SB causing chaos

[mycroft]

There are certainly non-hypothetical cases where "minimally-completed" convention cards made opponents, who did a more diligent construction of theirs, feel disadvantaged. At World Championship levels no less.

[lamford]

I would prefer you found a ridiculous law to ridicule. Here, a change to the laws -- allowing a player to know the likely consequences of his own decisions in advance -- would be ridiculous to a game altering extent.

I think the current Law is ridiculous, and both Vampyr and gnasher seem to agree. A change to the Law, assuming that this is the Law, making an opponent's question about your methods UI to you, would have a beneficial effect. The reason he has to ask the question is because your CC is incomplete. In addition he provides you with information about his hand type by asking. Furthermore, it is not clear to me that the question by North is indeed AI to East-West. An opponent's question is not listed as information the player may use in 16A. It is not listed either as information a player may not use in 16B, but that only covers UI from partner, so one would not expect it there. Perhaps I am failing to find the clause that specifies that such information is authorized under 16A1( c). I know that common practice is to treat opponent's questions as AI to you, so perhaps there is a clause that says this.

[aguahombre]

Back in 1776-78, perhaps the Colonists should have just asked where you folks planned to be and with what ammunition at a particular date and time in the future....although for the most part they didn't need to ask.

[lamford]

Back in 1776-78, perhaps the Colonists should have just asked where you folks planned to be and with what ammunition at a particular date and time in the future....although for the most part they didn't need to ask.

And I thought the Battle of Bound Brook was the reason for the introduction of "pre-alerts"... Or was it some idea that you are entitled to know the opponents' methods?

[nige1]

Back in 1776-78, perhaps the Colonists should have just asked where you folks planned to be and with what ammunition at a particular date and time in the future....although for the most part they didn't need to ask.

Bridge law should discourage revolting behaviour :)

[aguahombre]

On the other hand (not a Bridge hand), pre-alerts of retaliation or shift and certain punishment do not seem to have prevented atrocities.

[campboy]

The principal reason for CCs is that you may need to discuss a defence to opponents' methods. They are not there to allow you to vary your own methods based on prior knowledge of opponents' defences. That is not something you are in general intended to be able to do, which is why law 20 is so specific about what you can ask. Now the existence of CCs means that you sometimes will be able to do this, but IMO it is the fact that you sometimes can, not that you sometimes can't, that is the problem.

 

In this situation, of course, opponents may wish to vary the meaning of double based on what sort of hands you will use Stayman on, and that is a question they have an absolute right to ask by the time they have the opportunity to double.

[Sjoerds]

The TD was indeed called, but SB persuaded the TD that he did not have to answer, and the TD gave in.

 

The TD was wrong. West has to answer their partnerships agreements.

[lamford]

The principal reason for CCs is that you may need to discuss a defence to opponents' methods. They are not there to allow you to vary your own methods based on prior knowledge of opponents' defences. That is not something you are in general intended to be able to do, which is why law 20 is so specific about what you can ask.

I would agree that you should not be able to vary your methods depending on the opponents' defence to it, but that is not the issue in cases such as this. A pair cannot play weak jump overcalls if a double would be takeout, but strong jump overcalls if a double is penalties, and I think there is some case law on this. However, having agreed to play weak jump overcalls, they are surely entitled to then know the opponents' methods over them, and, indeed, almost all CCs require that to be indicated. They will then judge the risks of making a weak jump overcall with full information. The downside of your approach is that the opponents will have to ask endless questions at the start about methods which will have no relevance in the majority of hands, and the round will never get under way.

 

Also, I presume you believe that any question (whether or not it has to be answered) by an opponent is AI to the pair not asking the question. If so, under which Law?

[pran]

I would agree that you should not be able to vary your methods depending on the opponents' defence to it, but that is not the issue in cases such as this. A pair cannot play weak jump overcalls if a double would be takeout, but strong jump overcalls if a double is penalties, and I think there is some case law on this. However, having agreed to play weak jump overcalls, they are surely entitled to then know the opponents' methods over them, and, indeed, almost all CCs require that to be indicated. They will then judge the risks of making a weak jump overcall with full information. The downside of your approach is that the opponents will have to ask endless questions at the start about methods which will have no relevance in the majority of hands, and the round will never get under way.

 

Also, I presume you believe that any question (whether or not it has to be answered) by an opponent is AI to the pair not asking the question. If so, under which Law?

