[gnasher]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-13, 13:57, said:

is DODDS an acronym? What's it stand for?

I don't think you can infer much from the capitalisation. It's increasingly (and annoyingly) common to see people write "ACOL", but that's not an acronym either.

I've always assumed that they were named after Leslie Dodds, who also invented the CAB bidding system, but that's just a guess.

[mgoetze]

jdgalt, on 2012-May-11, 11:38, said:

But I hope ultimately, technology will rid us of the problem entirely by making it impossible for a player to know when his partner has paused (as is already true when using screens).

You've never played with screens, have you?

[Cthulhu D]

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-14, 00:58, said:

Noone has ever given me MrC's third line in their description either.

I'm not particularly confident that it is particularly standardized, but Googling turns up half a dozen subtly different descriptions most of which mention that you have a neutral card.

[bluejak]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-13, 18:56, said:

It's actually Dodds, in true bridge style it's some dude's name. Anyway, it works like this:

gnasher, on 2012-May-14, 02:04, said:

I don't think you can infer much from the capitalisation. It's increasingly (and annoyingly) common to see people write "ACOL", but that's not an acronym either.

I've always assumed that they were named after Leslie Dodds, who also invented the CAB bidding system, but that's just a guess.

Rightly or wrongly, I have always understood it is not anything to do with Leslie Dodds, being named some 35+ years after he left the scene, but that Discarding Odds is correct. However, I cannot work out whether that means it should be in capitals or not, unlike Acol which being a proper name should be written Acol without any question.

I actually wrote "should be capitalised" but then realised that 'Dodds Is The Correct Spelling' is capitalised!

[gnasher]

In that case it should be "D'Odds". Or, when used as a signalling method, "S'Odds".

[Zelandakh]

It seems that Bridgeguys have updated their database since I last looked for Dodds, admittedly several years back now. They now have this entry:-

Quote

Dodds Discards
This is a system similar to Italian Discards. Even cards are encouraging while odd discards are discouraging (Discouraging Odds) and ask for the suit of the same color. Source: Contract Bridge Play: The Language of Defense, authored by Mr. David N. King, 2004, Publisher: Bear Publications Worcester, ISBN: 0953137295 and also: http://www.omahabrid...ubs/L_S_D2.pdf.

If anyone has a copy of the named publication, or indeed if anyone knows the author, perhaps they can state once and for all what the correct origin is.

[TimG]

barmar, on 2012-May-11, 13:21, said:

On the other hand, a common question from declarer to denders is "Please describe your leads, signals, and discards." Players aren't all consistent about this,

I don't think I have ever heard "leads, signals, and discards" but I have often heard "leads and carding".

[jdgalt]

I always just ask, "Do you do any special carding?" It would be nice if there were always time to look at opponents' convention card before playing a hand.

(A suggestion for BBO's programming staff: When I've finished playing a round and am waiting to go to the next table, how about letting me view my upcoming opponents' CC?)

[FrancesHinden]

bluejak, on 2012-May-11, 16:49, said:

I cannot believe anyone plays a second discard as Roman [or Lavinthal or Revolving or whatever]. No doubt I am about to be proved wrong ...

OK....
Typical position:
I have a weak hand with one long suit and (say) Qxx and 10xx in the other two non-trump suits. Partner has our side's high cards, so I'm doing as much useful signalling as I can. Declarer is running trumps.

- first discard: discouraging or encouraging as appropriate in my long suit
- second discard: suit preference between the other two suits, to tell him where I have something compared to nothing.

There are a number of similar positions, but generally these are when I'm discarding from a long suit and having given primary attitude (or count) in that suit as my first discard, I'm now giving suit pref between the other two.

[aguahombre]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-20, 10:03, said:

OK....
Typical position:
I have a weak hand with one long suit and (say) Qxx and 10xx in the other two non-trump suits. Partner has our side's high cards, so I'm doing as much useful signalling as I can. Declarer is running trumps.

- first discard: discouraging or encouraging as appropriate in my long suit
- second discard: suit preference between the other two suits, to tell him where I have something compared to nothing.

There are a number of similar positions, but generally these are when I'm discarding from a long suit and having given primary attitude (or count) in that suit as my first discard, I'm now giving suit pref between the other two.

Isn't this just common sense? Certainly disclosable if asked by declarer, but I doubt it is a "convention chart" item.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-May-20, 10:18, said:

Isn't this just common sense? Certainly disclosable if asked by declarer, but I doubt it is a "convention chart" item.

Quote

ACBL GCC: 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.

