' carding agreement is disclosed, then
> he can interpret the signal: standard from odd and upside-down from
> even.
He knows he has shown 4, and suppose dummy has 1. So he knows the
> In article <barmar-89AB1A....@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > In article <jpi6jh$b2s$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > Michael Tsang <mik...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
> > >
> > > Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
> > > holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
> > >
> > > Why is it banned?
> >
> > Encrypted signals are banned because declarer has no way to interpret
> > them.
>
> Not to be contrarian, but if he knows his bidding has shown 4 spades
> (and he should) and the defenders' carding agreement is disclosed, then
> he can interpret the signal: standard from odd and upside-down from
> even.
defenders have 8 between them, but he doesn't know if they're 4-4, 5-3,
etc. So he doesn't know whether the defenders started with even or odd
numbers in their hands, and thus can't tell whether they're giving
standard or upside-down signals.
> I don't see where this type of signal is at all useful, but the
> declarer knows at least as much about it as the defenders. In fact, I
> don't see why the defenders would need to give count here at
> all...declarer has 4, they can see how many were in dummy and in their
> hand, so they have the count without any signal!
method when they're showing attitude, or count in OTHER suits.
Henry Lockwood
May 23, 2012, 2:20:38 PM5/23/12
to
On May 23, 4:36 pm, sbt <dogbre...@chaseabone.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <barmar-89AB1A.10354523052...@news.eternal-september.org>,
OTHER suits, so (for example) the defender with odd spades plays
standard count in diamonds.
HenryL
> In article <barmar-89AB1A.10354523052...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Michael Tsang <mikl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
>
> > > Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
> > > holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
>
> > > Why is it banned?
>
> > Encrypted signals are banned because declarer has no way to interpret
> > them.
>
> Not to be contrarian, but if he knows his bidding has shown 4 spades
> (and he should) and the defenders' carding agreement is disclosed, then
> he can interpret the signal: standard from odd and upside-down from
> even. I don't see where this type of signal is at all useful, but the
> declarer knows at least as much about it as the defenders. In fact, I
> don't see why the defenders would need to give count here at
> all...declarer has 4, they can see how many were in dummy and in their
> hand, so they have the count without any signal!
>
> --
> Dennis Cohen
Dennis, I think you've misunderstood: the idea is to show count in the
>
> > > This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
>
> > > Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
> > > holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
>
> > > Why is it banned?
>
> > Encrypted signals are banned because declarer has no way to interpret
> > them.
>
> Not to be contrarian, but if he knows his bidding has shown 4 spades
> (and he should) and the defenders' carding agreement is disclosed, then
> he can interpret the signal: standard from odd and upside-down from
> even. I don't see where this type of signal is at all useful, but the
> declarer knows at least as much about it as the defenders. In fact, I
> don't see why the defenders would need to give count here at
> all...declarer has 4, they can see how many were in dummy and in their
> hand, so they have the count without any signal!
>
> --
> Dennis Cohen
OTHER suits, so (for example) the defender with odd spades plays
standard count in diamonds.
HenryL
Nick France
May 23, 2012, 5:05:48 PM5/23/12
to
tell the opponents your signalling method and you let them decide if
it is high or low. When someone wants me to interpret if the 6 is
high or low, I tell them I can't but if they think the 6 is high then
it is discouraging (or an odd number of cards) and if the they think
its low then its encouraging (or even number of cards) (I play upside
down count and attitude).
It is not proper for you to interpret what the card is for declarer.
Nick France
Nick France
May 23, 2012, 5:09:00 PM5/23/12
to
you play a new signally method. After awhile it becomes second
nature. A director may ban you from using a carding system if you
can't play in tempo but that is no reason to ban everyone from it.
Nick France
David Stevenson
May 23, 2012, 6:12:29 PM5/23/12
to
sbt wrote
Declarer is in 4S after a Stayman sequence. The spades are known to
be 4-4 in declarer and dummy, so each defender knows whether partner has
an even or odd number of spades - but declarer does not.
Declarer plays two rounds of hearts. The defenders signal their
length to each other. But declarer cannot interpret the signals, since
if one has petered he does not know whether it is standard count [the
defender has three spades] or reverse count [the defender has two
spades. The defence on the other hand know what the signal means.
This shows the principle. It is possible to make the key more complex
so declarer cannot just find it out by pulling trumps.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
>Not to be contrarian, but if he knows his bidding has shown 4 spades
>(and he should) and the defenders' carding agreement is disclosed, then
>he can interpret the signal: standard from odd and upside-down from
>even. I don't see where this type of signal is at all useful, but the
>declarer knows at least as much about it as the defenders. In fact, I
>don't see why the defenders would need to give count here at
>all...declarer has 4, they can see how many were in dummy and in their
>hand, so they have the count without any signal!
Let me explain ..........
>(and he should) and the defenders' carding agreement is disclosed, then
>he can interpret the signal: standard from odd and upside-down from
>even. I don't see where this type of signal is at all useful, but the
>declarer knows at least as much about it as the defenders. In fact, I
>don't see why the defenders would need to give count here at
>all...declarer has 4, they can see how many were in dummy and in their
>hand, so they have the count without any signal!
Declarer is in 4S after a Stayman sequence. The spades are known to
be 4-4 in declarer and dummy, so each defender knows whether partner has
an even or odd number of spades - but declarer does not.
Declarer plays two rounds of hearts. The defenders signal their
length to each other. But declarer cannot interpret the signals, since
if one has petered he does not know whether it is standard count [the
defender has three spades] or reverse count [the defender has two
spades. The defence on the other hand know what the signal means.
This shows the principle. It is possible to make the key more complex
so declarer cannot just find it out by pulling trumps.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm
sbt
May 23, 2012, 6:30:03 PM5/23/12
to
In article <UfZqSpJN...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>, David Stevenson
interpreted it to be count in spades, not count in other suits based
upon the spade length.
--
Dennis Cohen
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Let me explain ..........
>
> Declarer is in 4S after a Stayman sequence. The spades are known to
> be 4-4 in declarer and dummy, so each defender knows whether partner has
> an even or odd number of spades - but declarer does not.
>
> Declarer plays two rounds of hearts. The defenders signal their
> length to each other. But declarer cannot interpret the signals, since
> if one has petered he does not know whether it is standard count [the
> defender has three spades] or reverse count [the defender has two
> spades. The defence on the other hand know what the signal means.
>
> This shows the principle. It is possible to make the key more complex
> so declarer cannot just find it out by pulling trumps.
Okay, that clears it up. As the question was originally stated, I
> Let me explain ..........
>
> Declarer is in 4S after a Stayman sequence. The spades are known to
> be 4-4 in declarer and dummy, so each defender knows whether partner has
> an even or odd number of spades - but declarer does not.
>
> Declarer plays two rounds of hearts. The defenders signal their
> length to each other. But declarer cannot interpret the signals, since
> if one has petered he does not know whether it is standard count [the
> defender has three spades] or reverse count [the defender has two
> spades. The defence on the other hand know what the signal means.
>
> This shows the principle. It is possible to make the key more complex
> so declarer cannot just find it out by pulling trumps.
interpreted it to be count in spades, not count in other suits based
upon the spade length.
