[bluejak]

Quote

11 S 3 Dual meaning signals

Dual meaning signals (when following suit) are not permitted.

Examples of prohibited dual meaning signals

(a) One message (typically attitude) is given according to whether the card played is odd or even; a different message (typically suit preference) is given according to whether the card played is high or low.

(b) One message (typically attitude) is given if a specific card (say a 6 or a 7) is played; a different message (typically suit preference) is given if any other card is played.

Such dual meanings are permitted for discards.

That is the EBU's definition of Dual meaning. Note that, unlike the ACBL, they really are dual meaning signals that are not permitted: if you look at the ACBL regulation, having said Dual Meaning signals are not permitted, they then include some single meaning signals. So, do not think what would be allowed in the ACBL.

A correspondents asks: Are Dodds allowed as leads, signals and discards?

What is Dodds? It means that an even card says the player likes that suit, and an odd card means he likes the other suit of the same colour.

Any discards are allowed: no problem there [and I know many players who play Dodds discards]. As a lead they are Barking if not Dagenham, but not illegal. But are Dodds signals allowed in the EBU?

[gnasher]

This isn't dual-meaning: it's a single-meaning method which doesn't cover all the possible messages that you might want to send. That appears to be allowed under the EBU's regulations.

Of course, as soon as the players have played it for a bit, they are likely to develop an implicit agreement about what to do if they dislike both suits. In practice, they'll probably end up playing:
   Even = encouraging this suit
   Odd = either discouraging this suit, or encouraging the other suit of the same colour
But that's still not dual-meaning - it's no different from obvious-shift style attitude, where an encouraging card is either "I like this suit", or "I don't like the obvious shift".

[paulg]

I presumed the context of the EBU 'dual meaning' regulations was to prohibit signalling methods that may cause tempo problems when the signaller did not have the right card to send the appropriate message. The standard example was odd/even signals, where an odd card is encouraging in the suit and an even card is discouraging with suit preference overtones: what do you do when you wish to encourage holding AQ82 - the answer was presumed to be 'play an even card slowly'.

I'm sure that the wordsmiths on the committee have worked tirelessly to encapsulate this in a regulation and the current wording and examples define 'dual meaning' quite precisely, but in a way that is perhaps slightly different to how many would do it.

I believe that in this context it is clear that Dodds is a dual meaning signal. You can signal either attitude for one suit, or attitude for a different suit. The cards used to send these signals are irrelevant. This is a dual meaning signal. The fact that both are attitude signals is not relevant, it is the fact that the signals are not about the same suit.

The examples of prohibited methods show that it does not matter if every card has a precise meaning in a signalling system. In the second example, every card is defined - sixes and sevens are encouraging, higher cards are suit preference for the higher suit, lower cards are suit preference for the lower suit. No card has a dual meaning. But this method is prohibited. Similarly for odd/even signals.

[helene_t]

I thought it was common when holding many spot cards and partner's opening lead is an ace or king to show both count and attitude, for example from 8732 I would first play 3 to show negative attitude and then complete the count signal by playing 2 on the next round, so from four spot cards:
highest=even, positive
2nd= odd, positive
3rd=even, negative
lowest=odd,negative

So this would be illegal? You are only allowed to transmit one bit of information even when having more than two options?

[mfa1010]

I strongly dislike these restrictions on "dual meaning signals" in ACBL and EBU. They are in dírect conflict with my perception of the game as a partnership game, where we are - in principle - able to refine our partnership bidding and defensive signaling to perfection to solve as many problems as at all possible. Defining everything, every bid and every spot card played, to make guessing as little part of the game as possible.

But apparently others seem to see the game more as a sum of efforts by two individual players who could give damn if they ever saw the guy opposite before at all. Everything must be standardized, we can tick a box here and there on the CC, but the allowed partnership understanding is being capped and it is being capped by the lowest common denominator*).

Well, well.
There is also a big problem with the fuzzy term "dual meaning" in itself. It seems to depend too much on how the signals are described rather than what the signals really are. The EBU "definition" consists of nothing but two examples (as I can see above). No wonder that there will be problems with its application on actual cases.

--
*) The problem the restriction purports to try to solve is not a world class bridge problem of ethics. Those players will typically know to keep an even tempo and will usually have a good agreement about what to do if they don't have the perfect spot card for their signaling method. Like playing small if there is no odd card available. It is for ordinary club players who are on deep water. As a result everyone is being restricted no matter his ethical standard or level of play.

[paulg]

I agree with Michael.