 

There was a case many years ago. I don't remember the details but the essentials were:

 

A pair played weak 3-level openings against opponents using takeout doubles and strong 3-level openings against opponents using doubles for penalty.

 

Their opponents used penalty doubles against weak 3-level openings and takeout doubles against strong 3-level openings.

 

The answer (ruling) was (and is) that you must decide the characteristics on your call before opponents decide their defence against that call, and you may not change the characteristics on Your call after learning opponents' defence.

[campboy]

I would agree that you should not be able to vary your methods depending on the opponents' defence to it, but that is not the issue in cases such as this. A pair cannot play weak jump overcalls if a double would be takeout, but strong jump overcalls if a double is penalties, and I think there is some case law on this. However, having agreed to play weak jump overcalls, they are surely entitled to then know the opponents' methods over them, and, indeed, almost all CCs require that to be indicated. They will then judge the risks of making a weak jump overcall with full information. The downside of your approach is that the opponents will have to ask endless questions at the start about methods which will have no relevance in the majority of hands, and the round will never get under way.

If you accept that you cannot play weak jump overcalls if double would be takeout, but strong jump overcalls otherwise, I do not see why you think that you can play undisciplined weak jump overcalls if double would be takeout but disciplined weak jump overcalls otherwise, which is essentially what this comes down to.

 

Also, I presume you believe that any question (whether or not it has to be answered) by an opponent is AI to the pair not asking the question. If so, under which Law?

I have never really thought about it. A legal question is presumably AI by 16A1c: it arises from the legal procedures, and when we see B1 that law does not indicate that it is unauthorised. An illegal question perhaps more obviously should be AI, but it is less clear under what law.

[gnasher]

If you accept that you cannot play weak jump overcalls if double would be takeout, but strong jump overcalls otherwise, I do not see why you think that you can play undisciplined weak jump overcalls if double would be takeout but disciplined weak jump overcalls otherwise, which is essentially what this comes down to.

But you can play undisciplined weak jump overcalls against pairs who play takeout doubles of undisciplined weak jump overcalls, and disciplined weak jumps overcalls otherwise. And for that you need to know what their methods are against undisciplined weak jump overcalls.

[c_corgi]

But you can play undisciplined weak jump overcalls against pairs who play takeout doubles of undisciplined weak jump overcalls, and disciplined weak jumps overcalls otherwise. And for that you need to know what their methods are against undisciplined weak jump overcalls.

 

Can't they vary the meaning of their double based on the style of your WJOs?

[gnasher]

Can't they vary the meaning of their double based on the style of your WJOs?

Yes, of course they can.

 

This is legitimate :

Before the start of the auction period, I ask them what they play against different styles of WJO. They say they play "Penalty if undisciplined, takeout if disciplined". We agree to play disciplied WJOs against this pair.

 

So is this:

We agree to play undisciplined WJOs unless double would be penalties. During the auction, I look at their convention card and see that they play "Penalty if undisciplined, takeout if disciplined". Therefore I know that we play disciplined WJOs and I bid accordingly.

 

But currently this is not:

We agree to play undisciplined WJOs unless double would be penalties. During the auction, I ask them what they play against different styles of WJO.

[gnasher]

Also, I presume you believe that any question (whether or not it has to be answered) by an opponent is AI to the pair not asking the question. If so, under which Law?

 

16A1c.

 

If the other side were obliged to ask the question because of an inadequately completed convention card, it seems obvious to treat the question as AI but apply Law 23 if necessary. Instead, I suppose that you could argue that the information from the question doesn't "arise from the legal procedures" and is therefore UI. In fact that might lead to a different ruling, so I'd be interested to know what TDs do in this situation.

[c_corgi]

Yes, of course they can.

...

 

Sorry, my post was rather a waste of time! I was trying to ask how you avoid the circles which can arise when whatever one side plays the other side plays something different and can only be resolved by insisting that one side declares their system first, as per various earlier threads. But a coherent post seems to be beyond me at the moment. FWIW I agree that it would be good if disclosure of countermeasures were required.

[lamford]

16A1c.

OK, I can accept that an opponent's question could be "arising from the legal procedures authorized in these laws". If you decide that, then the question about a double of Stayman is AI.

