[Shugart23]

Leading against NT on the first trick, can I play a high even Heart suggesting I want a Spade Lead ( the higher ranking touching suit), a low even Heart suggesting I want a Diamond lead ( the lower ranking touching suit) and any odd card suggesting this is a suit I want to attack ? I am looking at the following sentence that is on the Convention Card, and it would seem this sentence will allow it as long as my partner is deemed to be playing compatible with proper tempo. If not, why is the sentence included on the chart ?

"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 "

Moreover, against suit contracts, on first lead, are these Roman leads allowed for the same reason ..eg. as long as tempo is maintained on trick one ( by partner, presumably)

[paulg]

I presume you are discussing signals on partner's lead rather than signalling with your actual lead. It also helps if you specify the jurisdiction, but I assume it is the ACBL.

A number of national bridge organisations (NBOs) prohibit the method of signalling you have described, especially for signals. The reason for this is that people can not always play in the same tempo when they do not have a card that shows the signal you want to give: they play quickly when they have the right card and slowly when they don't.

For example, your partner leads a heart and you hold ♥753. Which card do you play?

Most of these NBOs who prohibit these methods when following suit permit these methods for discards. I believe the reason for this is that you more suits to choose from and that the first discard is often slow, so there is less unauthorised information given.

[Shugart23]

paulg, on 2022-February-08, 08:15, said:

I presume you are discussing signals on partner's lead rather than signalling with your actual lead. It also helps if you specify the jurisdiction, but I assume it is the ACBL.

A number of national bridge organisations (NBOs) prohibit the method of signalling you have described, especially for signals. The reason for this is that people can not always play in the same tempo when they do not have a card that shows the signal you want to give: they play quickly when they have the right card and slowly when they don't.

For example, your partner leads a heart and you hold ♥753. Which card do you play?

Most of these NBOs who prohibit these methods when following suit permit these methods for discards. I believe the reason for this is that you more suits to choose from and that the first discard is often slow, so there is less unauthorised information given.

Thanks for the reply but no, I am not talking about partners response to my lead. I am talking about my opening lead...I know that I can lead against a NT contract with an attitude lead..eg. a high card suggesting a suit I don't want to attack and a low card suggesting a suit I do want to attack. Why not instead, a lead that suggests I want a Spade return, I want a Heart return, I want a Diamond return, or I want a Club return? ( not even a dual signal) Yes- ACBL

[pran]

Shugart23, on 2022-February-08, 08:49, said:

Thanks for the reply but no, I am not talking about partners response to my lead. I am talking about my opening lead...I know that I can lead against a NT contract with an attitude lead..eg. a high card suggesting a suit I don't want to attack and a low card suggesting a suit I do want to attack. Why not instead, a lead that suggests I want a Spade return, I want a Heart return, I want a Diamond return, or I want a Club return? ( not even a dual signal) Yes- ACBL

This method for your opening lead should be OK provided that you always make your opening lead in the exact same tempo!

I would not trust any player capable of doing that, so as a Director I would assume that the time spent on selecting the opening lead could imply a secret message to warn partner whether the lead agreement is on or off.

[Shugart23]

pran, on 2022-February-08, 10:45, said:

This method for your opening lead should be OK provided that you always make your opening lead in the exact same tempo!

I would not trust any player capable of doing that, so as a Director I would assume that the time spent on selecting the opening lead could imply a secret signal to warn partner whether the lead agreement is on or off.

I have actually just asked ACBL...But I disagree. In my opinion an experienced player that uses this method isn't going to take any more time than someone else deciding what to do for the opening lead against a NT contract. Inadvertently taking too much time in trying to decide what card to play when following suit breaks tempo and can give UA, But selecting the opening lead ? I don's see it...

actually, choosing the opening lead vs 3NT is usually easier to decide (imho) than deciding the opening lead vs a suit contract.

[pran]

Shugart23, on 2022-February-08, 10:49, said:

I have actually just asked ACBL...But I disagree. In my opinion an experienced player that uses this method isn't going to take any more time than someone else deciding what to do for the opening lead against a NT contract. Inadvertently taking too much time in trying to decide what card to play when following suit breaks tempo and can give UA, But selecting the opening lead ? I don's see it...

How can you tell whether a variation in tempo is inadvertent or intentional?

How will you select your lead if you have no desirable card available? Add half a second before leading?

[paulg]

I think that the opening lead is similar to the first discard: it is a place where time is taken and there would not be a lot of unauthorised information if it was slow. Indeed I think most opening leads would be slow playing this style, of which I don't think there is much merit.

Most of us stick to the philosophy of leading the suit where we hope to win or develop tricks. Leading a poor suit in the hope that partner will switch seems to lose a tempo.

I can see that it would have some appeal against one no trump, where the expert style has become quite negative on the lead. For higher contracts its attraction wanes.

[pescetom]

paulg, on 2022-February-08, 12:06, said:

I can see that it would have some appeal against one no trump, where the expert style has become quite negative on the lead. For higher contracts its attraction wanes.

I agree. I would also add that Roman Carding does not assign these meanings to leads, in Rome or Italy at least.
As for legality, NBOs are allowed to regulate such things, although I see no valid reason to do so if the agreement is correctly disclosed (nor do I see why discards when unable to follow suit are any different, unless the reasoning is unconfessable).

[Shugart23]

pran, on 2022-February-08, 10:55, said:

How can you tell whether a variation in tempo is inadvertent or intentional?

