[shugart24]

I don't know how to set up a survey, so I'll just ask my question. I have taught my son odd-even discards but among the disadvantages I see are a) you may not have the right card in your hand to give a signal and b) they are so common that they are easy to read by most of the opponents. I am thinking of switching over to Lavinthal discards which have neither of those disadvantages

I am curious if people agree or disagree with my thinking. What percentage of people do you think play odd-even; what percent Lavinthal;

[P_Marlowe]

shugart24, on 2025-February-03, 08:22, said:

I don't know how to set up a survey, so I'll just ask my question. I have taught my son odd-even discards but among the disadvantages I see are a) you may not have the right card in your hand to give a signal and b) they are so common that they are easy to read by most of the opponents. I am thinking of switching over to Lavinthal discards which have neither of those disadvantages

I am curious if people agree or disagree with my thinking. What percentage of people do you think play odd-even; what percent Lavinthal;

Sometimes you dont have the right card to signal, what you want to signal.
Odd / Even is obv., High / Low depends on context, what is seen.

That opponents see your signals, is true for both variants, ..., depending
on the level of opponents you are playing, I guess it may or may not matter,
but more important than that the opponents may be able to read it: your p
should be able to read it.
With odd / even you may be forced to signal something stupid, but than again
p has a brain, and sometimes, he will understand that what you signal is garbage.

In case you wonder: i play neither, I play direct discards, but those discards have
similar issues.

[jillybean]

Echo
As Marlowe says, signaling is far from perfect,you may not have the necessary cards, partner must still think.
I switched to from STD to UDCA early. I have tried the club favorites lav and o/e and quickly discarded them.
I am now playing much more (std) suit preference and it is so good, it's the only signal I want to play.

[TMorris]

I am not sure what "easy to read" has to do with it. You disclose your discard style so whatever you play your opponents can read them. If they are not up to reading your discards it most likely doesn't matter what you play.

Apart from that play what your partners ilke to play. I doubt it matters much.

I play reverse attitude with my main partner and am very happy with them. With other partners I play standard as that is what they like. Occasionally I get irritated about throwing high cards but I doubt there is much difference.

Whatever you play you need to be able to play them in tempo, even when you don't have the right card. Otherwise partner will get UI.

[awm]

Your (a) is a real problem -- basically this is an issue with a signalling system that assigns meanings to specific cards (odd cards mean one thing, even cards another) such that you might not have the card to give the signal that you want. The alternative is to assign an ordering to the cards, such that you can always signal with your "most suitable" card (for example, in upside-down attitude you might want to encourage a suit and not have any low cards, but you can always play the lowest card you have... whereas it's not clear what is the "oddest" of a bunch of even cards). This is also what leads to complaints about odd/even players having tempo issues and using tempo sometimes to (illegally) signal -- and the reason odd/even signals are forbidden in ACBL except at the first discard.

I don't think (b) is a valid reason to choose a signalling system -- you're not trying to confuse your opponents by playing signals that are unfamiliar to them (and truly encrypted signals are illegal anyway).

Anyway I do play lavinthal in all my most frequent partnerships.

[mycroft]

I would suggest that more people play Lavinthal than O/E. Although I think that's changing. Some play revolving (Lavinthal) discards; an advantage there is that you will always be able to signal the suit you want with a low card (but you may not have one in the right suit, of course!)

Anyone that can read O/E (and will find out) can read Lavinthal.

If you play a discard system based on declarer's difficulty in reading it, either you are hiding information from declarer (illegal), or playing an encrypted signal (illegal in the ACBL), or making it difficult for partner to read it too (unhelpful).

I don't play O/E or Lavinthal (or coded 9s and 10s, for that matter), because I *do* think both are too revealing to an aware declarer, and I am willing to pass less information to partner and declarer because she's good enough to not need it to be as clearly laid out. I'm certainly happy when the opponents do (when I remember to care to find out).

I think they both work better in weaker games (and by that I mean anything short of "Top Flight Pairs" in Penticton, or the Shark Tank games in cities/clubs with >6 games a week). But that's because maybe three pairs will ask, and two will read it when they find out, and the extra information you are giving to partner is just free, not because it's better, or even "better against weaker players".