So it is a "convention chart" item. While it's perfectly permissible to show suit preference with your second discard, it is not permissible to use a dual-message (Roman, Lavinthal, Revolving, whatever) method to do so.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-20, 11:29, said:

So it is a "convention chart" item. While it's perfectly permissible to show suit preference with your second discard, it is not permissible to use a dual-message (Roman, Lavinthal, Revolving, whatever) method to do so.

When your fist discard says one thing, and your subsequent discard(s) say something else, that is not a dual message method. It is two messages. What Frances described really had nothing to do with Lavinthal, Revolving, Roman, or whatever. The first discard only contained one message. A second/third discard in the same suit ( e.g., high-low showing a card in the higher remaining suit) is one (different) message.

[nige1]

Law-makers' objection to odd-even signals is that they are effective but they are played by few players -- in particular: by few clients of professionals

Obviously, the ban has nothing to do with ethics or slow signals. Ethical problems are the same as normal. In either case, you must think what is the correct card to play and whether you can afford to play it.

• Playing hi-lo signals, if all partner's cards are hi or low, his signal may not be clear until he plays a second card of higher or lower rank. One of Victor Mollo's characters got round this witth ♣T98 by dropping the eight on the floor and while scrabbling for it, crying "low club coming up, partner".
• Playing odd-even signals, with no cards of appropriate parity, partner peters with cards of the wrong-parity. Again his signal may be unclear until he plays a second card.

• Sometimes playing hi-lo signals, if you can see lots of high (or low cards), then partner's first card is unambiguous,
• Similarly, playing odd-even sighals, if you can see lots of odd (or even cards), then partner's first card may be unambiguous.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2012-May-20, 12:18, said:

Law-makers' objection to odd-even signals is that they are effective but they are played by few players -- in particular: by few clients of professionals

Eh?

[blackshoe]

blackshoe, on 2012-May-20, 11:29, said:

So it is a "convention chart" item. While it's perfectly permissible to show suit preference with your second discard, it is not permissible to use a dual-message (Roman, Lavinthal, Revolving, whatever) method to do so.

aguahombre, on 2012-May-20, 11:43, said:

When your fist discard says one thing, and your subsequent discard(s) say something else, that is not a dual message method. It is two messages. What Frances described really had nothing to do with Lavinthal, Revolving, Roman, or whatever. The first discard only contained one message. A second/third discard in the same suit ( e.g., high-low showing a card in the higher remaining suit) is one (different) message.

Read what I said. If your second discard sends only one message, that's fine. If it sends two, it is a dual-message method, and is illegal in the ACBL.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-20, 13:49, said:

Eh?

Naturally enough, regulators aim to favour local players and handicap strangers and foreigners. Thus I'm told that the ACBL

• Allows popular local conventions e.g. Flannery, Short club, etc but
• Effectively bans conventions popular abroad e.g. Forcing pass, Multi,

For most competitions, I believe that the EBU defined a strong club as 16+ HCP or "extended rule of 25". This seems designed to outlaw the MOSCITO system, popular in Australia.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2012-May-20, 14:07, said:

Naturally enough, regulators aim to favour local players

This is, as you say, natural, and is a good thing. Yet your comment seemed negative.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2012-May-20, 14:57, said:

This is, as you say, natural, and is a good thing. Yet your comment seemed negative.

A matter of opinion. IMO: Good for some locals. Bad for innovators. Bad for foreigners. Bad for a level playing-field. Bad for global competition. Bad for the game.

[Cthulhu D]

nige1, on 2012-May-20, 15:31, said:

A matter of opinion. IMO: Good for some locals. Bad for innovators. Bad for foreigners. Bad for a level playing-field. Bad for global competition. Bad for the game.

A better word than local would be incumbent.

[bluejak]

FrancesHinden, on 2012-May-20, 10:03, said:

OK....
Typical position:
I have a weak hand with one long suit and (say) Qxx and 10xx in the other two non-trump suits. Partner has our side's high cards, so I'm doing as much useful signalling as I can. Declarer is running trumps.

- first discard: discouraging or encouraging as appropriate in my long suit
- second discard: suit preference between the other two suits, to tell him where I have something compared to nothing.

There are a number of similar positions, but generally these are when I'm discarding from a long suit and having given primary attitude (or count) in that suit as my first discard, I'm now giving suit pref between the other two.

Sorry, I worded it badly: of course, I play that myself. Maybe I should just not have included the general without thought. Ok, how about no-one plays the second discard as Roman?

nige1, on 2012-May-20, 12:18, said:

Law-makers' objection to odd-even signals is that they are effective but they are played by few players -- in particular: by few clients of professionals

The regulation-makers objections, as clearly stated, is that Odd-even signals lead to ethical problems and are therefore banned.

Sure, you can say anything you like, but what you say is known to be not true in this instance.