--
Dennis Cohen
Adam Beneschan
May 23, 2012, 5:41:13 PM5/23/12
to
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:05:48 PM UTC-7, Nick France wrote:
>
> Saying it is a relatively high spade is the wrong thing to say. You
> tell the opponents your signalling method and you let them decide if
> it is high or low. When someone wants me to interpret if the 6 is
> high or low, I tell them I can't
I usually tell them something like "Well, if he's playing from 8-7-6 then it's low, and if he has 6-5-4 then it's high." Players who ask questions like that need that sort of lesson. But yes, you shouldn't tell them whether it's low or high, unless you actually have an agreement that, say, 7 is considered "high" (a dumb agreement, but I've seen less-experienced players play that way).
>
> Saying it is a relatively high spade is the wrong thing to say. You
> tell the opponents your signalling method and you let them decide if
> it is high or low. When someone wants me to interpret if the 6 is
> high or low, I tell them I can't
-- Adam
Barry Margolin
May 23, 2012, 8:39:19 PM5/23/12
to
> Declarer is in 4S after a Stayman sequence. The spades are known to
> be 4-4 in declarer and dummy, so each defender knows whether partner has
> an even or odd number of spades - but declarer does not.
>
> Declarer plays two rounds of hearts. The defenders signal their
> length to each other. But declarer cannot interpret the signals, since
> if one has petered he does not know whether it is standard count [the
> defender has three spades] or reverse count [the defender has two
> spades. The defence on the other hand know what the signal means.
>
> This shows the principle. It is possible to make the key more complex
> so declarer cannot just find it out by pulling trumps.
It also depends on knowing declarer's length in a suit precisely -- how
> be 4-4 in declarer and dummy, so each defender knows whether partner has
> an even or odd number of spades - but declarer does not.
>
> Declarer plays two rounds of hearts. The defenders signal their
> length to each other. But declarer cannot interpret the signals, since
> if one has petered he does not know whether it is standard count [the
> defender has three spades] or reverse count [the defender has two
> spades. The defence on the other hand know what the signal means.
>
> This shows the principle. It is possible to make the key more complex
> so declarer cannot just find it out by pulling trumps.
often do can you do that reliably? In the example, you're assuming
declarer can't have 5 spades when he opened NT, but it's not that
uncommon. Similarly, you might try it when there has been a weak 2
opening, but people sometimes do this with 5 or 7 cards in the suit, not
just the normal 6-card suit.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 24, 2012, 2:59:37 AM5/24/12
to
Frances skrev:
> This is an encrypted signal and hence is banned in at least the ACBL
> and the EBU.
> I don't know why they are banned, and personally I wouldn't.
They are banned because the opponents do not have acces to the
information revealed by the signals. Allowing encrypted signals
or allowing undisclosed agreements amounts to the same thing.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
> This is an encrypted signal and hence is banned in at least the ACBL
> and the EBU.
> I don't know why they are banned, and personally I wouldn't.
information revealed by the signals. Allowing encrypted signals
or allowing undisclosed agreements amounts to the same thing.
--
Bertel, Denmark
http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 24, 2012, 3:03:11 AM5/24/12
to
lowerline skrev:
> If declarer is known to have 4 spades, partner already knows
> how many spades you have (by looking at dummy and his own
> hand). So why would I want to signal count?
I think the signals referred to another suit than spades.
> Signals are considered encrypted when they are based on a key
> that is only known by the defenders (unlike your example).
That is not unlike the example. As others have pointed out, both
defenders know how many spades their partner has, but declarer
does not.
> If declarer is known to have 4 spades, partner already knows
> how many spades you have (by looking at dummy and his own
> hand). So why would I want to signal count?
> Signals are considered encrypted when they are based on a key
> that is only known by the defenders (unlike your example).
defenders know how many spades their partner has, but declarer
does not.
Dave Flower
May 24, 2012, 4:12:30 AM5/24/12
to
On Thursday, 24 May 2012 01:39:19 UTC+1, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <UfZqSpJN...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
> David Stevenson
> In article <UfZqSpJN...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
> David Stevenson
Dave Flower
Dave Flower
May 24, 2012, 4:14:14 AM5/24/12
to
Dave Flower
Barry Margolin
May 24, 2012, 4:48:27 AM5/24/12
to
In article <896a3bb9-f915-402d...@googlegroups.com>,
Suppose we have the auction:
1NT 2C
2S 4S
Dummy shows up with 4 spades, and I hold 2. If I go by the "assumed
length", I'll expect partner has an odd number. But if declarer has 5
spades, partner actually has an even number, so he'll give the opposite
kind of signals from what I expect. And vice versa.
1NT 2C
2S 4S
Dummy shows up with 4 spades, and I hold 2. If I go by the "assumed
length", I'll expect partner has an odd number. But if declarer has 5
spades, partner actually has an even number, so he'll give the opposite
kind of signals from what I expect. And vice versa.
Barry Margolin
May 24, 2012, 4:54:11 AM5/24/12
to
In article <b5057c52-3a0a-4b02...@googlegroups.com>,
There certainly seems to be something fishy about disclosing a signaling
method without including the information needed to interpret it. If
declarer can't use the disclosed information, what good is it? This
surely can't be the intent of disclosure requirements -- is it a
loophole because they didn't account for this when writing L40?
method without including the information needed to interpret it. If
declarer can't use the disclosed information, what good is it? This
surely can't be the intent of disclosure requirements -- is it a
loophole because they didn't account for this when writing L40?
Barry Margolin
May 24, 2012, 4:58:38 AM5/24/12
to
In article <543a827d-33d0-42fe...@googlegroups.com>,
you'll get the message loud and clear -- we've all been in situations
where it wasn't obvious if partner's 6 was high or low. Declarer is in
the same situation as you -- he can look at his spot cards and try to
figure out what the 6 is.
But with encrypted signals, declarer is explicitly denied that ability.
Even if he can figure out whether the card is high or low, he doesn't
have access to the key that says how to translate this to count or
attitude. And the encryption method is designed to make it really hard
for him to get it (by the time he pulls trumps and gets everyone's count
in that suit it may be too late to do him any good).
Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> There clearly is a case for banning encrypted signals, but they being against
> the notion of full disclosure forms no part of that case.
>
> Suppose I lead ace from (a)A K 5 4 3 2 or (b) A K J 10 8 7. In either case,
> partner plays the six. The meaning of partner's play of the 6 is clear to me,
> but not to declarer. The signal is, de facto, encrypted. However, nobody
> suggests that it is illegal; full disclosure does not require that I say what
> the signal means, merely something on the lines of 'If it is a relatively
> high spade...'
Since partner doesn't know what your spot cards are, he can't be sure
> There clearly is a case for banning encrypted signals, but they being against
> the notion of full disclosure forms no part of that case.
>
> Suppose I lead ace from (a)A K 5 4 3 2 or (b) A K J 10 8 7. In either case,
> partner plays the six. The meaning of partner's play of the 6 is clear to me,
> but not to declarer. The signal is, de facto, encrypted. However, nobody
> suggests that it is illegal; full disclosure does not require that I say what
> the signal means, merely something on the lines of 'If it is a relatively
> high spade...'
you'll get the message loud and clear -- we've all been in situations
where it wasn't obvious if partner's 6 was high or low. Declarer is in
the same situation as you -- he can look at his spot cards and try to
figure out what the 6 is.
But with encrypted signals, declarer is explicitly denied that ability.
Even if he can figure out whether the card is high or low, he doesn't
have access to the key that says how to translate this to count or
attitude. And the encryption method is designed to make it really hard
for him to get it (by the time he pulls trumps and gets everyone's count
in that suit it may be too late to do him any good).
