RUNT Revisited

[aguahombre]

In the spirit of full disclosure, if your pard passes an opening suit bid, should you not alert that it denies 0-10 with 3+ cards in the unbid suits?

 

You would have to include "because we think you are really bad players" if those are the only ones you trot this thing out against.

Yes, but if you accidentally forgot to discuss the prowess of this pair in advance, there could be MI and UI problems, as well.

[Bbradley62]

Assuming that we're talking about a matchpoints game, I'm puzzled that everyone seems to agree that it's more profitable (leaving aside rules, ethics or sportsmanship) to do something strange against a weaker pair than against a stronger pair. When my college friends and I played in club games and tournaments, we were way more likely to do strange things against stronger pairs. Our logic was that we expected to get most of the matchpoints against weaker pairs by simply playing good bridge; we didn't want to jeopardize our expected 9 of 12 matchpoints to try to gain another 2 or 3. If we only expected 3 against the club sharks, we were willing to put those 3 at risk to hope to gain another 6.

[CSGibson]

Assuming that we're talking about a matchpoints game, I'm puzzled that everyone seems to agree that it's more profitable (leaving aside rules, ethics or sportsmanship) to do something strange against a weaker pair than against a stronger pair.  When my college friends and I played in club games and tournaments, we were way more likely to do strange things against stronger pairs.  Our logic was that we expected to get most of the matchpoints against weaker pairs by simply playing good bridge; we didn't want to jeopardize our expected 9 of 12 matchpoints to try to gain another 2 or 3.  If we only expected 3 against the club sharks, we were willing to put those 3 at risk to hope to gain another 6.

exactly the opposite is true. Bad players may be bad in situations they are familiar with, but they are horrible in pressure situations, and by creating those pressure situations, you enhance your ability to get tops against the bad pairs instead of maybe getting an average +.

 

Edit: One caveat to this - you have to be aware of the possibility of duplication of values. It's possible that partner has already taken opponents badness into account with his bidding...

[aguahombre]

Assuming that we're talking about a matchpoints game, I'm puzzled that everyone seems to agree that it's more profitable (leaving aside rules, ethics or sportsmanship) to do something strange against a weaker pair than against a stronger pair.  When my college friends and I played in club games and tournaments, we were way more likely to do strange things against stronger pairs.  Our logic was that we expected to get most of the matchpoints against weaker pairs by simply playing good bridge; we didn't want to jeopardize our expected 9 of 12 matchpoints to try to gain another 2 or 3.  If we only expected 3 against the club sharks, we were willing to put those 3 at risk to hope to gain another 6.

exactly the opposite is true. Bad players may be bad in situations they are familiar with, but they are horrible in pressure situations, and by creating those pressure situations, you enhance your ability to get tops against the bad pairs instead of maybe getting an average +.

 

Edit: One caveat to this - you have to be aware of the possibility of duplication of values. It's possible that partner has already taken opponents badness into account with his bidding...

Does that mean you approve of playing different systems against different levels of players --from table to table? We already know your position that the 1NT bid with random 0-10 is legal.

 

You might assume this is a loaded question, but it is a simple one (honest). I agree with your last post, that the strategy of using it against weaker players is likely to result in a better overall score, as opposed to Bbradley's opposite view.

[CSGibson]

...

Does that mean you approve of playing different systems against different levels of players --from table to table? We already know your position that the 1NT bid with random 0-10 is legal.

 

You might assume this is a loaded question, but it is a simple one (honest). I agree with your last post, that the strategy of using it against weaker players is likely to result in a better overall score, as opposed to Bbradley's opposite view.

I have no position on whether it is legal - I don't know the laws, and have never used the bid. I do not approve of different systems at different tables. Even if it were legal, I don't think it would be conducive to a good score, as we would lose significant memory points. On the other hand, I do think it is legal - and advisable - to use your judgment when making calls, and part of that judgment is the quality of the opposition.

 

To put it another way, you may play michaels, but you don't have to bid michaels just because you are 5-5 in the majors, even if it meets your agreed range for the bid. You can use your judgment to decide what to do.

 

I think the same would occur with RUNT (again, having no experience with it). You certainly have it on your card, but there's nothing that makes you use the bid just because you have it available when you think the bid will be ineffective. And it isn't wrong just to trot the bid out vs weak opponents, as long as you don't have a different meaning for the bid vs strong opponents

 

edit: This is not intended as a judgment in any way of the ethics of using a bid to confuse weaker players.

