Full disclosure of the system

[mila85]

There is not many bridge players in Czech Republic.

It means that you meet everyone from old ladies to representants in a pair tournay.

I bid and play differently with diferrent opponents.

 

Imagine 3rd place 2h opening: 0-12, 5+h

 

You are at 3rd place and you have 2 points and 5 heards. You know that your opps can make a game.

-When I play against weak opps I open 2h. Double is not very probable and they can miss a game.

-When I play against strong opps I pass. I'm sure that they are able to bid a game with 27+ points and they are able to double me.

 

Now you are at 3rd place and you have 13 points and 5 heards.

-If opps are weak I open 1h. I will find a normal contract and I hope I will make a good score. Their play isn't ideal.

-If opps are strong I open 2h. In standard contract they wouldn't give me more tricks than is necessary and it means bad score here...

They are under presure after 2h opening and it can be impossible to find good contract. I can make a very good score.

 

I opened 2h at 3rd place against strong opps.

LHO asks and partner answers:0-12, 5+h. In cc is the same.

But this is not a full disclosure of the system. He knows my style and tactic, so he knows that it tends to be stronger.

The answer should be: "0-13, 5+heards, tends to be maximum."

But if I know that he will answer this I would open 2h with zero points. Let's call it bluff.

I can do it once, maybe twice and when I do it third time it's an agreement.

So he should say:"0-13, 5+heards, tends to be maximum, but often open with minimum...."

When he gives this full discosure I will tend to open it with maximum only...

Vicious circle.

 

The problem is that the strength of this opening is in its wide range. Nor opps nor pard knows how strong I am. Partner passed so it's not problem for him. It's problem for opps.

But partner knows my style and he necessary knows more than opps. He must disclose what he knows even he doesn't use it....

I want this opening to be random for both:pard and opps. It's impossible in regular partnership.

 

btw Imagine the situation.

Opponent asks and you say: ...... It tends to be strong against strong opps and weak against weak opps B)

 

This one opening is only an example. There is much more similar situations in bidding (and in play too - e.g. carding).

[arrows]

my humble opinion.

 

That's what I said, "I wanna play 2H" is the only appropriate answer here.

If they have question regard to your agreement of strength, "below normal

opening" is the apppropriate answer.

 

But I am the minority here, many self-assigned ethical players deem me as

unethical. For me, bridge is a game of anything, such as, strategy, tactic,

psychology, mathmatics, logic deduction, but not "Tell me how many HCP you

have" That's just exceedingly silly.

 

I totally support the spirit of full disclosure, but pratically, I believe it has largely

been abused by those incompetent directors and players, who have little idea

about bridge, other than count HCPs, and even worse, some cunning ones

deliberately use this to make a issue out of nothing.

 

It's just rediculous (at least to me) to refuse

to admit "I wanna play something" is a legitimate explanation of a call, because

that is the very original meaning of every single bid.

Yeah, I might be setting up trap and wants to get you, but why I am supposed to tell you about that?

 

I 've said many times, those "ethical" players have no interest in what your

agreement is, since they know it's boring. What they want to know is how much

you have deviated from the agreement in this particular hand, so that they could

make a smarter decision.

 

I think asking question such as "HCP range" in some situation is totally

inappropriate, if not "unethical".

[bestguru]

I don't see the problem with your partner just saying "0-13, 5+hearts, tends towards the extremes, randomized".

 

If your calls always go in a cycle or are always changing the same way in response to the opponents action then your randomization is poor. Opps will get the same inferences as your partner. If you are really concerned about it, partner can say one of the following:

 

"0-13, 5+hearts, tends towards the extremes, randomized" "but my partner stinks at being random"

 

"" "random is more like cyclic"

 

"" "but my partner tends to get stuck in a feedback loop"

 

Of course, these responses lead you down the same slippery slope you were on before.

[pclayton]

Just say: 0-12, but could vary since he's in 3rd chair. Sure, if you choose to psyche the 2♥ call and have a 17 count, go ahead, and you are under no obligation to disclose THAT.

 

If pard knows that you vary this bid (a little) in 3rd chair, the opponents have a right to know and you have an obligation to tell them.

