RUNT Revisited

[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.

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

They could, but then they would have a hard time explaining why they asked about an unalerted bid. If it's alerted, they can say "We always ask about alerted bids," even if they don't. I think asking about an unalerted bid is harder, even if the rights for asking extend to all calls. It was also much less likely that they would want to ask about natural call.

 

Edit: And this practice did work a lot better. You may argue that it was bad that we didn't want to take up the fight to accuse them of being cheaters (or at least unethical), but instead tried to avoid the problem by changing systems against them. At the club, I found it wasn't worth the grief from past experiences. The scary part to us was that one of them taught the beginner lessons at the club.

[jjbrr]

I remember you telling me this story in Vegas, I think. It made me happy then and it makes me happy now. This is a good way to handle it, and you get to have a little fun with them too.

[Echognome]

I remember you telling me this story in Vegas, I think. It made me happy then and it makes me happy now. This is a good way to handle it, and you get to have a little fun with them too.

I think it's a sign that I'm getting old. I'm telling the same stories... :unsure:

[jjbrr]

Telling the same stories to different audiences is no indicator of age.

[Dirk Kuijt]

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.

 

This can't be right. How many people, knowing that they are behind after 16 boards of a 32 board match, decide to "operate". Lots, if not everybody.

 

Surely I can change my standards for penalty doubles when playing against Mr. Hi Flyer as opposed to Ms. Rock Solid.

 

In both cases, I'm modifying my methods for subjective reasons.

[Bbradley62]

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.

 

This can't be right. How many people, knowing that they are behind after 16 boards of a 32 board match, decide to "operate". Lots, if not everybody.

 

Surely I can change my standards for penalty doubles when playing against Mr. Hi Flyer as opposed to Ms. Rock Solid.

 

In both cases, I'm modifying my methods for subjective reasons.

The variances you describe are variances in style, not methods. AWM is saying that doubling an opening 4♥ bid made by Mr. High Flyer must mean the same thing as doubling an opening 4♥ bid made by Ms. Rock Solid. Either it's take-out against both, or it's penalty against both. That does not preclude you from doubling more aggressively against one than against the other.

[campboy]

AWM is saying that doubling an opening 4♥ bid made by Mr. High Flyer must mean the same thing as doubling an opening 4♥ bid made by Ms. Rock Solid. Either it's take-out against both, or it's penalty against both. That does not preclude you from doubling more aggressively against one than against the other.

I don't think even that is true. If a partnership has agreed to play agressive pre-empts, you can use different methods against them than you use against a pair that has agreed to play solid pre-empts. That is not a subjective issue; you are varying your defence to a call based on opponents' agreements about it. I don't think it is very sensible to do this here, since you will have to have firm agreements with your partner exactly where the cut-off lies, and what you will do if you can't get a straight answer (and for that matter since t/o is obviously best against both), but it is permitted.

[Bbradley62]

Without commenting on the actual rules, I was simply pointing out that Dirk either misread or misunderstood AWM's post.

[Dirk Kuijt]

I don't think even that is true. If a partnership has agreed to play agressive pre-empts, you can use different methods against them than you use against a pair that has agreed to play solid pre-empts. That is not a subjective issue; you are varying your defence to a call based on opponents' agreements about it. I don't think it is very sensible to do this here, since you will have to have firm agreements with your partner exactly where the cut-off lies, and what you will do if you can't get a straight answer (and for that matter since t/o is obviously best against both), but it is permitted.

 

First, I may well have misunderstood awm's post, however...

 

No one has addressed the issue of 'shooting' when behind in a match; that is still changing your methods based on external issues.

 

Also, I have seen campboy's specific example debated. It goes like this: E/W says, "Our preempts are aggressive." N/S says, "We play penalty doubles of preempts." So, E/W says, "In that case, our preempts are sound." So, N/S says, "Well, in that case, we play takeout doubles of preempts." So, E/W says ...

 

The problem is that, if you are allowed to have different methods based on the opponents choices, and they are allowed to have different methods based on your choices, there is no way, that I know of, to break this loop. There is nothing the equivilant of "seating rights".

[campboy]

Firstly, Bbradley62 addressed the issue of shooting, in that you are not changing your methods based on your perception of how well you are doing, you are changing your style (which is fine).

 

Secondly, there is no problem there. N/S say "we play pen doubles of loose pre-empts, t/o of sound". That is a permitted agreement, since you are permitted to have agreements which depend on the meaning (or style) of previous calls by opponents. What do E/W play, given this agreement?

[Free]

Firstly, Bbradley62 addressed the issue of shooting, in that you are not changing your methods based on your perception of how well you are doing, you are changing your style (which is fine).

 

Secondly, there is no problem there. N/S say "we play pen doubles of loose pre-empts, t/o of sound". That is a permitted agreement, since you are permitted to have agreements which depend on the meaning (or style) of previous calls by opponents. What do E/W play, given this agreement?

I also have the impression that it's not allowed to change your methods for subjective reasons during an event. I believe I've read this somewhere a few years back (so it may already be changed).

 

The above example has nothing to do with this case. It's an agreement vs various systems, not against various people. You are allowed to play different methods over a 1NT opening, according to the meaning of that 1NT opening. That's not a subjective reason.

 

The situation where it does apply is opposite the same system played by different people. It's like 2 pairs playing strong ♣. One pair is Meckwell, the other is LOL². If their 1♣ opening is the same, you should play the same defense. Obviously, if LOL² plays 18+HCP then you can modify your methods because it's a different opening.

 

That being said, style is another issue. You can suddenly play more aggressively, double faster,... during the event. But you can't just start playing weak NT all of a sudden.