[campboy]

However, the lawyer types could probably find something in the rules of any jurisdiction to support their right to do this, like calling 3-3-3-4 a three-suited hand when the 4-card suit is the one opened in front of it.

This is nonsense of course. The ACBL rules clearly say that the only restriction is that it shows 3+ in all the other suits; they could easily have a more restrictive definition if they wanted to, such as "3+ in all other suits, with at least two being 4+", which used to be the EBU regulations for 3-suited opening bids at the 2-level (paraphrased).

 

The reason "the lawyer types" are able to say this is permitted under the GCC is either because the writers of the GCC wanted 4333 (with 4 in the bid suit) to be permitted, or because the regulation is badly written.

[mikeh]

I spoke with a National Director yesterday.

 

His reaction: he doesn't know if it is legal, It seems to comply with the definition of 3 suited takeout, but is also seemed to be a destructive method. However, the ACBL has been telling its directors (so he said) that the definition of destructive methods was to be narrowly construed...so he'd want to run this by head office.

 

His reaction was "if this came up to me, I would rule it illegal and make the player jump through the hoops to get the office to rule it legal before I would allow it'. But he felt there was at least some chance that the ACBL would rule it legal.

 

So the outcome of this consultation was that there is no definitive answer as to whether this method is acbl-legal....at least based on a very limited sample of one high-ranked director.

 

As a lawyer, btw, I resent the arguments about 'lawyer-types'. Lawyers, as with others, are not always about trying to bend the rules in their favour...my main objection to this method is based on what we lawyers call equity, and others call fairness. Since I cannot see any valid argument that this is anything other than destructive, as played by Ken, and as I see no indication that Ken would ever think of playing this against good players, I find it offends both fairness and at least this lawyer's view of the GCC statements....altho apparently the ACBL itslef is moving away from enforcement of their own rules.

[blackshoe]

As a lawyer, btw, I resent the arguments about 'lawyer-types'. Lawyers, as with others, are not always about trying to bend the rules in their favour...my main objection to this method is based on what we lawyers call equity, and others call fairness. Since I cannot see any valid argument that this is anything other than destructive, as played by Ken, and as I see no indication that Ken would ever think of playing this against good players, I find it offends both fairness and at least this lawyer's view of the GCC statements....altho apparently the ACBL itslef is moving away from enforcement of their own rules.

Lawyers, as a group, are unfortunately easy to pick on — and we've been doing it at least since Shakespeare's time. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it's not.

 

<obligatory jab> No, lawyers aren't always about bending the rules in their favor — they're about bending the rules in their clients' favor.</obligatory jab> :D

 

I agree with Mike — this seems a destructive method under ACBL regulations. I also agree with his National TD, in that as a destructive method it should be disallowed under those regulations.

 

apparently the ACBL itself is moving away from enforcement of their own rules.

 

Nothing new there. Personally, I think the ACBL can do better than "let's ignore our own rules" and "nobody's enforcing the rules we have, so let's make another rule telling them they have no choice". Oh, and then ignoring the new rule (if anyone hasn't guessed, I'm referring to the "zero tolerance" regulation).

[helene_t]

Maybe it's a correct assessment that this is a destructive methods so it is not gcc legal.

 

FWIW I don't think it's good idea to ban destructive methods per se. Not because I have much sympathy for people who use destructive methods (other than underdogs who use them when they think they need swings against stronger opposition, maybe) but it's just impossible to enforce in a way that is guaranteed to be unbiased.

 

It shouldn't be too difficult to achieve the same aim by specifying in a more technical way what can and can't be played. Something like putting a limit on how weak and how balanced an artificial and/or two-suited opening or overcall can be.

[campboy]

There is nothing in the regulations prohibiting destructive methods, so whether it is destructive or not seems irrelevant.

 

What is prohibited is

Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods.

 

Now, I don't see how this convention destroys opponents' methods, as they can play more-or-less what they would over a takeout double. Even if you think it does, one can certainly argue that its primary purpose is to find a playable spot at the 2-level on hands which might otherwise not be able to compete.

[aguahombre]

There is nothing in the regulations prohibiting destructive methods, so whether it is destructive or not seems irrelevant.