Any EBU or ACBL players who also agree are welcome to play in Scotland where this restriction is not in place.

[paulg]

What was the decision on the original question? Or is it a subject for the next L&EC meeting?

[iviehoff]

When I once found myself playing with a LOL who insisted on playing Dodds. I'd never heard of them, so I had to ask. (I didn't mind playing any method because I knew she wouldn't watch anyway.) When described to me, I was given to understand that there was a difference between a high odd card and a low odd card, (if one had the choice), the high one being encouraging of the same-colour suit, the low one not.

That distinction is not in Bluejak's definition of Dodds. But I think these high-low distinctions must always arise in odd-even signals. You need a choice of two cards to be able to signal at all. If you are playing hi-lo signals, one card is always higher than another, so you can always make the signal from 2 cards, if you choose to do so. But if you are playing odd-even, you don't always have the requisite card from two cards, even four cards. So you are likely to have an understanding of what you should do when you don't, eg discarding lower or higher cards of the other parity might be routine in an absence of cards of the correct parity. Whilst that is fair enough with ordinary odd-even signals, I think when Dodds are extended to have an attitude element to the odd and/or even card, then, within the spirit of the examples given in the regulation, that is a dual meaning signal.

I think it is also relevant that Dodds as a signal is simply incoherent a large proportion of the time. When following suit, you are forced to show a preference between encouraging the suit played, or encouraging the suit of the same colour. Well a lot of the time you don't want to show either of those. At least when you are discarding you can choose what colour to discard, and you can even discard an odd card of the same colour as the card led to mean "nothing to say". We are used to the idea that there isn't always the ideal bid available, and needing to do your best; but usually bidding systems provide for all the common likelihoods. When you just don't have a correct action with a large range of hands, that leaves a large problem and surely leads to concealed understandings about what you do in that situation.

So whilst Dodds as defined in the OP is probably in principle legal as a signal, I don't think it is actually possible for anyone to play it as stated, and they would be bound to modify it in a way that would likely be illegal.

[semeai]

helene_t, on 2011-August-12, 04:22, said:

You are only allowed to transmit one bit of information even when having more than two options?

The concept must be more nebulous than that. When playing from a long suit with suit preference as the relevant signal you can signal higher, lower or "no preference" when two suits are at stake or even just which of three suits you prefer if three suits are at stake. I presume this is legal and would be considered as just a single meaning ("suit preference").

[bluejak]

It is not a matter for the L&EC: as often happens I was merely asked for my opinion.

In my view Dodds is legal as a signal, and completely unplayable.

As for the idea that high-low creeps into Dodds, no, it doesn't. The people who play Dodds in my experience would all find Roman too difficult and are playing Dodds because it is simple enough for them to understand. They are not going to complicate it.

[iviehoff]

bluejak, on 2011-August-16, 17:21, said:

As for the idea that high-low creeps into Dodds, no, it doesn't. The people who play Dodds in my experience would all find Roman too difficult and are playing Dodds because it is simple enough for them to understand. They are not going to complicate it.

You agree with me that it is legal but completely unplayable as a signal. The people who play it must know what they do when they don't want to give either of the messages they are forced to choose between, because this situation must occur many times a night. The LOL I was playing with didn't understand many far simpler things than Dodds, but she knew that when she didn't really want to play an odd card, but was forced to, she played the lower one, if she had a choice.

[Vampyr]

helene_t, on 2011-August-12, 04:22, said:

I thought it was common when holding many spot cards and partner's opening lead is an ace or king to show both count and attitude, for example from 8732 I would first play 3 to show negative attitude and then complete the count signal by playing 2 on the next round, so from four spot cards:
highest=even, positive
2nd= odd, positive
3rd=even, negative
lowest=odd,negative

So this would be illegal? You are only allowed to transmit one bit of information even when having more than two options?

I don't think that your method is dual-meaning, because it takes two cards to complete the signal. I do think that you are unwise, though, to play your highest card when you want to encourage.

[bluejak]

iviehoff, on 2011-August-17, 03:53, said:

You agree with me that it is legal but completely unplayable as a signal. The people who play it must know what they do when they don't want to give either of the messages they are forced to choose between, because this situation must occur many times a night. The LOL I was playing with didn't understand many far simpler things than Dodds, but she knew that when she didn't really want to play an odd card, but was forced to, she played the lower one, if she had a choice.

You have confused two entirely different things.

First, lots of people around me play Dodds discards. Because of the choice of suits it is unusual to have a problem.

