gombo121

So, is it not ok because of possible confusion due to the bids changing meanings or plainly because it is regarded "not fair" to let one player declare everything? In the former case, it seems, my first example should be illegal, while in the latter case the illegal one is the second example.

Law 40B(2a) states: Though I failed to pinpoint the exact source for the general requirement referenced here, it is common knowledge that both players in a pair have to use the same system. But I've started to wonder why law-givers introduced it and what was their intent and, consequeently, what does it actually means - where is a watershed between style and method. As an example: 1) Suppose, partners could not agree on the style of preempts, one preferring solid preeempts and the other - wild ones. In the end they decided that each would use his own preference and partner would bid accordingly (properly disclosing the style when asked, of course). Is it legal? 2) Suppose, a bidding system has 1m-3NT defined as "to play" and "1m-3s" defined as a puppet to 3NT, which may be passed out. The partnership is supposed to use one route or another according to their judgement. But it happens that one of the partners is much better declarer than the other, so they judge it advantageous that he would be declaring all their 3NT contracts. Is it legal as a discussed agreement? Is it legal if it is implicit? The questions above are not meant as "can you get away with that?" - you probably can, - but as whether such consctructs are meant to be banned or allowed.

While I agree that the trick played by SB is rather low, I am also inclined to share his sentiment that the question about possible meaning of 5h was completely out of line.

Everybody in the topic keep talking about "methods" and "defenses". Anybody care to provide definitions for the terms? If pair A plays strong club system, pair B uses CRASH after opponent's 1c opening, and pair A have special understandings for doubles/cuebids for the case of CRASH-style two-suited interventions - which one is a method and which is a defense?

In this case you are simply failing full disclosure. Your decision is related and is traceable to essential part of the deal and it may be possible for your partner to figure out the key information, eg., he happen to hold all odd spades (of course, if you're explaining the algorithm to opps, its OK, but it is not a mixed strategy any more). To be truly (pseudo)random the entropy source have to be unrelated to the deal and I believe that human is incapable of producing one without any external aids, so systemic mixed strategies are doomed. On the other hand, "may be light in the third seat" essentially is a mixed strategy and nobody seems to be complaining.

Good point, but I've never seen that in practice. :( I doubt players are aware about it.

[hv=pc=n&s=sqj984haj3dkq7c72&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=p3c4d(diamonds+major%3B%20explained%20as%20diamonds%20one-suiter)p4h(meant%20as%20natural%2C%20taken%20as%20pass-or-correct)p4sppp]133|200[/hv] expert-level IMP pairs, no screens. South asked about 4♦ bid and got explanation that it is strong and natural. The explanation was incorrect - the actual agreement was that it was a two-suiter, diamonds and unknown major. South passed. West bid 4♥ meaning it as natural suggestion of contract (he held six to KQ), but East obviously interpreted it as pass-or-correct and bid his major. West, holding three spades and one diamond, passed. Before the opening lead East corrected the explanation. Contract went down three and South called TD claiming that with correct explanations he would double both 4♦ and 4♠. He also claimed that he did not think that 4♠ was natural (according to local regulations no bids above 3NT are alerted without screens) and did not ask because of fear of producing UI, since he did not want to double cue-bid. TD ruled 4♠* -3 Do you agree? P.S.: There is no allegation UI in the deal.

May be in this case the contract should not make after all, OLOOT or not? TD is responsible for equity; does 7NT lacking an ace and with only 12 tricks making feels like an equity to you? I'd say this case is a very strong argument that leading spade should be allowed when declarer chose "penalty card" option.

May be I do. But in my reading of the Law it is definitely AI that if I lead a spade partner will play the penalty card ace and we take the trick, the latter being simple consequence of the former. I just cannot imagine how information that ace is certain to win the trick in NT contract can be deemed unauthorized. What is meant under "other information", which is UI, in my understanding, are things related to partnership agreements about the leads or point counting or other indirect conclusions. Like "we lead ace from ace-king, so I'm safe leading queen from Qx" (not in 7NT, obviously), or "he denied 3 control points during bidding, so he does not hold a king". No, I'm not a pedant. This is equivalent to prohibition in my book.

Yes, I think I would. Generally speaking, a priori there was a 25% chance for setting of the contract. Due to the OLOOT declarer have got chance to make it with 100% certainty by prohibiting spade lead; this is his compensation for the infraction, in full. If he blew it, tough luck (though I can't imagine anyone NOT prohibiting spade lead under the circumstances ;) ). :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: My understanding of the relevant rules is that the set of options for declarer after OLOOT is so large and powerful exactly because it is supposed to compensate for UI obtained by defenders. Consider this: why the rules does not say "the card is UI, your partner can't use it, specifically, he can't choose any action suggested by seeing it if you have any LA, now, take back this card and go on playing"? Won't that be enough to correct the infraction? Defenders are under severe restrictions and declarer have some information about them for free. Why so many options then? I believe that this is because it is recognized that policing UI-LA tangles is difficult and the infraction is quite common. So instead declarer is offered a handicap of his chosing to compensate for the UI of the opposing side. But it is instead, not in addition.