 

What is prohibited is

Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the difference. Both passages contain a form of "destroy". So, the focus must be on "opponents' methods".

 

Am I wrong that HUM's are verbotten (the opponents haven't started their methods in the auction, yet and thus, no methods are being interfered with.

 

Yet, screw-around bids versus forcing club (like the random 1S overcall) have been tolerated for decades; these seem to be specifically attempts to destroy the opponents' methods.

 

As usual, I am confused.

 

(edit) "Primary purpose" aint it, either. CRASH over 1NT, or other bids with unknown suits above 2C --though destructive, are not the primary purpose for the convention. Yet we can't use them.

[blackshoe]

(edit) "Primary purpose" aint it, either. CRASH over 1NT, or other bids with unknown suits above 2C --though destructive, are not the primary purpose for the convention. Yet we can't use them.

Careful, there, Aqua. The prohibition against destructive methods applies at all levels. Crash is legal at MidChart, if I'm not mistaken.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, you are right about that. I shouldn't have caused that diversion from what I was trying to say.

[Phil]

LOL @ playing a treatment against club players you wouldn't play against top competition.

[campboy]

"Primary purpose" aint it, either. CRASH over 1NT, or other bids with unknown suits above 2C --though destructive, are not the primary purpose for the convention. Yet we can't use them.

While you can't use CRASH et al over 1NT, that is because they are explicitly prohibited.

 

DEFENSE TO:

[...]

B) natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that direct calls,

other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit.

 

So whether or not CRASH's primary purpose is to destroy opponents methods is irrelevant; there is a different rule which prohibits it. On the other hand, RUNT is explicitly permitted unless you judge that it falls foul of the clause I quoted in my previous post.

[kenrexford]

Ken, you may be technically correct in stating that a 4333 hand can be defined as 3-suited, since the ACBL defines the required length as 3+ in each suit...thus with 3=3=3=4, after a 1♣ opening, you could bid 1N and argue that this shows the other 3 suits.

 

I think we all know or at least suspect that that is not what the drafters intended, but some people see rules, even of a game, as defining what they can get away with, rather than as indicating a 'spirit' of the game. I read years ago that this was a difference between Tom Watson and Gary Player as golfers...Tom thought that one should live by the spirit of the rules, whereas Gary thought that it was a triumph to find a way to argue that a rule didn't apply. I may be doing Player a disservice, since memory is fallible, but the distinction between two types of players has stuck with me.

 

But, you have done EXACTLY what I predicted...you have stressed the technically true parts of your argument while overlooking the fatal flaw.

 

Regardless of whether you can 'win' your way through on the argument that 3=3=3 in the unbid suits is a 3 suiter, there can surely be no doubt but that the primary purpose is destructive. As such it is illegal under the GCC.

 

Now, I will be seeing a national level director tomorrow, Matt Smith, and I will ask him his impression. I promise to make a full apology if he tells me I am out of line to view this as an illegal convention.

 

BTW, how are we to read your earlier assertion that runt is 'often called a Baron 1NT overcall' with your later assrtion that 'this is why I called it runt and not baron'.

 

if it is baron, why call it runt? If it is not baron, why allege that it is?

"RUNT" could be called "Baron for Lunatics." In other words, I use the "weak takeout" more aggressively.

 

And the idea is no more "destructive" than any other preempt. I get the auction to the two-level immediately, all while enabling partner to bid their suit (if they have one) knowing that a fit exists. If they have both mahors, they cue Opener's minor, and this could be 4-4. If they have both minors, hopefully they get help and can redouble. If they have a balanced hand, then we hope for the best, just like with any other takeout call.

 

What is wrong with trying to most effectively pre-balance to the two-level by immediately announcing a weak hand that has "support" for all unbids? Tactically, it might be very dangerous, but certainly not unethical to seek to compete more frequently and more aggressively.

[kenrexford]

I think the informal rule is that when playing in a "non-serious" game against much weaker opposition, it is rude to take actions (or play methods) which one knows to be unsound and which one would not use against decent players. It is true that certain such things will more effectively "take advantage" of weak players who have trouble dealing with unfamiliar situations, but doing things solely to take such advantage is deemed impolite (although not illegal and perfectly acceptable if weak players show up for a "serious" event).