How will you select your lead if you have no desirable card available? Add half a second before leading?

whether it is inadvertent or intentional, UA is being passed

I usually take several seconds - 5-10 maybe, reviewing the bidding and thinking about the best opening lead against any declarer. Even sometimes in the middle of a hand I'll take a few seconds to calculate things in my head and pause before I lead. Doesn't everybody ?

[mycroft]

From the Convention Charts (ACBL, all charts have the same carding regulation currently):

Quote

Opening lead: Any method may be used on opening lead.

So, whatever you want, as long as your partner can explain it relatively easily.
Note also:

Quote

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.

I agree that this would be a situation where it would be hard to break tempo - unless most of your opening leads are shotgun (or pass-pass-face-down-lead or the like). That can be solved by, you know, not shotgunning the opening lead.

[blackshoe]

What does "exact same tempo" mean? To what precision?

[pescetom]

blackshoe, on 2022-February-09, 14:49, said:

What does "exact same tempo" mean? To what precision?

I don't have an answer to that.
But I could confidently propose parameters to allow an electronic system to hide reasonable variations in tempo.
which is one reason why I think that any credible future for bridge as a competitive sport has nothing to do with cards.

[Shugart23]

paulg, on 2022-February-08, 12:06, said:

I think that the opening lead is similar to the first discard: it is a place where time is taken and there would not be a lot of unauthorised information if it was slow. Indeed I think most opening leads would be slow playing this style, of which I don't think there is much merit.

Most of us stick to the philosophy of leading the suit where we hope to win or develop tricks. Leading a poor suit in the hope that partner will switch seems to lose a tempo.

I can see that it would have some appeal against one no trump, where the expert style has become quite negative on the lead. For higher contracts its attraction wanes.

This method adheres to the idea of trying to attack the suit which you think will develop the most tricks. Probably 90 percent (a guess) we would go aftercare our best defensive suit. I was not suggesting one should try ad lead poor suits.

[smerriman]

Shugart23, on 2022-February-09, 20:46, said:

This method adheres to the idea of trying to attack the suit which you think will develop the most tricks. Probably 90 percent (a guess) we would go aftercare our best defensive suit. I was not suggesting one should try ad lead poor suits.

If 90% of the time you want to attack the suit you led, then it doesn't seem to serve much purpose to have an odd pip represent this. If you *do* lead an even card, you're probably still wanting partner to continue attacking that suit, since the chances that you simply didn't have an odd pip probably outweigh the chances you didn't want the suit returned.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2022-February-09, 14:49, said:

What does "exact same tempo" mean? To what precision?

Without any variation that could possibly convey information of any kind to partner.

[axman]

blackshoe, on 2022-February-09, 14:49, said:

What does "exact same tempo" mean? To what precision?

Caesar's wife must be beyond reproach.

Such a standard when achieved in practice has no need of questioning, yet... in terms of law is a dubious standard when applied to human foibles... as there is some lesser specification that is good enough which can be achieved with sensible effort. I would think that if one views the opponents through glasses that are slightly out of focus the human condition can be blurred sufficiently (slightly) that good enough mannerisms and perfect mannerisms become indistinguishable enough that litigation be ignored with good feeling... while bad enough mannerisms still be recognized and litigated with good feeling...Even though such a standard would be slightly different from person to person.

As to the blurring by out of focus glasses 'good enough for government work' does not come to mind because of the connotation of the expectation of the lack of effort to get it right. In bridge it takes effort to (at least) try to get it right.

[Shugart23]

smerriman, on 2022-February-09, 21:38, said:

If 90% of the time you want to attack the suit you led, then it doesn't seem to serve much purpose to have an odd pip represent this. If you *do* lead an even card, you're probably still wanting partner to continue attacking that suit, since the chances that you simply didn't have an odd pip probably outweigh the chances you didn't want the suit returned.

You are right, I must have been fogged out. My current method is to lead a low card (say 90% of the time) as an attack. Not necessarily 4th down and could be odd or even. Mu current method is to lead a high card (say 10% of the time) to convey that this is not a suit I want to attack as far as my hand is concerned. So, the purpose of this string was to query whether the high card can be a suit preference signal, legally, only on the opening lead. Apparently, the answer appears to be yes, as long as I am consistent with taking my 5-10 seconds before I put my cared face down

[pescetom]

pran, on 2022-February-10, 02:44, said:

Without any variation that could possibly convey information of any kind to partner.

Which is a pretty high bar.
I'm rather good at counting seconds (a skill gained in other sports) and I imagine my more devious opponents are too.

[pran]

pran, on 2022-February-10, 02:44, said:

Without any variation that could possibly convey information of any kind to partner.

pescetom, on 2022-February-10, 14:04, said:

Which is a pretty high bar.
I'm rather good at counting seconds (a skill gained in other sports) and I imagine my more devious opponents are too.

That is a major reason why an opening lead convention like this will yell for cheating by passing UI to make it clear whether the convention is on or off.

[Shugart23]

pran, on 2022-February-10, 14:50, said:

That is a major reason why an opening lead convention like this will yell for cheating by passing UI to make it clear whether the convention is on or off.

It doesn't really take a lot of thought that one is going to struggle and thereby giving UI. Just make a point of taking 5 seconds every time and put your card face down. It's not remotely comparable to the lead coming to you and you are in second seat, and you hesitate, letting the entire table know you have the King. The rule says can't do it if there is a break in tempo, so just be consistent with your timing. I will see what ACBL has to say and come back to the thread