awm Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 I think a direct double of a preempt is a situation where you really must have an agreement about meaning. So if you make a double that's intended as penalty, you should really alert it as penalty. If you had filled out a card, something would be filled out there. It's not a "no agreement" double. No, again you are one of the people that think that a player making a bid without an agreement should say what he has to the opponents and that doesn't exist. Not exactly. My point is that there are certain bids about which it is not legal to have no agreement. If you make one of these bids, then you must indicate what your agreement is. If you have not actually discussed with partner, then you must indicate what you think your agreement should be based on general principles, or how you expect partner to take your bid. Of course, this only applies in very simple auctions where any reasonable convention card would indicate an agreement (and the laws do normally require a filled out convention card), or where it's basically impossible to play bridge if you have no idea what's going on. Examples include leads and carding, opening bids, and doubles of opponents openings. If this wasn't the case, you could go into a major tournament with an expert partner. Suppose you have many partners in common, but you specifically make sure not to discuss anything before the event. Now you don't alert any bids, respond to all questions with "no agreement" but yet somehow you are miraculously always on the same page. Isn't this a failure to disclose methods? Doesn't it give you a huge advantage over the field? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 If this wasn't the case, you could go into a major tournament with an expert partner. Suppose you have many partners in common, but you specifically make sure not to discuss anything before the event. Now you don't alert any bids, respond to all questions with "no agreement" but yet somehow you are miraculously always on the same page. Isn't this a failure to disclose methods? Doesn't it give you a huge advantage over the field? Comment 1: Focusing on the practical... Issues like this one crop up when one member of a partnership is floating arround out in left field and the remainder of the table is clueless about what's going. A player who believes that a penalty double is "standard" after a weak 2 bid won't have a clue about appropriate alert proceedures. Accordingly, regulations which force these types of bids to be accompanied by an alert aren't going to do anything to decrease the number of infractions. Comment 2: Focusing on theory... Alert regulations require that players explain their agreements. In this case, there was clearly no agreement. (South would never bid 4♠ opposite a partner who was willing to penalty double 2♥) You're welcome to make assumptions and even assertions that players must have agreement about common sequences, but it doesn't make it so. You are assuming a level of competence for the players that simply isn't justified. (Your anaolgy regaridng the two experts falls apart based on this fact alone). I find it incredible to assert that players "must" have an agreement when all the facts indicate that they don't... I suspect that any legal structure founded on convenient assumptions regarding the way the world should be will prove problematic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benlessard Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 South would never bid 4♠ opposite a partner who was willing to penalty double 2♥ Every reasonable player plays the double as takeout and south took the double as takeout and bid accordingly i have to strongly disagree with both of you. South hand is [hv=v=n&s=skj8762hdk3cak975]133|100|Scoring: IMP[/hv] Penalty X even at low level tend to show points not 6 or 7 trumps . So 4s is reasonnable and should show slam aspiration and should probably be forcing. responding 4s with south hand on a TO double is one of the the worst underbid i have ever seen and ive seen plenty. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigi_BC84 Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 I suspect that any legal structure founded on convenient assumptions regarding the way the world should be will prove problematic."Common Law", anyone? Certainly does exist and is taken for granted by legal systems (it might make those systems problematic in areas where common law applies, but you made it sound to me like the concept is totally out of the question). If this applies to Bridge (which is a closed system with already existing fairly precise rules) is a different matter. EDIT: On second reading I'm not sure if my "common law" anology holds at all. Maybe it holds to the degree that one might assume a common law which says that there always are certain agreements between players (see below). I agree with awm when he says that it would be very hard to believe a pair who claim that they have "no agreements at all". Only total beginners to the game, who know hardly more than the Laws of Bridge could credibly make such a claim. In all other cases there are implicit agreements (of varying complexity). --Sigi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blofeld Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 I agree with awm when he says that it would be very hard to believe a pair who claim that they have "no agreements at all". Only total beginners to the game, who know hardly more than the Laws of Bridge could credibly make such a claim. In all other cases there are implicit agreements (of varying complexity). But what if the players disagree about what the implicit agreements are? Saying 'no agreement' seems a valid route here. You haven't discussed anything. You have a decent hope that your partner will understand you, but it is nothing more than hope, and your opponents should be in the same position as your partner here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfbp Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 2. Players are banned from describing method XYZ on their convention card Too bad! XYZ is my favourite convention :P Stephen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshs Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 2. Players are banned from describing method XYZ on their convention card Well I usually check the 2-way checkback box, and in the space next to it write in XYZ. Oh, thats not what you meant? :) Josh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted February 8, 2006 Report Share Posted February 8, 2006 For example, many regulators in the EBU and the ACBL use Law 40D to justify an amazing variety of personal whims... In a similar fashion, if seen ACBL notables attempt to apply the following logic: 1. In order for players to use a convention/treatment, it must be documented on a convention card. 2. Players are banned from describing method XYZ on their convention card.Richard, pleeease tell use this isn't true. Please. Arend Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DelfinoD Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I would never adjust this one. I wouldn't even adjust it if N alerted and explained as take out. N was just lucky and director is not a person who should make everyone equally lucky ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.