 

So if you think RUNT is a good method, more power to you. But if you wouldn't play it against your peers and just whip it out at the club because LOLs (and LOM) have accidents against it, then you should reconsider your priorities.

I received this argument a decade ago -- it won't work against better players. But, it worked wonders in regional Flight A events. Maybe it won't work against WBF competitors, but then how often do you play those events?

 

Granted, the full RUNT worked even better, because there were complicated runouts. Also, as with any convention, you tailor for seat and vulnerability. A third-seat white on red weak 2S opening looks a lot different than a red-on-white second-seat 2H opening.

[aguahombre]

While you can't use CRASH et al over 1NT, that is because they are explicitly prohibited.

 

DEFENSE TO:

[...]

B) natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that direct calls,

other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit.

 

So whether or not CRASH's primary purpose is to destroy opponents methods is irrelevant; there is a different rule which prohibits it. On the other hand, RUNT is explicitly permitted unless you judge that it falls foul of the clause I quoted in my previous post.

Actually, it is quite relevant. That explicit prohibition was put in there (now n/a to mid-chart) because Jim Leary's gadget was being targeted, as well as Jim himself.

Jim sucessfully argued that an overcall of an opening NT showing either the next suit or the two suits beyond the transfer was not "primarily destructive".

 

So a new section was added, which accidentally caused CRASH to be included in the prohibition.

In addition to being a lawyer type, Jim was a practicing attorney B)

 

That could happen again.

[Dirk Kuijt]

What is prohibited is

QUOTE

Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods.

 

I've always wondered about this. What is more destructive of the opponents' methods than opening with 3♠, or some other preempt? Of course, to protect yourself, you only do this with a long spade suit, but this is not a constructive bid. Of course, it is a very familiar bid with a long history, so preempts are not about to be banned.

 

I'm inclining more and more to the opinion that the problems of what conventions are or should be allowed, and the problems of disclosure of conventions and agreements are unsolvable, and so the only answer is: 1. anything goes, along with 2. no disclosure. (I am fully aware that this is incompatible with the current laws of bridge.)

[xcurt]

I received this argument a decade ago -- it won't work against better players. But, it worked wonders in regional Flight A events.

I think you just made the case against you. Either

 

a) Flight A regional players are in general hopeless and go to pieces when faced with previously unseen methods

 

b) It works because opponents didn't bother to make a meta-agreement that covers this situation and aren't sure what is and isn't forcing

 

c) you are picking your spots only against the weakest pairs (alert: disclosure issues, probably also against ACBL regs)

 

d) some reason I missed, please enlighten me

 

I think (a) is not worth considering. I hope you aren't doing ©. That leaves (b) or (d). I think (b) is exactly what the clause about "destructive" methods is intended to address -- prohibiting methods that are, or are generally considered to be, effective only because they exploit opponents lack of a specific counter-agreements. So please tell me it is (d) and give me the reason you think it's effective. You advertise yourself as a theorist, after all. And keep in mind your answer must be consistent with the fact that if you do it on 4333 and 4432 garbage (possibly with 4 in their suit, 4333), these shapes represent a significant fraction of the hands you will be dealt in overcalling position. Also keep in mind you don't really get a preemptive advantage against 1H and 1S openings (you don't reduce their number of sequences below the most likely contracts) so you need to explain the theoretical advantage against could-be-prepared 1-of-a-minor openings.

 

I do concede the destructive methods clause is poorly worded, but that's a common state of affairs with the ACBL charts.

[kenrexford]

I received this argument a decade ago -- it won't work against better players.  But, it worked wonders in regional Flight A events.

I think you just made the case against you. Either

 

a) Flight A regional players are in general hopeless and go to pieces when faced with previously unseen methods

 

B) It works because opponents didn't bother to make a meta-agreement that covers this situation and aren't sure what is and isn't forcing

 

c) you are picking your spots only against the weakest pairs (alert: disclosure issues, probably also against ACBL regs)

 

d) some reason I missed, please enlighten me

 

I think (a) is not worth considering. I hope you aren't doing ©. That leaves (B) or (d). I think (B) is exactly what the clause about "destructive" methods is intended to address -- prohibiting methods that are, or are generally considered to be, effective only because they exploit opponents lack of a specific counter-agreements. So please tell me it is (d) and give me the reason you think it's effective. You advertise yourself as a theorist, after all. And keep in mind your answer must be consistent with the fact that if you do it on 4333 and 4432 garbage (possibly with 4 in their suit, 4333), these shapes represent a significant fraction of the hands you will be dealt in overcalling position. Also keep in mind you don't really get a preemptive advantage against 1H and 1S openings (you don't reduce their number of sequences below the most likely contracts) so you need to explain the theoretical advantage against could-be-prepared 1-of-a-minor openings.