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 24, 2012, 5:08:17 AM5/24/12
to
Barry Margolin skrev:
> There certainly seems to be something fishy about disclosing a signaling
> method without including the information needed to interpret it. If
> declarer can't use the disclosed information, what good is it? This
> surely can't be the intent of disclosure requirements -- is it a
> loophole because they didn't account for this when writing L40?
Suppose I disclose all my agreements in Danish to Englishspeaking
opponents? Have I then followed the letter of the law?
> There certainly seems to be something fishy about disclosing a signaling
> method without including the information needed to interpret it. If
> declarer can't use the disclosed information, what good is it? This
> surely can't be the intent of disclosure requirements -- is it a
> loophole because they didn't account for this when writing L40?
opponents? Have I then followed the letter of the law?
Barry Margolin
May 24, 2012, 5:22:57 AM5/24/12
to
In article <4fbdfa33$0$294$1472...@news.sunsite.dk>,
Or print your convention card with ink that's only visible under
ultraviolate light? What, your opponents forgot to bring a blacklight
with them? Too bad, you did show them your CC as required.
ultraviolate light? What, your opponents forgot to bring a blacklight
with them? Too bad, you did show them your CC as required.
Dave Flower
May 24, 2012, 6:20:21 AM5/24/12
to
For example, quite a few years ago my partner opened 2S (weak); I bid 2NT and partner bid 3NT, which I alerted and, on request, explained (correctly) to show a solid suit. When I subsequently turned up with the SA, opponents objected that I had misled them. The Director, co0rrectly, rejected their complaint. I was obliged to disclose the agreement, not deductions based on my own hand.
Dave Flower
Dave Flower
May 24, 2012, 6:22:59 AM5/24/12
to
Dave Flower
PS But my contention that encrypted signals do not violate the Laws stands.
Lorne
May 24, 2012, 7:30:30 AM5/24/12
to
"Lorne" wrote in message news:Zz1vr.28614$8L6....@newsfe07.iad...
"Michael Tsang" wrote in message news:jpi6jh$b2s$1...@dont-email.me...
This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
Why is it banned?
........
Why do you think it is banned? Encrypted signals are banned but if the
spade length in known to declarer this is not an encrypted signal. Or does
your governing body have different rules (you do not say where you are
from - I am quoting EBU rules).
.......
I take back what I said - I misread the OP and took the phrase 'known to
have 4 spades from the bidding' to mean the info was available to all, but
if I had read it more carefully I would have noticed that it is the length
of that suit in a defenders hand that is being used for the signal and not
the length in declarers hand.
"Michael Tsang" wrote in message news:jpi6jh$b2s$1...@dont-email.me...
This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
Why is it banned?
Why do you think it is banned? Encrypted signals are banned but if the
spade length in known to declarer this is not an encrypted signal. Or does
your governing body have different rules (you do not say where you are
from - I am quoting EBU rules).
.......
I take back what I said - I misread the OP and took the phrase 'known to
have 4 spades from the bidding' to mean the info was available to all, but
if I had read it more carefully I would have noticed that it is the length
of that suit in a defenders hand that is being used for the signal and not
the length in declarers hand.
Bruce Evans
May 24, 2012, 9:26:34 AM5/24/12
to
In article <barmar-0067DC....@news.eternal-september.org>,
nominates nominates a _complementary_ suit (not the _key_ suit since
that sounds like encryption) according to a non-encrypted rule. Then
a high card in a non-complementary suit shows a combined even number
of cards in the suits. (For complications, when following or discarding
in the complementary suit, another complementary suit is nominated.
For recomplications, the nomination varies in even more complicated
ways during the play according to cards played, inferences, presumptions
needed to beat the contract, secondary inferences...). This is not
encrypted. This is not dual-message. Simple versions of it can even
be played without tempo problems. Why is this banned?
It may happen that declarer's length in the complementary suit is known
exactly from the bidding, but that's just declarer's fault for showing
shape. I think the best case for the defense is when declarer shows a
singleton. This happens frequently via splinters, and when declarer is
short the suit will be harder for declarer to get a full count on.
Splinters are unnatural so any method should be allowed over them :-).
Bruce
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <b5057c52-3a0a-4b02...@googlegroups.com>,
> Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 24 May 2012 07:59:37 UTC+1, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> > Frances skrev:
>> >
>> > > This is an encrypted signal and hence is banned in at least the ACBL
>> > > and the EBU.
>> > > I don't know why they are banned, and personally I wouldn't.
>> >
>> > They are banned because the opponents do not have acces to the
>> > information revealed by the signals. Allowing encrypted signals
>> > or allowing undisclosed agreements amounts to the same thing.
>>
>In article <b5057c52-3a0a-4b02...@googlegroups.com>,
> Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 24 May 2012 07:59:37 UTC+1, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> > Frances skrev:
>> >
>> > > This is an encrypted signal and hence is banned in at least the ACBL
>> > > and the EBU.
>> > > I don't know why they are banned, and personally I wouldn't.
>> >
>> > They are banned because the opponents do not have acces to the
>> > information revealed by the signals. Allowing encrypted signals
>> > or allowing undisclosed agreements amounts to the same thing.
>>
>> No, undisclosed agreements violate L40, encrypted signals do not, as long as
>> the full agreement is disclosed
>
>There certainly seems to be something fishy about disclosing a signaling
>method without including the information needed to interpret it. If
>declarer can't use the disclosed information, what good is it? This
>surely can't be the intent of disclosure requirements -- is it a
>loophole because they didn't account for this when writing L40?
Consider different wording in the disclosure. The defense sometimes
>> the full agreement is disclosed
>
>There certainly seems to be something fishy about disclosing a signaling
>method without including the information needed to interpret it. If
>declarer can't use the disclosed information, what good is it? This
>surely can't be the intent of disclosure requirements -- is it a
>loophole because they didn't account for this when writing L40?
nominates nominates a _complementary_ suit (not the _key_ suit since
that sounds like encryption) according to a non-encrypted rule. Then
a high card in a non-complementary suit shows a combined even number
of cards in the suits. (For complications, when following or discarding
in the complementary suit, another complementary suit is nominated.
For recomplications, the nomination varies in even more complicated
ways during the play according to cards played, inferences, presumptions
needed to beat the contract, secondary inferences...). This is not
encrypted. This is not dual-message. Simple versions of it can even
be played without tempo problems. Why is this banned?
It may happen that declarer's length in the complementary suit is known
exactly from the bidding, but that's just declarer's fault for showing
shape. I think the best case for the defense is when declarer shows a
singleton. This happens frequently via splinters, and when declarer is
short the suit will be harder for declarer to get a full count on.
Splinters are unnatural so any method should be allowed over them :-).
Bruce
suep...@gmail.com
May 24, 2012, 9:33:18 AM5/24/12
to
For all of the people interested in Encrypted Signals, can I recommend 'Bridge at the Enigma Club' by Peter Winkler.
This is a very entertaining book and details many example of how difficult encrypted methods can be to play against. Both in the bidding and play.
Barry
This is a very entertaining book and details many example of how difficult encrypted methods can be to play against. Both in the bidding and play.
Barry
Barry Margolin
May 24, 2012, 12:48:43 PM5/24/12
to
In article <5074fa51-2af6-4039...@googlegroups.com>,
for him to perform the same kind of reasoning that you can. E.g. if
declarer holds a spade honor, he can tell that the player is lying, just
as you can if you hold one.
I think the best analogy someone has posted is that encrypted signals
are like disclosing your agreements in a language that declarer doesn't
speak. You've disclosed, but declarer is unable to make use of the
explanation, while you can.
Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 May 2012 09:54:11 UTC+1, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <b5057c52-3a0a-4b02...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, 24 May 2012 07:59:37 UTC+1, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> > > > Frances skrev:
> > > >
> > > > > This is an encrypted signal and hence is banned in at least the ACBL
> > > > > and the EBU.
> > > > > I don't know why they are banned, and personally I wouldn't.
> > > >
> > > > They are banned because the opponents do not have acces to the
> > > > information revealed by the signals. Allowing encrypted signals
> > > > or allowing undisclosed agreements amounts to the same thing.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Bertel, Denmark
> > > > http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
> > >
> > > No, undisclosed agreements violate L40, encrypted signals do not, as long
> > > as
> > > the full agreement is disclosed
> >
> > There certainly seems to be something fishy about disclosing a signaling
> > method without including the information needed to interpret it. If
> > declarer can't use the disclosed information, what good is it? This
> > surely can't be the intent of disclosure requirements -- is it a
> > loophole because they didn't account for this when writing L40?
>
> On Thursday, 24 May 2012 09:54:11 UTC+1, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <b5057c52-3a0a-4b02...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, 24 May 2012 07:59:37 UTC+1, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> > > > Frances skrev:
> > > >
> > > > > This is an encrypted signal and hence is banned in at least the ACBL
> > > > > and the EBU.
> > > > > I don't know why they are banned, and personally I wouldn't.
> > > >
> > > > They are banned because the opponents do not have acces to the
> > > > information revealed by the signals. Allowing encrypted signals
> > > > or allowing undisclosed agreements amounts to the same thing.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Bertel, Denmark
> > > > http://bridge.lundhansen.dk/
> > >
> > > No, undisclosed agreements violate L40, encrypted signals do not, as long
> > > as
> > > the full agreement is disclosed
> >
> > There certainly seems to be something fishy about disclosing a signaling
> > method without including the information needed to interpret it. If
> > declarer can't use the disclosed information, what good is it? This
> > surely can't be the intent of disclosure requirements -- is it a
> > loophole because they didn't account for this when writing L40?
>
> You are required to disclose you agreements, explicit or implicit, not
> deductions based on your own holdings.
>
> For example, quite a few years ago my partner opened 2S (weak); I bid 2NT and
> partner bid 3NT, which I alerted and, on request, explained (correctly) to
> show a solid suit. When I subsequently turned up with the SA, opponents
> objected that I had misled them. The Director, co0rrectly, rejected their
> complaint. I was obliged to disclose the agreement, not deductions based on
> my own hand.
But the explanation of the agreements should provide enough information
> deductions based on your own holdings.
>
> For example, quite a few years ago my partner opened 2S (weak); I bid 2NT and
> partner bid 3NT, which I alerted and, on request, explained (correctly) to
> show a solid suit. When I subsequently turned up with the SA, opponents
> objected that I had misled them. The Director, co0rrectly, rejected their
> complaint. I was obliged to disclose the agreement, not deductions based on
> my own hand.
for him to perform the same kind of reasoning that you can. E.g. if
declarer holds a spade honor, he can tell that the player is lying, just
as you can if you hold one.
I think the best analogy someone has posted is that encrypted signals
are like disclosing your agreements in a language that declarer doesn't
speak. You've disclosed, but declarer is unable to make use of the
explanation, while you can.
David Stevenson
May 24, 2012, 6:40:33 PM5/24/12
to
Dave Flower wrote
it. It is certainly true that sometimes you will immediately know what
a signal means from your holding, and your opponent will not - but that
applies ot either side. Sometimes declarer will know what the signal
means, the other defender will not. So these cases are not comparable.
>Suppose I lead ace from (a)A K 5 4 3 2 or (b) A K J 10 8 7. In either
>case, partner plays the six. The meaning of partner's play of the 6 is
>clear to me, but not to declarer. The signal is, de facto, encrypted.
>However, nobody suggests that it is illegal; full disclosure does not
>require that I say what the signal means, merely something on the lines
>of 'If it is a relatively high spade...'
No, this argument does not work - I was waiting for someone ot make
>case, partner plays the six. The meaning of partner's play of the 6 is
>clear to me, but not to declarer. The signal is, de facto, encrypted.
>However, nobody suggests that it is illegal; full disclosure does not
>require that I say what the signal means, merely something on the lines
>of 'If it is a relatively high spade...'
it. It is certainly true that sometimes you will immediately know what
a signal means from your holding, and your opponent will not - but that
applies ot either side. Sometimes declarer will know what the signal
means, the other defender will not. So these cases are not comparable.
David Stevenson
May 24, 2012, 6:42:25 PM5/24/12
to
wrote
>My guess is players were not able to play
>these signals in tempo.
I do not think so. They are no more difficult to play than other
signals.
>My guess is players were not able to play
>these signals in tempo.
signals.
David Stevenson
May 24, 2012, 6:44:55 PM5/24/12
to
Dave Flower wrote
suggested they do?
>PS But my contention that encrypted signals do not violate the Laws stands.
Of course they do not violate the Laws - but surely no-one has
suggested they do?
David Stevenson
May 24, 2012, 6:46:25 PM5/24/12
to
Frances wrote
>banning them?
Of course you are right in theory, Frances: that is no reason to ban
them.
But in practice, I believe that is why they are banned!
>On May 23, 3:35 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> In article <jpi6jh$b2...@dont-email.me>,
>> Michael Tsang <mikl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> In article <jpi6jh$b2...@dont-email.me>,
>> Michael Tsang <mikl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
>>
>> > Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
>> > holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
>>
>> > Why is it banned?
>>
>>
>> > Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count if
>> > holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
>>
>> > Why is it banned?
>>
>> Encrypted signals are banned because declarer has no way to interpret
>> them.
>That isn't really a 'because'. Why should that be a reason for
>> them.
>banning them?
Of course you are right in theory, Frances: that is no reason to ban
them.
But in practice, I believe that is why they are banned!
David Stevenson
May 24, 2012, 6:49:17 PM5/24/12
to
wrote
A lot of stuff from it is at
http://blakjak.org/brg_lnks.htm#genpwkl1
Printed with peter Winkler's permission.
http://blakjak.org/brg_lnks.htm#genpwkl1
Printed with peter Winkler's permission.
derek
May 24, 2012, 8:26:00 PM5/24/12
to
On May 24, 6:08 am, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:
Well, yes. I've played against both French & Portuguese speaking
opponents - and I speak neither language. Perhaps if you're visiting
a foreign country, you should be expected to be able to explain your
agreements in their language, but the language barrier was certainly
greater in the French-language case - in my own country.
wrote:
opponents - and I speak neither language. Perhaps if you're visiting
a foreign country, you should be expected to be able to explain your
agreements in their language, but the language barrier was certainly
greater in the French-language case - in my own country.
Barry Margolin
May 24, 2012, 9:13:45 PM5/24/12
to
In article
<aa1d2384-3b06-4788...@kw17g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
Who said anything about being in a foreign country? Maybe I'm in
America, playing against American opponents, but I decide to explain in
French because the Laws apparently allow it.
<aa1d2384-3b06-4788...@kw17g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
America, playing against American opponents, but I decide to explain in
French because the Laws apparently allow it.
Bertel Lund Hansen
May 25, 2012, 3:17:00 AM5/25/12
to
derek skrev:
>> Suppose I disclose all my agreements in Danish to Englishspeaking
>> opponents? Have I then followed the letter of the law?