 

Yeah, I'm one of those self-assigned ethical players I guess. B)

[Wackojack]

How about " 5 or more cards in suit but undisciplined as regards strength"

[arrows]

It's of course NOT randomized. I cannot see how a randomized strategy win

in bridge.

 

We, of course, choose strategies or tactics depending on who are the opponents.

We don't use cannons to shoot flies, just like we don't use swatters to hit tanks.

 

Now, Am I supposed to tell the opponents:

" Hey, I tends to be more random in this weak two, because I think you guys

suck" I don't think that's good idea, not because it's offensive to the respectful

opponents, but because if I said that, my strategy would surely become less

effective.

[inquiry]

It's of course NOT randomized. I cannot see how a randomized strategy win

in bridge.

 

We, of course, choose strategies or tactics depending on who are the opponents.

We don't use cannons to shoot flies, just like we don't use swatters to hit tanks.

 

Now, Am I supposed to tell the opponents:

" Hey, I tends to be more random in this weak two, because I think you guys

suck" I don't think that's good idea, not because it's offensive to the respectful

opponents, but because if I said that, my strategy would surely become less

effective.

A couple of errors here, as usual....

 

Let's handle them in order. First, it would not be legal to say anything like "Hey, I tends to be more random in this weak two, because I think you guys suck" since this give UI to partner (unless you have specifically agreed that the pair you are currently playing "suck" and therefor this is a pair you use such and so strategy against). You have to guess their ability, to decide how to bid, so your partner has to guess as well...

 

Second, it is not appropriate to say "I want to play 2H" if your range is from wildly preemptive (0 HCP by agreement is not legal in ACBL land is it? Is the 5 and 5 rule still active... I am old).... to an opening hand (some have suggested as much as 13 hcp and we assume at least a five card and at least sometime a six card suit.

 

IF your partner knows you will "preempt" in third seat with what is traditionally an opening hand, then your opponents have the right to know this as well. Just saying "I want to play 2H" is not descriptive enough.. that was said with your 2♥ bid and your are being totally disingenuous to even think such an explaination is "full disclosure". It is like saying when you bid your bid can be from 0 to 37 hcp... as if that is telling your opponents anything... as all hands have from 0 to 37 hcp.

 

As for this thread, if you have a tendency to bid differently agaisnt different opponents, just alert your agreement as played against these guys. If you sit down against Fred and Brad and you agree that weak twos are by the book against them, alert your weak two as 6 to 10 hcp fair to good suit, six cards. When you play against me and some random partner your weak two might be 0 to 14 hcp with 4 to 7 card suit to take advantage of my weakness, then alert that and explain it that way (no reason to mention you are playing this way because you think me weak.. just explain your agreement at the time and condition you made the bid).

 

Ben

[bestguru]

Arrows,

 

If you read the post he plays standard weak bids against weaker players and varies his tactics against stronger players.

 

Admittedly I'm not a very good bridge player, but I do see some advantages to a randomized strategy in situations like this where you are just trying to make things harder for your opponents. If your bid always conveys the same meaning then the advantage of taking up bidding space is lessened by the information you've given the opps.

 

Of course you can't be random when you expect your partner to respond. You can still add some uncertainty with methods like the multi2d.

[hrothgar]

It's of course NOT randomized.  I cannot see how a randomized strategy win in bridge.

You might find the following interesting...

 

Mixed Strategies as applied to Bridge

 

The academic discipline of game theory differentiates between "pure"

strategies and "mixed" strategies. Pure strategies are deterministic.

Players choosing a pure strategy follow a predictable course of

action. In contrast, mixed strategies deliberately incorporate random

action. The simplest example of a mixed strategy equilibrium is the

Penny Matching game. Two players simultaneous display a penny. If

the two coins "match" (both coins are heads or both coins are tails)

then Player 1 keeps the two pennies. If the two coins don't match

then Player 2 keeps both pennies. The only equilibrium strategy to

this game is mixed. Each player should randomly determine whether to

display Heads or Tails using a 50/50 weighting scheme.