 

I do concede the destructive methods clause is poorly worded, but that's a common state of affairs with the ACBL charts.

(d) Too difficult to unwind rapidly. The two-level is too often a protected "Law" level. Hence, doubling seems to be difficult to accomplish reliably. Accordingly, the opponents often find themselves unsure whether to double or bid. Not to mention, on partscore battles it might be our hand anyway, or ours enough to make a two-level contract. Even if one side "knows," the other partner is wildly unsure.

 

Enabling, further, rapid decisions from Advancer, and sole focus on preemption rather than constructive (barring 16+ hands, perhaps), gives us an advantage.

 

Side inferential benefit -- reads on defense and reads after passes (smell the shortness). That cuts both ways, though.

[Bbradley62]

I'm intrigued that you correctly predicted that it would come up twice in a session. I've just reviewed my last 100 hands played on BBO, and RUNT bids were available on 15 of the hands. (Side note: there was only one standard 1NT overcall available on those 100 hands.) Maybe someone could run a larger-scale simulation?

 

It's not clear to me that it's against ABCL regs to pick your spots. Can my partner and I carry two convention cards with us, and play the weak NT card against weaker pairs and the strong NT card against stronger pairs? If so, we can omit the 0-3 range (or whatever) from our RUNT bid against certain opps as long as we correctly disclose. If my partnership agreement is that my weak 2 shows 5-10HCP and a six-card suit regardless of suit quality, is it against regs for me to refrain from opening xxxxxx Kx Qxx xx against some opps (and/or in some seats at some vulnerabilities) but not against others?

[awm]

The rules as I understand them are that you cannot modify your methods during a session for subjective reasons (such as perceived strength of the opponents, results so far in the session, etc). This means you can't play a different system card against weak opponents than you do against strong opponents.

 

However, it is perfectly legal to vary style for subjective reasons, as long as your agreements don't change.

 

Of course, the line between style and agreements can be a bit fuzzy, and this does create issues on occasion. For example, it's okay for me to open very sound weak twos against good pairs and friskier weak twos against bad pairs (or vice versa), provided that both styles fit in my official agreed range. But if partner starts playing me for different hands when I open a weak two against different pairs, now it starts to seem that we have an agreement rather than just my unilaterally taking tactical actions. The intent is that I'm allowed to bid differently against different people, but partner is not supposed to know that I do this (or should bid as if unaware that I do this).

[Echognome]

In the EBU, I believe we were allowed to play different systems against different opponents. In one of the clubs, we had one pair that we viewed as being... how shall we say it? ... how about that they exercised sharp practices. To explain, it seemed that every time we alerted a bid, if they wanted the lead they'd ask, otherwise they wouldn't. Regardless of how you view that accusation, we didn't want the fight and hassle of arguing it with them. So against them we played "If it's alertable, we don't play it." At the time, that meant that over 1NT, we couldn't play Stayman, since it was alertable. So we carried around 2 convention cards. One for them, one for the rest. We checked with a few TD's who said we were allowed to play that way, as long as we carried two sets of convention cards.

[jjbrr]

In the EBU, I believe we were allowed to play different systems against different opponents. In one of the clubs, we had one pair that we viewed as being... how shall we say it? ... how about that they exercised sharp practices. To explain, it seemed that every time we alerted a bid, if they wanted the lead they'd ask, otherwise they wouldn't. Regardless of how you view that accusation, we didn't want the fight and hassle of arguing it with them. So against them we played "If it's alertable, we don't play it." At the time, that meant that over 1NT, we couldn't play Stayman, since it was alertable. So we carried around 2 convention cards. One for them, one for the rest. We checked with a few TD's who said we were allowed to play that way, as long as we carried two sets of convention cards.

Did this practice work? Couldn't they ask "What does this bid mean?" even if it wasn't alerted to the same effect?