[Shugart23]

mycroft, on 2025-February-03, 11:34, said:

I would suggest that more people play Lavinthal than O/E. Although I think that's changing. Some play revolving (Lavinthal) discards; an advantage there is that you will always be able to signal the suit you want with a low card (but you may not have one in the right suit, of course!)

Anyone that can read O/E (and will find out) can read Lavinthal.

If you play a discard system based on declarer's difficulty in reading it, either you are hiding information from declarer (illegal), or playing an encrypted signal (illegal in the ACBL), or making it difficult for partner to read it too (unhelpful).

I don't play O/E or Lavinthal (or coded 9s and 10s, for that matter), because I *do* think both are too revealing to an aware declarer, and I am willing to pass less information to partner and declarer because she's good enough to not need it to be as clearly laid out. I'm certainly happy when the opponents do (when I remember to care to find out).

I think they both work better in weaker games (and by that I mean anything short of "Top Flight Pairs" in Penticton, or the Shark Tank games in cities/clubs with >6 games a week). But that's because maybe three pairs will ask, and two will read it when they find out, and the extra information you are giving to partner is just free, not because it's better, or even "better against weaker players".

Probably because I am so used to, and comfortable with o/e, that when I see opponents signal with it, it is like a bright light shining on what they are doing, so I was wondering if that is a flaw with o/e. For me, I have to take an extra second to decipher whin I play opponents that play Lavinthal
. Anyway, maybe I will figure out how to take a survey and get a sense of usage. Would odd/even, standard, and Levinthal, and none of the above) be a useful survey ?

[P_Marlowe]

Shugart23, on 2025-February-03, 11:53, said:

Probably because I am so used to, and comfortable with o/e, that when I see opponents signal with it, it is like a bright light shining on what they are doing, so I was wondering if that is a flaw with o/e. For me, I have to take an extra second to decipher whin I play opponents that play Lavinthal
. Anyway, maybe I will figure out how to take a survey and get a sense of usage. Would odd/even, standard, and Levinthal, and none of the above) be a useful survey ?

My question would be, what does standard stand for? I would assume standard is an attitude, and not a McKenny signal.

[mycroft]

Yes, "first discard is attitude" (standard or UD) for that suit. Doesn't say anything about any other suit.

[shugart24]

awm, on 2025-February-03, 10:59, said:

l -- and the reason odd/even signals are forbidden in ACBL except at the first discard.



Anyway I do play lavinthal in all my most frequent partnerships.

Thanks awm

I did not know one cannot use odd/even signals except at first discard. So, if opponent is running trump and you are out, say spades, and you have aces in both minors, you only can signal once during his run using odd/even? I don't know how often two lead directing signals are needed tbh and what kind of limitation this rule places, but I certainly did not know it or have forgotten.

So if one uses odd/even on first discard, then one switches to standard or lavinthal on subsequent discards or doesn't signal at all are the legal options? Is that right ?

I guess this ACBL rule is one reason to use lavinthal

[mycroft]

Can only use Lavinthal on first discard as well (which kind of makes sense, can't really play Lavinthal when following suit - what if you want to *encourage*?)

Other reason that the system I play with one partner on trick 1 (high, low is suit preference, middle encourage) only applies when we have guaranteed length in the suit. Way too easy to signal "switch to the high suit, but I don't really want you to, it's the middlest card I have" through tempo.

If you look at the card, you will see spaces for standard and upside down carding on partner's lead and declarer's lead; and O/E and Lavinthal on "first discard". That should be a clue for those who don't read the convention charts.

The quote:

Convention Charts, defensive rules, ALL charts said:

Encrypted Signals are never allowed when leading, following suit or discarding. Otherwise:

• Opening lead: Any method may be used on opening lead.
  
• First discard: Any method may be used on the first discard.
  
• *** Other Signals: Only high-to-low or low-to-high ordering strategies are allowed.
  Distinct meanings for middle cards (vs. highest and lowest) are allowed. Defining
  meanings for specific spots (2,4,6…), as opposed to relative high/low agreements, are
  not allowed.