> Well, yes. I've played against both French & Portuguese speaking
> opponents -
You miss my point. The opponents do not speak or understand
Danish.
>> Suppose I disclose all my agreements in Danish to Englishspeaking
>> opponents? Have I then followed the letter of the law?
> Well, yes. I've played against both French & Portuguese speaking
> opponents -
Danish.
Joe Fawcett
May 24, 2012, 7:50:35 AM5/24/12
to
Not sure why they are banned either, they seem a pure system in that the
defence is only making use of their assets and not exchanging information
outside of the rules of the basic game.
Declarer has a massive advantage over defence in being able to see both
their sides hands, surely defence should be able to counteract?
I would be happy to play them. The only reason I can see to ban them is that
partnerships who play complex signals often take ages to play cards and even
longer when they have to play a card that they know will mislead partner.
This can give rise to unauthorised information as well as making it
difficult for declarer to work out why an opponent is hesitating when
following suit.
Regards
Joe
"Frances" wrote in message
news:0ff065cb-b5ec-4697...@eh4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On May 23, 3:35 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <jpi6jh$b2...@dont-email.me>,
> Michael Tsang <mikl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
>
> > Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count
> > if
> > holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
>
> > Why is it banned?
>
> Encrypted signals are banned because declarer has no way to interpret
> them.
>
defence is only making use of their assets and not exchanging information
outside of the rules of the basic game.
Declarer has a massive advantage over defence in being able to see both
their sides hands, surely defence should be able to counteract?
I would be happy to play them. The only reason I can see to ban them is that
partnerships who play complex signals often take ages to play cards and even
longer when they have to play a card that they know will mislead partner.
This can give rise to unauthorised information as well as making it
difficult for declarer to work out why an opponent is hesitating when
following suit.
Regards
Joe
"Frances" wrote in message
news:0ff065cb-b5ec-4697...@eh4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On May 23, 3:35 pm, Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <jpi6jh$b2...@dont-email.me>,
> Michael Tsang <mikl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This is a classical example of a banned signalling:
>
> > Declarer is known to have 4 spades from the bidding. Give normal count
> > if
> > holding an odd number of spades initially, but reversed count otherwise.
>
> > Why is it banned?
>
> Encrypted signals are banned because declarer has no way to interpret
> them.
>
> --
> Barry Margolin
> Arlington, MA
> Barry Margolin
> Arlington, MA
David Stevenson
May 25, 2012, 7:43:03 AM5/25/12
to
Barry Margolin wrote
so I had better explain.
No, the Laws do not permit it. Agreements have to be fully and freely
available to your opponents when you play bridge. Explaining in a way
they do not understand, whether because of language, bloody-mindedness,
over-complication, or whatever, is not legal.
Now we get people who will whine over details, and come up with cases
which are tricky ["What if your opponent is deaf?"] and so on. The
answer is that this is a game, with rules: when there is a difficulty,
sensible people sort it out, not so sensible people rely on the TD to
sort it out.
But suggesting not explaining your methods to opponents for any reason
at all is legal is not true.
>Who said anything about being in a foreign country? Maybe I'm in
>America, playing against American opponents, but I decide to explain in
>French because the Laws apparently allow it.
I suppose there has to be someone who actually believes some of this,
>America, playing against American opponents, but I decide to explain in
>French because the Laws apparently allow it.
so I had better explain.
No, the Laws do not permit it. Agreements have to be fully and freely
available to your opponents when you play bridge. Explaining in a way
they do not understand, whether because of language, bloody-mindedness,
over-complication, or whatever, is not legal.
Now we get people who will whine over details, and come up with cases
which are tricky ["What if your opponent is deaf?"] and so on. The
answer is that this is a game, with rules: when there is a difficulty,
sensible people sort it out, not so sensible people rely on the TD to
sort it out.
But suggesting not explaining your methods to opponents for any reason
at all is legal is not true.
KWSchneider
May 25, 2012, 9:47:37 AM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 7:43 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
> <webjak...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
"Parity" Signals are allowed in the ACBL. To use them the "key" suit
is trump or the establishable suit by declarer in notrump. So, if I
high/low in trump, I show an even parity, low/high an odd parity [if I
have a singleton or honor doubleton, then the signal is off]. By
parity, I mean the "predominant" odd or even length of my suits. For
example, if I have a 5332 shape, this is an "odd" parity, 4432 is an
"even" parity. With this information and the known length of dummy's
suits [and hence parity], one can determine the parity of declarer
[and hence his suit lengths].
I assume that this is legal since declarer can also read the signals -
yet I would suggest that there is a level of encryption.
Kurt
wrote:
"Parity" Signals are allowed in the ACBL. To use them the "key" suit
is trump or the establishable suit by declarer in notrump. So, if I
high/low in trump, I show an even parity, low/high an odd parity [if I
have a singleton or honor doubleton, then the signal is off]. By
parity, I mean the "predominant" odd or even length of my suits. For
example, if I have a 5332 shape, this is an "odd" parity, 4432 is an
"even" parity. With this information and the known length of dummy's
suits [and hence parity], one can determine the parity of declarer
[and hence his suit lengths].
I assume that this is legal since declarer can also read the signals -
yet I would suggest that there is a level of encryption.
Kurt
Barry Margolin
May 25, 2012, 10:48:33 AM5/25/12
to
In article <jpnpif$n0o$1...@dont-email.me>,
"Joe Fawcett" <joefa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Declarer has a massive advantage over defence in being able to see both
> their sides hands, surely defence should be able to counteract?
Everyone gets to see two hands, so it's an even playing field.
> Declarer has a massive advantage over defence in being able to see both
> their sides hands, surely defence should be able to counteract?
Barry Margolin
May 25, 2012, 10:53:23 AM5/25/12
to
In article <jcrXy9CHB3vPFwq$@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
but you don't think that suggests that he should also be able to USE it?
In the encrypted signal example we were given, the explanation would be
"We give standard attitude/count if we started with an even number of
trumps, upside-down if we started with an odd number." So declarer asks
"How is that helpful, if I can't tell how many trumps you each started
with?"
You might as well give the explanation in Swahili if it does him no good.
David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote
> >Who said anything about being in a foreign country? Maybe I'm in
> >America, playing against American opponents, but I decide to explain in
> >French because the Laws apparently allow it.
>
> I suppose there has to be someone who actually believes some of this,
> so I had better explain.
>
> No, the Laws do not permit it. Agreements have to be fully and freely
> available to your opponents when you play bridge. Explaining in a way
> they do not understand, whether because of language, bloody-mindedness,
> over-complication, or whatever, is not legal.
>
> Now we get people who will whine over details, and come up with cases
> which are tricky ["What if your opponent is deaf?"] and so on. The
> answer is that this is a game, with rules: when there is a difficulty,
> sensible people sort it out, not so sensible people rely on the TD to
> sort it out.
>
> But suggesting not explaining your methods to opponents for any reason
> at all is legal is not true.
OK, so you admit that he has to be able to understand the explanation,
> Barry Margolin wrote
> >Who said anything about being in a foreign country? Maybe I'm in
> >America, playing against American opponents, but I decide to explain in
> >French because the Laws apparently allow it.
>
> I suppose there has to be someone who actually believes some of this,
> so I had better explain.
>
> No, the Laws do not permit it. Agreements have to be fully and freely
> available to your opponents when you play bridge. Explaining in a way
> they do not understand, whether because of language, bloody-mindedness,
> over-complication, or whatever, is not legal.
