Another sort of contingency

[Vampyr]

Supposedly if you arrive at a table, and the pair play, say, penalty doubles of weak twos, you are not allowed to switch to intermediate twos. However, if you happen to know this pair's system, you can switch your methods before you get to the table. I don't think this makes a lot of sense. Can someone clear this up for me?

[pran]

Supposedly if you arrive at a table, and the pair play, say, penalty doubles of weak twos, you are not allowed to switch to intermediate twos. However, if you happen to know this pair's system, you can switch your methods before you get to the table. I don't think this makes a lot of sense. Can someone clear this up for me?

Your opponents are permitted to select their defence after you have chosen your understandings. You may not change your understandings after opponents have chosen their defences.

[Vampyr]

Your opponents are permitted to select their defence after you have chosen your understandings. You may not change your understandings after opponents have chosen their defences.

 

Yes, I realise this. I am talking about knowing their defence in advance and changing your understandings in advance.

[blackshoe]

Yes, I realise this. I am talking about knowing their defence in advance and changing your understandings in advance.

Won't do you any good. They are entitled, before the round starts, to know that you've changed your understandings, and then they're entitled to change their defense. If someone were to conceal the fact that they've changed their understandings, they would be cheating.

[Bbradley62]

Still not answering her question. If we're EW and we know that NS-7 is playing penalty doubles of weak twos, are we allowed to decide, upfront, that we are playing weak twos except at table 7, where will will play, and will announce that we play, intermediate twos, and let them then decide what defense to play against that?

[Vampyr]

Won't do you any good. They are entitled, before the round starts, to know that you've changed your understandings, and then they're entitled to change their defense. If someone were to conceal the fact that they've changed their understandings, they would be cheating.

 

I do not have to disclose what system I have played at other tables.

[blackshoe]

I do not have to disclose what system I have played at other tables.

No. You do have to disclose - in advance - what system you're playing at any particular table, to the opponents at that table.

[blackshoe]

It appears that the question is whether a pair is required to play the same system throughout a session. This is a matter of regulation. I do not think the EBU requires this, but I'm not an EBU TD, and I'm too tired right now to hunt through EBU regs, so i'll let somebody else answer.

[Vampyr]

No. You do have to disclose - in advance - what system you're playing at any particular table, to the opponents at that table.

 

Errr... Yes, very true. Please read the OP before supplying further comments.

[gnasher]

Supposedly if you arrive at a table, and the pair play, say, penalty doubles of weak twos, you are not allowed to switch to intermediate twos.

I don't think I agree with your premise. Which rule says this?

 

Some jurisdictions have a more general rule saying that you can't change your methods during a session, but presumably you're talking about a situation where system changes would in general be allowed.

[Mbodell]

In the ACBL you are not allowed to do this, I believe, because there is a rule against playing different systems opposite different specific pairs (It is fine to say we'll play intermediate 2's when vulnerable, but not to say we'll play intermediate 2's against the "good pairs" or the pairs that play a strong nt or table 7 or whatever). But people do stretch a little knowing what their opponents systems and tendencies are (I'll psych 1nt against the pair without a penalty double, or stretch to open the 3rd seat 1nt off a point against same lack of penalty double, or bid one more against the pairs who always have to win the auction and you know are 110% likely to bid again over your bid, accept a borderline invite when playing against a weak pair, etc.).

[aguahombre]

I can't imagine wanting to change away from weak 2's against a pair who play Fishbein, for instance, against it. We gain, they lose, over the long haul.

 

If your weak 2's are such that it would be a problem, such as frequent scattered quacks and bad suits, you might have the problem. Then, however, you would be electing to have a weak two-bid when you open with one at that table; I don't think that is a change of system per regs.

[Vampyr]

I don't think I agree with your premise. Which rule says this?

 

I don't know if this 'rule' is written down at all, but I believe that it is considered necessary in order to avoid the endless loop.

 

In the ACBL you are not allowed to do this, I believe, because there is a rule against playing different systems opposite different specific pairs

 

Call me unimaginative, but I had assumed that this topic would have limited relevance in jurisdictions where this is the case.

 

I can't imagine wanting to change away from weak 2's against a pair who play Fishbein, for instance, against it. We gain, they lose, over the long haul.

 

If your weak 2's are such that it would be a problem, such as frequent scattered quacks and bad suits, you might have the problem. Then, however, you would be electing to have a weak two-bid when you open with one at that table; I don't think that is a change of system per regs.

 

Well, whatever. It is not important which methods you are switching to and why. The problem, as I see it, is that against this pair I would like to make some change, and so would you. I am familiar with this pair and their methods, so I make the change before coming to the table. You have never seen this pair in your life, and are not, as far as I understand, permitted to change your methods after being apprised of their defences.