In addition, a pair may be prohibited from playing any carding method when they are deemed to
be playing it in a manner that does not maintain proper tempo. A decision that prohibits a pair
from playing a particular carding method may be appealed to the tournament committee.

[mycroft]

...and yes, there have been several times in my history when the following conversation took place:

"What's your leads and carding?"
"Standard leads, Odd/Even."
"Okay, so what do you signal normally?"
"<babbles of confusion>"
"Not on the first discard? So when you're following suit?"
"Odd/Even, like we said."
"Director, please!"

Having said that, I am quite certain there were several times after that conversation that they went back to what they played at the next table. Which, as a director, I would be watching for, but many haven't. I know this because more than once that conversation happened - more than once.

[Shugart23]

mycroft, on 2025-February-04, 10:38, said:

Can only use Lavinthal on first discard as well (which kind of makes sense, can't really play Lavinthal when following suit - what if you want to *encourage*?)

Other reason that the system I play with one partner on trick 1 (high, low is suit preference, middle encourage) only applies when we have guaranteed length in the suit. Way too easy to signal "switch to the high suit, but I don't really want you to, it's the middlest card I have" through tempo.

If you look at the card, you will see spaces for standard and upside down carding on partner's lead and declarer's lead; and O/E and Lavinthal on "first discard". That should be a clue for those who don't read the convention charts.

The quote:

Encrypted Signals are never allowed when leading, following suit or discarding. Otherwise:
Opening lead: Any method may be used on opening lead.

This is interesting. So odd/even opening leads are allowable ? I thought these were disallowed. Things sure have changed since 2919 (I am coming back after a 5 year hiatus)

[jillybean]

mycroft, on 2025-February-04, 10:38, said:

Can only use Lavinthal on first discard as well (which kind of makes sense, can't really play Lavinthal when following suit - what if you want to *encourage*?)

Are you allowed to use bridge logic? When dummy comes down it is obvious that an attitude signal is not needed. Can we switch to our favorite treatment?

mycroft, on 2025-February-04, 10:45, said:

Having said that, I am quite certain there were several times after that conversation that they went back to what they played at the next table. Which, as a director, I would be watching for, but many haven't. I know this because more than once that conversation happened - more than once.

Turn your cell phones off, please.

[jdiana]

Shugart23, on 2025-February-05, 05:47, said:

Encrypted Signals are never allowed when leading, following suit or discarding. Otherwise:
Opening lead: Any method may be used on opening lead.

This is interesting. So odd/even opening leads are allowable ? I thought these were disallowed. Things sure have changed since 2919 (I am coming back after a 5 year hiatus)

What are odd/even opening leads?

[Shugart23]

Lead an odd card suggesting a return in this suit. Lead a high even card suggesting lead back the higher ranking suit. Lead a is even card suggesting a return if the lower ranking suit. Just like an odd:even discard signal, but it’s the opening lead

[mycroft]

The old rules (since forever, well, okay, at least 1995):

Quote

Dual-message carding strategies are not approved except on each defender’s first discard. Except for the first discard only right-side-up or upside-down card ordering strategies are approved. Encrypted signals are not approved. In addition, a pair may be prohibited from playing any method (such as suit preference systems at trick one), when they are deemed to be playing it in a manner which is not compatible with the maintenance of proper tempo (much like dual message signals). This decision may be appealed to the tournament committee.

So, effectively the same as now, except written in GCCese, which made it harder to have a consistent interpretation in Peoria and in Penticton.

I could believe that someone read "carding strategies" to include leads (see prev. para.) but I had never heard that, and I'm pretty certain that was never the intent. That doesn't mean it wasn't ruled that way somewhere.

Jilly: you can absolutely decide that "it's obvious" that attitude isn't relevant in a particular situation and go to your second (or lower) priority for signals, or even "no signal". If suit-preference, it would even be Lavinthal-esque, because there' clearly no need for "I like this suit" (as stipulated, attitude is obvious). But if (as I've seen some people play, thinking it's "odd-even discards"), "Odd means higher suit, even means lower suit" for your first discard, you can't use the same ordering for SP when following suit. Again, it boils down to how often you won't have a card of the right parity (there's always a "higher" card and a "lower" card if you have a choice (even if it's 32), but there's no "evener" card with, say, 53(*). The reason for the "first discard" exception is that you have several suits to choose from, and the chance of not having a card that can be discarded and also sends the right message is much lower.)