>
> Now we get people who will whine over details, and come up with cases
> which are tricky ["What if your opponent is deaf?"] and so on. The
> answer is that this is a game, with rules: when there is a difficulty,
> sensible people sort it out, not so sensible people rely on the TD to
> sort it out.
>
> But suggesting not explaining your methods to opponents for any reason
> at all is legal is not true.
but you don't think that suggests that he should also be able to USE it?
In the encrypted signal example we were given, the explanation would be
"We give standard attitude/count if we started with an even number of
trumps, upside-down if we started with an odd number." So declarer asks
"How is that helpful, if I can't tell how many trumps you each started
with?"
You might as well give the explanation in Swahili if it does him no good.
derek
May 25, 2012, 11:57:33 AM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 4:17 am, Bertel Lund Hansen <kanonsa...@lundhansen.dk>
wrote:
were able to understand our English explanations. In the French case,
it was quite clear that sometimes they didn't.
wrote:
> derek skrev:
>
> >> Suppose I disclose all my agreements in Danish to Englishspeaking
> >> opponents? Have I then followed the letter of the law?
> > Well, yes. I've played against both French & Portuguese speaking
> > opponents -
>
> You miss my point. The opponents do not speak or understand
> Danish.
No, I don't. In the Portuguese case, at least when anybody asked they
>
> >> Suppose I disclose all my agreements in Danish to Englishspeaking
> >> opponents? Have I then followed the letter of the law?
> > Well, yes. I've played against both French & Portuguese speaking
> > opponents -
>
> You miss my point. The opponents do not speak or understand
> Danish.
were able to understand our English explanations. In the French case,
it was quite clear that sometimes they didn't.
derek
May 25, 2012, 12:06:39 PM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 8:43 am, David Stevenson <brid...@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
where's the difference? We do what we can, but the law doesn't and
_cannot_ explicitly ban giving explanations in a language that the
opponents can't understand. Directors have options when players are
just being obstructive.
> No, the Laws do not permit it. Agreements have to be fully and freely
> available to your opponents when you play bridge. Explaining in a way
> they do not understand, whether because of language, bloody-mindedness,
> over-complication, or whatever, is not legal.
>
> Now we get people who will whine over details, and come up with cases
> which are tricky ["What if your opponent is deaf?"] and so on. The
> answer is that this is a game, with rules: when there is a difficulty,
> sensible people sort it out, not so sensible people rely on the TD to
> sort it out.
I completely disagree with David - who surely has played in countries
where they speak languages he doesn't. "Sensible people" don't have a
lot of options for explaining agreements when they have no shared
language. So, yes, we rely on TDs. In the case of playing in a
bilingual Canadian tournament, we will almost certainly have a
bilingual director available to translate if necessary. When playing
at clubs in foreign countries, we contact them first to be sure
language won't be a barrier.
wrote:
> Barry Margolin wrote
>
> >Who said anything about being in a foreign country? Maybe I'm in
> >America, playing against American opponents, but I decide to explain in
> >French because the Laws apparently allow it.
And my example was two pairs of Canadians playing in Canada, so
>
> >Who said anything about being in a foreign country? Maybe I'm in
> >America, playing against American opponents, but I decide to explain in
> >French because the Laws apparently allow it.
where's the difference? We do what we can, but the law doesn't and
_cannot_ explicitly ban giving explanations in a language that the
opponents can't understand. Directors have options when players are
just being obstructive.
> No, the Laws do not permit it. Agreements have to be fully and freely
> available to your opponents when you play bridge. Explaining in a way
> they do not understand, whether because of language, bloody-mindedness,
> over-complication, or whatever, is not legal.
>
> Now we get people who will whine over details, and come up with cases
> which are tricky ["What if your opponent is deaf?"] and so on. The
> answer is that this is a game, with rules: when there is a difficulty,
> sensible people sort it out, not so sensible people rely on the TD to
> sort it out.
where they speak languages he doesn't. "Sensible people" don't have a
lot of options for explaining agreements when they have no shared
language. So, yes, we rely on TDs. In the case of playing in a
bilingual Canadian tournament, we will almost certainly have a
bilingual director available to translate if necessary. When playing
at clubs in foreign countries, we contact them first to be sure
language won't be a barrier.
Fred.
May 25, 2012, 1:15:57 PM5/25/12
to
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 2:59:37 AM UTC-4, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Frances skrev:
>
> > This is an encrypted signal and hence is banned in at least the ACBL
> > and the EBU.
> > I don't know why they are banned, and personally I wouldn't.
>
> They are banned because the opponents do not have acces to the
> information revealed by the signals. Allowing encrypted signals
> or allowing undisclosed agreements amounts to the same thing.
>
The ACBL lumps encrypted signals in their General
> Frances skrev:
>
> > This is an encrypted signal and hence is banned in at least the ACBL
> > and the EBU.
> > I don't know why they are banned, and personally I wouldn't.
>
> They are banned because the opponents do not have acces to the
> information revealed by the signals. Allowing encrypted signals
> or allowing undisclosed agreements amounts to the same thing.
>
Convention Chart alond with other carding methods
which are likely to slow play. My own thinking is
that it is located here to prohibit them even
if the key is shared because such use is likely to
seriously delay the game.
Prohibiting encrypted signals with a non-shared
key would be redundant at the RA level because
such signals would be a violation of the laws
requiring disclosure.
Fred.
Dave Flower
May 25, 2012, 1:58:53 PM5/25/12
to
SO's are free to prohibit encrypted signals, and frequently do. However, in no way do encrypted signals violate the Laws of Contract Bridge
Dave Flower
Barry Margolin
May 25, 2012, 2:32:36 PM5/25/12
to
In article <94f91c40-b5f2-4675...@googlegroups.com>,
say that explaining the method is sufficient to comply with those laws,
you don't have to disclose the key. Why aren't you addressing that?
"Fred." <rollsc...@att.net> wrote:
> Prohibiting encrypted signals with a non-shared
> key would be redundant at the RA level because
> such signals would be a violation of the laws
> requiring disclosure.
Isn't this exactly what we're debating? Others (e.g. David Stevenson)
> Prohibiting encrypted signals with a non-shared
> key would be redundant at the RA level because
> such signals would be a violation of the laws
> requiring disclosure.
say that explaining the method is sufficient to comply with those laws,
you don't have to disclose the key. Why aren't you addressing that?
Barry Margolin
May 25, 2012, 2:50:39 PM5/25/12
to
In article <0faa9fc2-12b8-4f2f...@googlegroups.com>,
Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> SO's are free to prohibit encrypted signals, and frequently do. However, in
> no way do encrypted signals violate the Laws of Contract Bridge
What Law allows them to do prohibit them?
> SO's are free to prohibit encrypted signals, and frequently do. However, in
> no way do encrypted signals violate the Laws of Contract Bridge
Dave Flower
May 25, 2012, 3:03:03 PM5/25/12
to
Dave Flower
Barry Margolin
May 25, 2012, 4:12:59 PM5/25/12
to
In article <efb64cc0-afd5-4fc0...@googlegroups.com>,
Incomplete or erroneous call of a card from dummy? ITYM 40B2a.
I just noticed 40B6b:
The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an
explanation is crucial for opponent零 choice of action and opponent is
thereby damaged.
If the RA didn't prohibit encrypted signals explicitly, could we decide
that the decryption key is crucial for declarer's choice of action?
Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 25 May 2012 19:50:39 UTC+1, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <0faa9fc2-12b8-4f2f...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > SO's are free to prohibit encrypted signals, and frequently do. However,
> > > in
> > > no way do encrypted signals violate the Laws of Contract Bridge
> >
> > What Law allows them to do prohibit them?
>
> L46B2a
> On Friday, 25 May 2012 19:50:39 UTC+1, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <0faa9fc2-12b8-4f2f...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > SO's are free to prohibit encrypted signals, and frequently do. However,
> > > in
> > > no way do encrypted signals violate the Laws of Contract Bridge
> >
> > What Law allows them to do prohibit them?
>
Incomplete or erroneous call of a card from dummy? ITYM 40B2a.
I just noticed 40B6b:
The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an
explanation is crucial for opponent零 choice of action and opponent is
thereby damaged.
If the RA didn't prohibit encrypted signals explicitly, could we decide
that the decryption key is crucial for declarer's choice of action?
Steve Willner
May 25, 2012, 7:56:38 PM5/25/12
to
On 2012-05-23 10:35 AM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> Encrypted signals are banned because declarer has no way to interpret
> them.
That seems to be an argument for allowing them.
> Encrypted signals are banned because declarer has no way to interpret
> them.
I suspect the real reason encrypted signals are banned is that the
people who make the rules don't want to use them and don't want to play
against them. That reason probably accounts for a lot of the rules,
come to think of it.
--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Mark Brader
May 25, 2012, 8:27:13 PM5/25/12
to
Barry Margolin:
>> Encrypted signals are banned
In jurisdictions where they *are* banned, that is. I guess that includes
all the major national organizations, or we'd be hearing from people who
are used to encountering them, but they are within the Laws.
>> because declarer has no way to interpret them.
Steve Willner:
If often happens in the evolution of a game that someone invents a new
way to do something within the existing rules, and there's a dispute
over... well over, whether it's cricket or not. Whether it's within
the spirit of the game as it's developed so far. If people think it
isn't, they'll change the rules to ban it or restrict its usefulness.
For example, there was a time about 80 years ago when some bridge
players were opposed to artificial bids. They felt that a bid in
bridge should always represent a genuine offer to play in the
indicated contract. Obviously, they lost.
But even though they may be artificial, both bids and carding signals
today typically transmit more or less the same information to opponents
as to partner. One player may be in a better position to read the
signal due to her own holding, but that's incidental and can favor
either side. Now even if this is just an accident of history,
there's a reasonable case to be made that it's developed into an
essential part of the game.
If you accept that case, then banning encrypted signals (and bids) does
makes sense. And I do. If you don't, then allowing them makes sense.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Logic is logic. That's all I say."
m...@vex.net -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
My text in this article is in the public domain.
>> Encrypted signals are banned
In jurisdictions where they *are* banned, that is. I guess that includes
all the major national organizations, or we'd be hearing from people who
are used to encountering them, but they are within the Laws.
>> because declarer has no way to interpret them.
> That seems to be an argument for allowing them.
Not really.
If often happens in the evolution of a game that someone invents a new
way to do something within the existing rules, and there's a dispute
over... well over, whether it's cricket or not. Whether it's within
the spirit of the game as it's developed so far. If people think it
isn't, they'll change the rules to ban it or restrict its usefulness.
For example, there was a time about 80 years ago when some bridge
players were opposed to artificial bids. They felt that a bid in
bridge should always represent a genuine offer to play in the
indicated contract. Obviously, they lost.
But even though they may be artificial, both bids and carding signals
today typically transmit more or less the same information to opponents
as to partner. One player may be in a better position to read the
signal due to her own holding, but that's incidental and can favor
either side. Now even if this is just an accident of history,
there's a reasonable case to be made that it's developed into an
essential part of the game.
If you accept that case, then banning encrypted signals (and bids) does
makes sense. And I do. If you don't, then allowing them makes sense.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Logic is logic. That's all I say."
m...@vex.net -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
My text in this article is in the public domain.
David Stevenson
May 27, 2012, 8:20:26 PM5/27/12
to
Steve Willner wrote
been made against the ACBL, and I have no idea whether it is fair, it is
not generally made against people who make the rules in England or
Wales, both of whom have banned encrypted signals. I really doubt that
you can produce any evidence to suggest this is how rules are decided in
England and Wales.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
>I suspect the real reason encrypted signals are banned is that the
>people who make the rules don't want to use them and don't want to play
>against them. That reason probably accounts for a lot of the rules,
>come to think of it.
I don't like that suggestion. While this accusation has many times
>people who make the rules don't want to use them and don't want to play
>against them. That reason probably accounts for a lot of the rules,
>come to think of it.
been made against the ACBL, and I have no idea whether it is fair, it is
not generally made against people who make the rules in England or
Wales, both of whom have banned encrypted signals. I really doubt that
you can produce any evidence to suggest this is how rules are decided in
England and Wales.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
Dave Flower
May 28, 2012, 4:22:24 AM5/28/12
to
If I chose to play (for example) encrypted signals, I will get plenty of practice in their use, which would quite probably pay off to my advantage. However, my chances of getting adequate practice against them is remote.
Note that if everyone used encrypted signals, this inbalance would cease to exist.
I think that this creates a strong case for prohibiting any obscure convention, particularly one that requires experience to defend against
Dave Flower
David Stevenson
May 28, 2012, 8:41:31 AM5/28/12
to
KWSchneider wrote
When you make a parity signal, its meaning is known equally to both
partner and declarer. the fact that one or other may be able to make
more use of it based on his knowledge or lack thereof does not make it
encrypted.
When you make an encrypted signal, the *meaning* is not equally
available to both partner and opponents.
Of course, I know what you mean: partner may be in a position to use
the signal much better: true, but not relevant.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
>"Parity" Signals are allowed in the ACBL. To use them the "key" suit
>is trump or the establishable suit by declarer in notrump. So, if I
>high/low in trump, I show an even parity, low/high an odd parity [if I
>have a singleton or honor doubleton, then the signal is off]. By
>parity, I mean the "predominant" odd or even length of my suits. For
>example, if I have a 5332 shape, this is an "odd" parity, 4432 is an
>"even" parity. With this information and the known length of dummy's
>suits [and hence parity], one can determine the parity of declarer
>[and hence his suit lengths].
>
>I assume that this is legal since declarer can also read the signals -
>yet I would suggest that there is a level of encryption.
No, it is not encryption. You are confusing two ideas.
>is trump or the establishable suit by declarer in notrump. So, if I
>high/low in trump, I show an even parity, low/high an odd parity [if I
>have a singleton or honor doubleton, then the signal is off]. By
>parity, I mean the "predominant" odd or even length of my suits. For
>example, if I have a 5332 shape, this is an "odd" parity, 4432 is an
>"even" parity. With this information and the known length of dummy's
>suits [and hence parity], one can determine the parity of declarer
>[and hence his suit lengths].
>
>I assume that this is legal since declarer can also read the signals -
>yet I would suggest that there is a level of encryption.
When you make a parity signal, its meaning is known equally to both
partner and declarer. the fact that one or other may be able to make
more use of it based on his knowledge or lack thereof does not make it
encrypted.
When you make an encrypted signal, the *meaning* is not equally
available to both partner and opponents.
Of course, I know what you mean: partner may be in a position to use
the signal much better: true, but not relevant.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
David Stevenson
May 28, 2012, 8:41:34 AM5/28/12
to
Barry Margolin wrote
I have explained that one is illegal, one is not. You are not
disagreeing, merely - as far as I can see - suggesting some different an
unrelated rule. Ok, go talk ot the rule-makers.
