what is upper limit for a pass

[babalu1997]

now some folks go around playing mini no trump and opening hands starting at 8 hcp

 

best defense for that is a pass

 

I pass

 

i pass with 13 and even 14 if i have to, and i quietly sharpen the axe

 

if i open, i promise my partner certain holdings, but if i pass he is none the wiser

 

did that the other day, then the mini no trumper wants to call the td, because then he says he only opens mini no trump when he is not vulnerable and moon is crescent.

 

one of my best auctions goes pass-pass- 1club grabage by opp- pass by me holding 0-20 - 1 heart non forcing by opp-pass-pass- 1nt by me promising, well 0-20

 

they take out i leave it

they double i leave it when i have the 20

[helene_t]

Doesn't sound like a good idea. Must be confusing for partner if you alter your style a lot depending on opps' style.

 

Just ignore the negative inference from passing opps (and when you open in 1st seat they haven't bid or passed yet so what system they play is irrelevant).

 

1st seat open almost all rule of 20 hands, 2nd seat open most rule of 20 hands, 3rd seat idem but also open some balanced 9-11 counts that are likely to be able to control the auction and where opening serve some purpose, 4th seat don't believe in the rule of 15, most rule of 14 hands should open as well.

[hrothgar]

You aren't allowed to vary the definition of your first seat pass based on the opponent's second seat opening style.

[Dirk Kuijt]

hrothgar

 

I certainly alter my preempting style depending on what my LHO plays. Is there some specific rule that says that an opening one bid is different?

[ggwhiz]

You are always allowed to employ tactics as long as your partner is not in the loop with the opponents uninformed.

 

I once opened 1nt (15-17) out of turn, in 4th chair. LHO declined to accept the bid and passed smoothly with a 21 count.

 

Yes, partner was barred and yes, I bid 3nt at my turn. Yes we were red and yes it was imps. I can think of 2000 reasons for lho's pass and none of them are on the convention card.

[MarkDean]

hrothgar

 

I certainly alter my preempting style depending on what my LHO plays. Is there some specific rule that says that an opening one bid is different?

That is also illegal. Suppose you want to play loose preempts against takeout doubles and disciplined ones against penaly doubles. I want to play penalty doubles against loose preempts and takout against disciplined ones. What happens? It is my understanding that this is why one side must decide first, and the side that acts first must commit. However, I am not a laws expert, so maybe I should not be answering.

[hrothgar]

hrothgar

 

I certainly alter my preempting style depending on what my LHO plays.  Is there some specific rule that says that an opening one bid is different?

That is also illegal. Suppose you want to play loose preempts against takeout doubles and disciplined ones against penaly doubles. I want to play penalty doubles against loose preempts and takout against disciplined ones. What happens? It is my understanding that this is why one side must decide first, and the side that acts first must commit. However, I am not a laws expert, so maybe I should not be answering.

Beat me to it...

[babalu1997]

First there are environmental conditions for my antics-- I am talking about playing free online tourneys where there is absolutely no redress:

 

1) It has often happened to me that opps simply refuse to explain a bid, I call td, the opps say it was I who was holding up the game and i see myself in the lobby when what i really wanted to do was play bridge for the next 40 minutes.

 

2) I have also been thrown out of game when the tds friend complained that i did not finesse the queen, thus dropping her singleton king

 

So, i see myself in an environment where transfer opens, raptor no trump, ghestem are not alerted, where there are no enforceable law.

 

so as long as i suspect some monkey business, i pass how i please.

 

But i guess if I truly had to play face to face I would have to learn how to eat with fork and knife.

[hrothgar]

First there are environmental conditions for my antics-- I am talking about playing free online tourneys where there is absolutely no redress:

 

...

 

so as long as i suspect some monkey business, i pass how i please.

 

But i guess if I truly had to play face to face I would have to learn how to eat with fork and knife.

Good for you!

 

If there is one thing we need, its more people proudly standing up and stating

 

"I'm a cheat! I'm going to do my best to degrade the playing environment even more!"

[ggwhiz]

You aren't allowed to vary the definition of your first seat pass based on the opponent's second seat opening style.

 

This would get a better response in the Laws and Rulings section but I strongly disagree.

 

Our preempting style varies wildly by seat, vulnerability AND the opponents methods OR style, ie. much looser non-vul against a big club system.

 

Our overcalling style varies similarly against a polish club or different weak notrump ranges.

 

Whether it's a pass or a bid, when the opponents ask it is often in the form of "What's your style in this auction" and we disclose properly.

 

It's a long time since I looked at it, but the WBF convention card goes into much more detail that if I remember right, caters to this type of variation.

[Dirk Kuijt]

Mark Dean and hrothgar

 

I'm no expert on the laws, but it seems like the only way to really make this law work would be for pairs to just not be able to look at the back of the opponent's convention card. Almost anyone is going to be influenced in style knowing that they opponents were playing Fishbein and penalty doubles of overcalls.

 

Indeed, if I knew that I was sitting down to play Hare Trigger and Back Stabber (who I know for being demon doublers), I'm going to pull in a bit, even if Trigger and Stabber are playing exactly the same conventions as everyone else.

 

As for the law you two have mentioned: which one, specifically, is it? Don't misunderstand; I am not saying you are wrong about this. I started by saying that I wasn't an expert on the laws, and many know them better than I. I'm just trying to learn here.

[helene_t]

If there is one thing we need, its more people proudly standing up and stating

 

"I'm a cheat! I'm going to do my best to degrade the playing environment even more!"

As long as Lu just varies her own style without discussing it with p (and assuming it doesn't become an implicit agreement) it is not cheating.