(*) Yes, I know, they all tell me that "not really, the ordering is 35798642, and there's always a "more odd" card." Yeah, but in practise, players can play the "high 3" a lot faster than they play the "even 7", and their partners "get it".

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2025-February-05, 13:40, said:

The old rules (since forever, well, okay, at least 1995):

So, effectively the same as now, except written in GCCese, which made it harder to have a consistent interpretation in Peoria and in Penticton.

I could believe that someone read "carding strategies" to include leads (see prev. para.) but I had never heard that, and I'm pretty certain that was never the intent. That doesn't mean it wasn't ruled that way somewhere.

Jilly: you can absolutely decide that "it's obvious" that attitude isn't relevant in a particular situation and go to your second (or lower) priority for signals, or even "no signal". If suit-preference, it would even be Lavinthal-esque, because there' clearly no need for "I like this suit" (as stipulated, attitude is obvious). But if (as I've seen some people play, thinking it's "odd-even discards"), "Odd means higher suit, even means lower suit" for your first discard, you can't use the same ordering for SP when following suit. Again, it boils down to how often you won't have a card of the right parity (there's always a "higher" card and a "lower" card if you have a choice (even if it's 32), but there's no "evener" card with, say, 53(*). The reason for the "first discard" exception is that you have several suits to choose from, and the chance of not having a card that can be discarded and also sends the right message is much lower.)

(*) Yes, I know, they all tell me that "not really, the ordering is 35798642, and there's always a "more odd" card." Yeah, but in practise, players can play the "high 3" a lot faster than they play the "even 7", and their partners "get it".

As DB has the courage to admit, it's not a very good game.
But making regulations that assume people will cheat in a given situation does not seem to me a great idea either.
Around here almost everyone plays odd-even and I rarely had the sensation that the 7 was even, FWIW.
In any case I think monitored tempo in an electronic play interface would be a better deterrence than arbitrary forbiddance of agreements.

[mycroft]

We don't assume people will cheat.

We look at carding systems that are prone to difficulty in finding an appropriate card, and realize that people will, without thinking about it, play "easy" 7s when they're correct and "hard" 7s when they're "least wrong". And it can be read by anyone with practise, and pattern-matching machines are very good at "without thinking" pattern matching.

Same as the [other country]/WeaSeL defence to a weak NT:

• an immediate double is the nuts.
  
• an immediate pass does not encourage a balance.
  
• an immediate bid can safely be raised, maybe even to game.
  
• a double after a few seconds, or a query about the Alert, or a runback of the Announcement, is happy to be pulled.
  
• an eventual pass can support a balance ("experienced" players of this "convention" can convey HCP to within a point or two using the "2 HCP/second" trick).
  
• an eventual bid needs real stuff to compete.

It's not that they mean to pass the information; it's just what happens when they *know* what to do as opposed to when they *have to think*.

I'm not accusing any of the players back East of doing this deliberately, or even understanding what they were doing; but when weak NTs went from being Alerted to Announced (so they couldn't ask-and-think), our average score went up almost a board a session overnight.

Same as I'm not accusing any of the O/E signallers of doing this deliberately or even consciously, but I bet they read a good fraction of their "wrong signals" ("oh, well, I know he discouraged, but I don't have a good switch." "I know he encouraged, but continuing would set up tricks on the dummy after partner takes the King" (he doesn't have). Sure, a good declarer can, too (same as we got really good at reading LHO's action after our Alerted 12-14 NT, and same as I have got really good at placing cards after I open 2♦ and listen to who asks, and...), but I bet it still helps their side more (again, as used to with the weak NT, and does now with the weak 2♦).

And the ACBL has seen this and decided it's just easier to regulate it out of existence except in the one case where players will almost never have "no right card" than to deal with the UI calls that come from allowing it. (* note: very much pattern-matching here, I do not know the minds of the (30-years-ago) C&CC).