I believe that placement of Q of clubs would be UI if declarer have chosen any other option when deciding what to do with LOOT. The penalty card makes AI for partner, as of LC minutes, and this is just fair counterbalance for rather harsh requirement to play this card at the first opportunity.

Is it making any sense at all?! The defender on lead knows that his partner must play something at every legal opportunity, so if his not allowed to know what the penalty card is, he is no different knowing or not knowing about the penalty card at all. Besides, this is applying two penalties at once - not only the penalty card remains on the table (with requirement to be played at first opportunity, which is a HUGE advantage for declarer), you also effectively prohibited lead to this suit, because there is always some LA for the lead. And, BTW, prohibiting lead to the suit is completely separate option in the choice offered to declarer and it leaves no penalty card. With such interpretation the penalty card become a killer option.

I strongly disagree. Ability to generate the same set again is a great asset in many scenarios (starting from complaints about skewed distributions). The operator should really have a little bit of a clue.

This anecdote is presented in the Sabine Auken's book as something happened to her (excluding places and dates, probably).

I cannot make my mind about final decision, but claim about 5♠ response on 4NT Blackwood is reasonable - North almost certainly does not know about 10th diamond so it can be counted as Q. Also, if this is supposedly cue-bidding auction, why wouldn't South bid 4♥? So, I'm inclined to believe South's story but still don't know whether pass is LA for me.

Is that really question of guts? The tournament is over (as far as I understand), correction period have expired. I'll bet that total cancellations of the results would upset much more people than the information that it was a rerun. There is a big chance that nobody among participants recognized the deals and everybody ha a great time. And if somebody did and took advantage... oh well, lucky bastards. Apologies are certainly in order but if nothing serious was at stake, like big money or BB tiket (I'm unfamiliar with the event), I personally would vote to let the results stand.

In bridge there would be no issue if the rules required a full set of agreements (which they do not) or, which is much more practical, if they would require opening side to provide unconditional agreement for its first bid (which they also do not at present, but about which apparently there is an implicit agreement between TDs).

Yes, your suggestion would eliminate the loop nicely, but you misunderstood my purpose. I'm not interested in playing conditional agreements and to amend them to fit regulation. I want to understand the regulations better. Can you please expand on why do you think that regulations make it clear that the opening side have to "declare" first? - which regulations are you referreing?

Fair enough. But there is a good chance that my partner would not need to get anything right - he may have too weak hand and pass in any case or strong enough to bid game in any case. And then there is chance that it would be your pair that would need to guess right meaning of your double - and then the same argument about L40 would apply to you.

We are all (or almost all) TDs here and we all would generally like to rule in your favor. The point is, on what ground? You can't apply failure of full disclosure because full disclosure is in place. It's agreements that are deficient, what we have to ban such an agreement?

I believe you are not allowed to write in any additional defense for natural methods, are you? Only for HUM and brown stickers and this is not the case.

No, obviously, you don't - you have none for the situation at hand. And since we are talking before the start of the round we also have "an agreement for all possible situations" in exactly the same sense as you. Whatever opponents can through at us, we know how we should play provided their meaning is unconditional. We can even take into account some weird "value showing" doubles by treating them as penalty (for example). But this is conditional - your agreemens are conditional on meaning of opponent's bids. Not on the auction - on the meaning of the auction. The only difference is that your defence is conditional on the meaning of bids that would have been done at the moment you are going to bid, and mine is conditional on the meaning of the bids that could be done later. It is significant, but it seems that there is no law against that. Switching devil's advocate mode off - I fully sympathize :) I think that there should be some kind of law that states that opening bids cannot be varied depending on opponents methods or who the opponents are and in general meaning of any bid cannot be varied depending on meaning of possible later bids by opposing side. I'm trying to find out is this kind of regulations enacted anywhere at present.

Sorry, we are not in the mood. Why don't you and your partner now discuss and decide what kind of defence you play against our agreements instead? I see you have not discussed this case either. And then we will act accordingly to your choice. (And this gets us to my original question - which regulations says that it is opening side that should produce unconditional agreement?)

(still playing devil's advocate) No agreement (undiscussed). Yes, kinda foolish on our part but there is nothing we can do about that at the moment.

As I understand, he is not deep in thought, he picks his cards with everybody else. Allegedly, because he imagines that his parntner have passed, so auction is over. So partner of the dealer sees that his RHO removes cards indicating passing and so does he and then doubler. Nobody acting illogically.