 

I like the Law 23 approach, and that would work whenever any convention is missing from the CC, including playing transfers after 1(2)NT-(Pass)-6NT-(Pass)-(Pass)-X-(Pass)-(Pass), a "silly convention of a naive civilization" - aguahombre and the Wizard of Oz. Law 40 (b) states: Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. It does not say "its main partnership understandings", which is normal practice. They could have been aware that leaving this off the CC could work to their advantage, and SB gets his adjustment.

 

Another thing that concerns me about this hand, is that there would be a different result if screens were in use. Whether or not North is able to or allowed to establish how EW play a double of Stayman, his question will be addressed to East, and West will make his normal lead when North jumps to 3NT. It does not seem right that something a player will not get to know with screens becomes AI when you are playing without screens. Furthermore, if North whispers the question (without screens) to East, the answer is UI to West, and he will not hear the question, and again there would be a different result. Deducing the question from the answer would be a breach of 16Ba(a).

 

The more I think about, it is correct to adjust here, despite the eminent posters arguing SB did nothing wrong.

[aguahombre]

At the point someone thinks omitting from the SC what a redouble of 6nt would mean is an infraction, I bow out.

[gnasher]

I like the Law 23 approach, and that would work whenever any convention is missing from the CC, including playing transfers after 1(2)NT-(Pass)-6NT-(Pass)-(Pass)-X-(Pass)-(Pass), a "silly convention of a naive civilization" - aguahombre and the Wizard of Oz. Law 40 (b) states: Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. It does not say "its main partnership understandings", which is normal practice. They could have been aware that leaving this off the CC could work to their advantage, and SB gets his adjustment.

It (40A, by the way) also says "The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done."

 

If the RA specifes this by providing a convention card and telling you to fill it in, and you do fill it in, you have complied with the Law.

 

Another thing that concerns me about this hand, is that there would be a different result if screens were in use. Whether or not North is able to or allowed to establish how EW play a double of Stayman, his question will be addressed to East, and West will make his normal lead when North jumps to 3NT. It does not seem right that something a player will not get to know with screens becomes AI when you are playing without screens.

This is an inevitable and common consequence of using screens. Bridge with screens is a slightly different game from bridge without screens. Most people think that it's a better game overall, but that doesn't mean that it's better in every respect.

[lamford]

If the RA specifes this by providing a convention card and telling you to fill it in, and you do fill it in, you have complied with the Law.

There is usually a space which says "other agreements", which some people leave blank, and where others fill in as much as they can fit in. The RA can also, presumably, specify that conventions not on there are asked about and explained when they could be relevant. It would be ludicrous for someone to ask about a redouble of 6NT before the round starts, but when it becomes at all likely, I think it should be disclosed in response to an enquiry. The argument that you cannot ask about future bids that have not been made does not wash with me, and players in Pula were shocked that one could decline to answer how a double of Stayman is played.

 

And in response to aguahombre, I agree the infraction was not the lack of inclusion of the redouble of 6NT on the CC, but the failure to notify the opponent about the agreement when asked.

[akwoo]

Sorry, my post was rather a waste of time! I was trying to ask how you avoid the circles which can arise when whatever one side plays the other side plays something different and can only be resolved by insisting that one side declares their system first, as per various earlier threads. But a coherent post seems to be beyond me at the moment. FWIW I agree that it would be good if disclosure of countermeasures were required.

 

This is simple: one can have a law that says that a partnership's agreement on the meaning of a particular call may depend on the meaning of calls opponents have or could have made prior to the call in question but may not depend on the opponent's agreements about calls subsequent to the call in question.

 

The important point is that this can be solved by regulating permissible agreements (in a perfectly sensible fashion) rather than by limiting disclosure.

 

You could imagine allowing an exchange like this:

 

A (to LHO): If I now bid 4♦ and then partner bids 4♥, what would a double by your partner mean?

LHO: That depends. What does 4♦ show?

A's partner: It shows X.

LHO: And what does 4♥ show?

A: It shows Y.

LHO: Then the double shows Z.

 

(and of course, what A's partner and A said about their agreements are UI to each other if there is a misunderstanding)

[gnasher]

Sorry, my post was rather a waste of time! I was trying to ask how you avoid the circles which can arise when whatever one side plays the other side plays something different and can only be resolved by insisting that one side declares their system first, as per various earlier threads.

You can never get these loops as long as pair making the first call define their methods completely.

 

"A if you play X, B if you don't" may create a deadlock. "A if you play X against A, B if you don't" is fine.

 

This post by Free explains it well:

http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/62196-2m-overcalled/page__view__findpost__p__749064