[aguahombre]

You are always allowed to employ tactics as long as your partner is not in the loop with the opponents uninformed.

 

I once opened 1nt (15-17) out of turn, in 4th chair.  LHO declined to accept the bid and passed smoothly with a 21 count.

 

Yes, partner was barred and yes, I bid 3nt at my turn.  Yes we were red and yes it was imps.  I can think of 2000 reasons for lho's pass and none of them are on the convention card.

There is a flip side to your story. Ron Anderson, in your seat, would have (and did) also open NT out of turn. LHO also passed his mountain, but Ron was a reader of people and had picked up vibes from his LHO. He had a yarb, and passed it out. At least, that is the urban legend; I wasn't there.

[TimG]

You aren't allowed to vary the definition of your first seat pass based on the opponent's second seat opening style.

This is troubling to me. If I was playing against a forcing pass system, I would want to pass with certain good hands in first seat in order to encounter the opponents' fert more frequently. Very similar to the opening poster's desire to give the opponents more opportunity to open their 8-10 NT. Both seem like reasonable defenses to the opponent's system of opening bids. I understand that this could result in an unresolvable situation: my opponents play forcing pass, I say we pass certain good hands in first seat in defense, opponents say they don't play forcing pass, I say we don't pass certain good hands in first seat, etc. But, something about not being allowed to employ what you feel are best defenses to their methods doesn't seem right.

 

I think there should be some regulatory consideration such that those playing certain methods give to their opponents the right to adjust opening system to counter their methods. So, things like Forcing Pass and 8-10 NTs would be designated X-systems and those employing them give to their opponents the option of adjusting their methods based upon that system or opening -- that is the opponents are allowed to have an anticipatory defense, a defense that they may use in first seat before the X-system users have had a turn to bid. (Additionally, X-system users would have to give up this right when they face other X-system users in order to avoid the unresolvable situation.)

[JoAnneM]

The better solution to dealing with those pesky problems in the free online tournaments is to play in the "fee" tournaments.

[gwnn]

The sky's the limit.

[bill1157]

hrothgar

 

I certainly alter my preempting style depending on what my LHO plays.  Is there some specific rule that says that an opening one bid is different?

That is also illegal. Suppose you want to play loose preempts against takeout doubles and disciplined ones against penaly doubles. I want to play penalty doubles against loose preempts and takout against disciplined ones. What happens? It is my understanding that this is why one side must decide first, and the side that acts first must commit. However, I am not a laws expert, so maybe I should not be answering.

Clearly you can alter your style of preempt or opening based on what the opponents are playing (or your feel or whatever).

Also, I like to open weak 2's a little heavy in 3rd seat, is that a problem? (you gets some nasty remarks from opps if you open a weak 2 with 13 hcp for example)

 

Bill

[hrothgar]

As for the law you two have mentioned: which one, specifically, is it? Don't misunderstand; I am not saying you are wrong about this. I started by saying that I wasn't an expert on the laws, and many know them better than I. I'm just trying to learn here.

This is a question of local regulation rather than the "Laws"

[helene_t]

Also, I like to open weak 2's a little heavy in 3rd seat, is that a problem? (you gets some nasty remarks from opps if you open a weak 2 with 13 hcp for example)

That is a completely different thing. Of course you can vary your style with vulnerability and seat. You can vary your 2nd seat opening style depending on the meaning of the 1st seat pass, and your 3rd seat opening style depending on the meaning of the second seat pass.

 

What you can't do is vary your methods depending on what defense opps are playing against them. A second seat opening is a defense against the first seat pass. So you can't vary your first seat pass depending on the meaning of opps' 2nd seat openings.

[TimG]

A second seat opening is a defense against the first seat pass.

Does that mean system regulations should be rewritten to include "defenses of first seat passes" rather than "second seat openings".

[hrothgar]

A second seat opening is a defense against the first seat pass.

Does that mean system regulations should be rewritten to include "defenses of first seat passes" rather than "second seat openings".

It strikes me as a semantic distinction

[JoAnneM]

If you have 5-10 written on your cc and you open with 13 in 3rd seat, on a frequent basis with your regular partner, it seems to me that the opponents have a right to know that, since your partner already knows it. I believe it is called a partnership agreement.

[Finch]

What you can't do is vary your methods depending on what defense opps are playing against them. A second seat opening is a defense against the first seat pass. So you can't vary your first seat pass depending on the meaning of opps' 2nd seat openings.

Yes you can.

 

The interpretation that many people are referring to is the resolution of the recursive problem. If I say "I play take-out doubles if you play sound pre-empts and penalty doubles if you play random preempts" and you say "I play sound pre-empts if and only if you play penalty doubles" then you are stuck in an infinite loop.

 

The standard resolution of that loop is that the side going first has to declare its methods first.

 

This is different to deciding on your system in first seat if the opponents have already defined their 2nd seat openings.

[bill1157]

If you have 5-10 written on your cc and you open with 13 in 3rd seat, on a frequent basis with your regular partner, it seems to me that the opponents have a right to know that, since your partner already knows it. I believe it is called a partnership agreement.

Some of this, though, might just be common sense. If partner is a passed hand, it makes sense that there would be alot of leeway in my openings, preempts (passes) etc since pd is limited to 11 hcp.

This isn't a question of ethics and in the past would have been regarded as a legitimate bridge tactic.

 

Bill.

[hrothgar]

The standard resolution of that loop is that the side going first has to declare its methods first.

 

This is different to deciding on your system in first seat if the opponents have already defined their 2nd seat openings.

In what way, shape, or form can the side that bids second be construed as "going first"?