 

The concept of a mixed strategy can be applied to a number of areas

within bridge. The simplest and best know examples come from declarer

play and defense. Many well understood problems like restricted

choice make use of mixed strategies. For example, declarer leads a

low Diamond into D QJ9 and plays the Queen after LHO plays low. RHO

holds both the Ace and the King and needs to determine which card to

cover with. Restricted choice analysis presumes that the defender is

applying a mixed strategy will randomly chose to cover with the Ace or

the King, once again applying a 50/50 weighing scheme.

 

Mixed strategies can also be applied to the design of bidding

systems. Players applying a "pure" bidding strategy will always chose

the same bid bid with a given hand. In contrast, players employing a

mixed bidding strategy allow deliberate randomization. Consider the

following example taken from Bridge My Way by Zia Mahmood. You hold

 

S AQJ3

H K5

D 873

C A653

 

The auction starts

 

1H – 1S

3S - ???

 

and you need to chose a rebid. Zia advocates a bidding style in which

players should randomize between 4C and 4D cuebids. (Each cue bid austensibly shows the lowest first round control) Zia never goes so

far as to discuss probabilities, but hypothetically he might chose a

4C cuebid 80% of the time and a 4D cuebid 20% of the time.

Alternatively, consider the following example: White versus Red

partner opens 1H in first seat promising 5+ Hearts and 10-15 HCP. RHO

passes. You hold:

 

S 742

H AK762

D 9732

C 4

 

I advocate a hypothetical "mixed" strategy in which players bidders

 

4H: 60% of the time

3NT: 20% of the time

2NT: 10% of the time

2D: 5% of the time

1S: 5% of the time

 

Players who adopt mixed bidding strategies allow for the use of

multiple bids to describe a single hand. As a consequence, many

responses could show radically different hand types. For example,

players adopting Zia's Sting Cue bid style need to describe their 4C

cue bids as either "First round control of Clubs or [rarely] no

control of clubs". In an equivalent fashion, my partners would need

to describe my 3NT raise of a Precision 1H openings as either a strong

balanced hand willing to declare 3NT OR [rarely] a preemptive raise of

Hearts.

 

In turn, this brings us to the last major area in which mixed

strategies and bridge overlap: Regulatory structures. Few if any

Zonal authorities incorporate mixed bidding strategies into their

regulatory structures. Instead, regulators attempt to sidestep the

issue using the concept of a psychic call. Regulators and players

pretend that psychic calls are "deliberate and gross misstatements of

honor strength or suit length". In actuality, so-called psychic calls

are a subset of a more complex meta-agreement involving mixed bidding

strategies.

 

I argue that neither players nor regulators are served by this

pretense. Complete disclosure can never be achieved unless the

regulatory structure matches the actual strategies employed by

players.

[mila85]

I will give you another example.

 

RHO opened something, you overcalled 1h, and after some rounds of bidding LHO bid 3nt.

Partner leads 8 of heards, in dummy is J65, you have AK432.

You think that LHO has Qxx, partner has 8x, so you play low.

But LHO had 10x and made 3nt.

 

This can be good tactic to bid sometimes 3nt without a stopper. The problem is that he didn't do it probably first time. His partner knows it's possible that he has no stopper. He should say it to you. But he do not use this information and if they played together for the first time he would pass as he did now.

Unknown parter is better than regular partner here because he doesn't have to say to opps the critical information (which he do not use).

[inquiry]

I myself love randomized methods... that way, everytime my uh.... randomized bid... results in a bad result, I explain to parnter this was the 20% of the time I make the stupid bid with this hand so that they can not trust my bidding the 50% of the time I make the right bid or the 30% of the time I make a slightly wrong but not stupid bid.

 

So far, this defense of my .... uh.... randomized bids... has not won much favor with my partners. :) :D :D

 

Ben

[TimG]

But partner knows my style and he necessary knows more than opps. He must disclose what he knows even he doesn't use it....

I want this opening to be random for both:pard and opps. It's impossible in regular partnership.

That is the problem in a nutshell: partner must disclose what he knows about your agreements and tendencies or style.

 

I wouldn't say it is impossible to be random in a regular partnership, but your given tendencies are not random: they vary with the perceived strength of the opponents.

 

Tim