>OK, so you admit that he has to be able to understand the explanation,
>but you don't think that suggests that he should also be able to USE it?
>
>In the encrypted signal example we were given, the explanation would be
>"We give standard attitude/count if we started with an even number of
>trumps, upside-down if we started with an odd number." So declarer asks
>"How is that helpful, if I can't tell how many trumps you each started
>with?"
>
>You might as well give the explanation in Swahili if it does him no good.
What point are you trying to make?
>but you don't think that suggests that he should also be able to USE it?
>
>In the encrypted signal example we were given, the explanation would be
>"We give standard attitude/count if we started with an even number of
>trumps, upside-down if we started with an odd number." So declarer asks
>"How is that helpful, if I can't tell how many trumps you each started
>with?"
>
>You might as well give the explanation in Swahili if it does him no good.
I have explained that one is illegal, one is not. You are not
disagreeing, merely - as far as I can see - suggesting some different an
unrelated rule. Ok, go talk ot the rule-makers.
David Stevenson
May 28, 2012, 8:45:16 AM5/28/12
to
Barry Margolin wrote
=========================================================
Barry Margolin wrote
>In article <0faa9fc2-12b8-4f2f...@googlegroups.com>,
> Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> SO's are free to prohibit encrypted signals, and frequently do. However, in
>> no way do encrypted signals violate the Laws of Contract Bridge
>
>What Law allows them to do prohibit them?
Law 40B2A.
> Dave Flower <DavJF...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> SO's are free to prohibit encrypted signals, and frequently do. However, in
>> no way do encrypted signals violate the Laws of Contract Bridge
>
>What Law allows them to do prohibit them?
=========================================================
Barry Margolin wrote
>I just noticed 40B6b:
>
>The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an
>explanation is crucial for opponent零 choice of action and opponent is
>thereby damaged.
>
>If the RA didn't prohibit encrypted signals explicitly, could we decide
>that the decryption key is crucial for declarer's choice of action?
No. The correct and complete information is given to declarer.
>
>The Director adjusts the scores if information not given in an
>explanation is crucial for opponent零 choice of action and opponent is
>thereby damaged.
>
>If the RA didn't prohibit encrypted signals explicitly, could we decide
>that the decryption key is crucial for declarer's choice of action?
David Stevenson
May 28, 2012, 8:49:05 AM5/28/12
to
Dave Flower wrote
Especially when it is new and unknown, like Sputnik doubles, unusual
no-trump, takeout doubles, Stayman as invented by Rapee and Marx,
forcing no-trump, Blackwood, ..............
No, the argument ahs no validity at all unless your aim is to stifle
the game completely. Thanks goodness people in earlier years did not
follow this approach - what a boring game this would be.
no-trump, takeout doubles, Stayman as invented by Rapee and Marx,
forcing no-trump, Blackwood, ..............
No, the argument ahs no validity at all unless your aim is to stifle
the game completely. Thanks goodness people in earlier years did not
follow this approach - what a boring game this would be.
Dave Flower
May 28, 2012, 9:07:39 AM5/28/12
to David Stevenson
It must be said that the majority of new conventions sink without trace, and there is no need to inflict them on the majority of bridge players.
If a convention has merit, then it will come into more general use. It is, perhaps instructive that of the conventions you list, none has, I think be developed less than 50 years ago
Dave Flower
David Stevenson
May 28, 2012, 9:35:36 AM5/28/12
to
Dave Flower wrote
players I cannot imagine. Fortunately a lot of bridge clubs have a more
open approach than you have.
>It must be said that the majority of new conventions sink without
>trace, and there is no need to inflict them on the majority of bridge
>players.
>
>If a convention has merit, then it will come into more general use. It
>is, perhaps instructive that of the conventions you list, none has, I
>think be developed less than 50 years ago
Ok, Lebensohl, Bergen, support doubles, .....
>The way to test new, and unproved ideas, is to initially classify them
>as only allowed in a few games, and see how they develop.
Why it should be obviously right to discriminate against poorer
>as only allowed in a few games, and see how they develop.
players I cannot imagine. Fortunately a lot of bridge clubs have a more
open approach than you have.
>It must be said that the majority of new conventions sink without
>trace, and there is no need to inflict them on the majority of bridge
>players.
>
>If a convention has merit, then it will come into more general use. It
>is, perhaps instructive that of the conventions you list, none has, I
>think be developed less than 50 years ago
Barry Margolin
May 28, 2012, 10:25:17 AM5/28/12
to
In article <Duv$+ILo83...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Dave Flower wrote
It's like when a company is coming out with a new product, they test it
out in limited markets, to see how popular it is before going wide with
it.
Liberal bridge clubs can be considered part of that "test market". It
doesn't have to be a rigidly organized process.
David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Dave Flower wrote
> >The way to test new, and unproved ideas, is to initially classify them
> >as only allowed in a few games, and see how they develop.
>
> Why it should be obviously right to discriminate against poorer
> players I cannot imagine. Fortunately a lot of bridge clubs have a more
> open approach than you have.
I don't think it's a matter of discrimination, but just being careful.
> >as only allowed in a few games, and see how they develop.
>
> Why it should be obviously right to discriminate against poorer
> players I cannot imagine. Fortunately a lot of bridge clubs have a more
> open approach than you have.
It's like when a company is coming out with a new product, they test it
out in limited markets, to see how popular it is before going wide with
it.
Liberal bridge clubs can be considered part of that "test market". It
doesn't have to be a rigidly organized process.
David Stevenson
May 28, 2012, 11:17:54 AM5/28/12
to
Barry Margolin wrote
Unfortunately, bridge organisers' ideas of limited markets are always
top level.
Furthermore, as with any comparison, there are other reasons why it
does not work. If you allow certain extra conventions there is no need
for you to limit them to certain competitions: the limiting is done
automatically by the fact that not many people try them out. So
limiting them to top competitions is totally unnecessary while
discriminating against poorer players.
>In article <Duv$+ILo83...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
> David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Dave Flower wrote
>> >The way to test new, and unproved ideas, is to initially classify them
>> >as only allowed in a few games, and see how they develop.
>>
>> Why it should be obviously right to discriminate against poorer
>> players I cannot imagine. Fortunately a lot of bridge clubs have a more
>> open approach than you have.
>
>I don't think it's a matter of discrimination, but just being careful.
>It's like when a company is coming out with a new product, they test it
>out in limited markets, to see how popular it is before going wide with
>it.
Yes, but their idea of limited markets are general markets.
> David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Dave Flower wrote
>> >The way to test new, and unproved ideas, is to initially classify them
>> >as only allowed in a few games, and see how they develop.
>>
>> Why it should be obviously right to discriminate against poorer
>> players I cannot imagine. Fortunately a lot of bridge clubs have a more
>> open approach than you have.
>
>I don't think it's a matter of discrimination, but just being careful.
>It's like when a company is coming out with a new product, they test it
>out in limited markets, to see how popular it is before going wide with
>it.
Unfortunately, bridge organisers' ideas of limited markets are always
top level.
Furthermore, as with any comparison, there are other reasons why it
does not work. If you allow certain extra conventions there is no need
for you to limit them to certain competitions: the limiting is done
automatically by the fact that not many people try them out. So
limiting them to top competitions is totally unnecessary while
discriminating against poorer players.
0 new messages