Second, one person has asked me the legality of Dodds signals, which are clearly unplayable. The answer seems to be they are legal. I doubt that anyone will play them for more than a few boards.

[helene_t]

Vampyr, on 2011-August-17, 05:37, said:

I don't think that your method is dual-meaning, because it takes two cards to complete the signal. I do think that you are unwise, though, to play your highest card when you want to encourage.

I don't understand.

Whether it takes two cards to complete or not depends on the extent to which partner can guess what my options were. If I have 678 and want to discourage using standard signals, I play the 6 and it may very well take a second card for partner to understand.

If I play the 4 from 87432 it is quite possible that p can infer that it probably is neither my lowest or my highest card in that suit so it must be meant as either discourage+even or as encourage+odd. And if declarer discards so that partner knows my exact holding then from 7632 when I play the 3 he will know that it discourage+even.

You will rarely be able to make partner receive more than one bit of information by playing a single card - unless declarer discards (or plays an honour which is unlikely to be a falsecard). In that sense dual-meaning signals generally don't exist because even if they intend to give partner two messages they are not successful in doing so. But as long as you have four options you transmit two bits of information. Whether that information is received is another matter.

Something else:

If you have three options (and again, assume for the sake of the argument that you are deemed to have transmitted a one-of-three information unit, either because partner actually can see if you played you highest, intermediate, or lowest spot, or because for the purpose of the regulation it doesn't matter if the information is received or not as long as it is transmitted), then those three meanings could be for example:
1) enc, disc, neutral
2) higher suit, lower suit, this suit
3) highest other suit, middle other suit, lowest other suit
4) enc, disc+even, disc+odd

I suppose 1) and 3) are not seen as dual-meaning because they are just three grades on the same scale. But what about 2) ? It is just a distinction between the three relevant suits. I don't see the logic in calling 2) a dual-meaning signal and 3) a single-meaning signal. It is just because "suit preference" is conventionally understood as a choice between suits other than the one played. But that seems arbitrary.

[bluejak]

While it may not say it I think the idea is that there are two types of signal. So high-middle-low is only one type so it does not matter what it means. Of course, that might suggest Dodds is dual meaning ...

[campboy]

I don't see the point in disallowing something you can't (or won't) define. The L&EC should either remove the prohibition or tell us what it means.

[mycroft]

Oddly enough, and not completely off-topic, I was given explanation that our three-way trick 1 signal is legal in the ACBL and not dual-message had we promised length in the suit:

a high card is "switch high"
a medium card is "encourage"
a low card is "switch low".

The point being that with a real suit, one should expect to be able to present one of those three choices (even if it's Q987, for instance, and 8 is a medium card).

I note that, except for the "specific card" issues (and we generally "used" as a shortcut "234 is low, 567 is medium, 89T is high", but obviously if you can see the 23457...) this is the example specifically disallowed as "dual meaning" in the EBU.

[semeai]

mycroft, on 2011-August-18, 14:06, said:

... [O]ur three-way trick 1 signal is legal in the ACBL and not dual-message had we promised length in the suit:

a high card is "switch high"
a medium card is "encourage"
a low card is "switch low".

... [E]xcept for the "specific card" issues ... this is the example specifically disallowed as "dual meaning" in the EBU.

Solution 1: Play suit preference in this situation instead. Then high, middle, and low still refer to the three suits you'd like to refer to, but maybe just in a different order.

Solution 2: Play modified suit preference in this situation, with the suits re-ordered so the one currently played is in the middle. This is strangely similar to the original method quoted above.

[paulg]

I have always had the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the L&EC's key test for a signalling method is "what do you do when you do not have an appropriate card to signal with".

For example, playing Dodds signals when you hold "642" in the suit and you want a switch but lack the necessary odd card. If the answer is "play very slowly" or "play high-low" then it is not acceptable. The reason that such methods are permitted as discards is because tempo is less important AND you normally have a greater choice of cards to discard.

For this reason, signalling suit preference with a middle card encouraging when you are known to hold a long suit is acceptable. But it becomes less acceptable if you specify that a middle card means only the 6 or 7.

However this is all speculation on my part. As campboy has accurately observed, prohibition without definition is hopeless.

[helene_t]

paulg, on 2011-August-18, 16:26, said:

If the answer is "play very slowly" or "play high-low" then it is not acceptable.

I am sure you don't mean that "play high-low to discourage with only even cards" is unacceptable. It is completely standard when playing parity based signals that the rank order is 3-5-7-9-8-6-4-2. In other words, you play high if you only have the wrong parity and low if you only have the right parity.