[gnasher]

I don't know if this 'rule' is written down at all, but I believe that it is considered necessary in order to avoid the endless loop.

I don't think it is.

 

The loop allegedly arises when the opening side says "We play X unless you play penalty doubles, in which case we play Y." However, the defending side simply counters that by saying "Against X we play penalty doubles, against Y we play takeout doubles. Make your own arrangements."

[paulg]

I am talking about knowing their defence in advance and changing your understandings in advance.

Isn't this a simple "yes, you can" presuming that you have the appropriate system cards.

 

EBU Blue Book 2013

 

5A6 A partnership may play any number of different basic systems in one event provided that they play only one system against any given opposing partnership (other than as permitted by 5A5).

 

 

 

5A5 is not really relevant to this discussion, but as it's mentioned:

5A5 A partnership may play two basic systems at different positions or vulnerabilities only in Level 4 or Level 5 competitions, and only where rounds are of 7 boards or more. The partnership must display two system cards for each system, indicating the occasions when the different systems apply.

It is always permitted to vary certain parts of a system according to position and/or vulnerability. This includes, for example, variable NT openings and playing four or five card majors in different positions.

[Vampyr]

Isn't this a simple "yes, you can" presuming that you have the appropriate system cards.

 

"Yes you can" change your system before you arrive at the table? Of course.

[aguahombre]

"Yes you can" change your system before you arrive at the table? Of course.

And where do you get the requirement to decide "before you arrive"? You are playing against one pair at the table if you are E/W, and I don't think the silliness of standing up and then sitting back down is necessary if you are N/S.

[Finch]

Supposedly if you arrive at a table, and the pair play, say, penalty doubles of weak twos, you are not allowed to switch to intermediate twos. However, if you happen to know this pair's system, you can switch your methods before you get to the table. I don't think this makes a lot of sense. Can someone clear this up for me?

 

Your premise is incorrect (assuming you have suitable convention cards ready).

You are fine if your opponents have decided to play a fixed system e.g. they are prepared to tell you that they always play penalty doubles of weak twos.

However, your opponents are also allowed to play penalty doubles of weak twos against some people, and take-out doubles against you. They are not obliged to tell you what defence they play against your two-bids until you have said what strength of two bids you are playing.

[Finch]

You have never seen this pair in your life, and are not, as far as I understand, permitted to change your methods after being apprised of their defences.

 

You are permitted to change your methods if they are prepared to tell you their defences. They aren't obliged to do so, however.

[Vampyr]

You are permitted to change your methods if they are prepared to tell you their defences. They aren't obliged to do so, however.

 

So it is true, then, that the person who happens to know what defenses the pair play has an advantage. I do not think this is fair..

[Vampyr]

And where do you get the requirement to decide "before you arrive"? You are playing against one pair at the table if you are E/W, and I don't think the silliness of standing up and then sitting back down is necessary if you are N/S.

This is irrelevant and silly. I wish that when you start a topic you could lock people out of it, because so far you have posted two entirely inane messages.

[pran]

So it is true, then, that the person who happens to know what defenses the pair play has an advantage. I do not think this is fair..

Pair A has different "aggessive" methods depending on opponents' defenses.

Pair D has different "defenses" depending on opponents' aggressive methods.

 

In that case pair A must select its methods before pair D decides on theirs. (I know that this has been discussed - I believe within WBFLC).

 

If pair D has just one defense then of course pair A is free to select their aggresive methods accordingly and this places pair D at a disadvantage. Is this fair? Of course it is because pair D has not used their options.

[GreenMan]

You are permitted to change your methods if they are prepared to tell you their defences. They aren't obliged to do so, however.

 

I would be surprised if this were strictly true; I would think that a pair ought to have to disclose this sort of thing when asked. Of course, the proper answer may be "Our defense to 2-level openings depends on their meaning; what are yours?" In that case the opener has to go first.

[Vampyr]

Pair A has different "aggessive" methods depending on opponents' defenses.

Pair D has different "defenses" depending on opponents' aggressive methods.

 

In that case pair A must select its methods before pair D decides on theirs. (I know that this has been discussed - I believe within WBFLC).

 

If pair D has just one defense then of course pair A is free to select their aggresive methods accordingly and this places pair D at a disadvantage. Is this fair? Of course it is because pair D has not used their options.

 

Right, you have not understood. I am not talking about advantage and disadvantage between the two pairs at the table together. I must not have been very clear, because several people have not understood what I have said.

[pran]

Pair A has different "aggessive" methods depending on opponents' defenses.

Pair D has different "defenses" depending on opponents' aggressive methods.

 

In that case pair A must select its methods before pair D decides on theirs. (I know that this has been discussed - I believe within WBFLC).

 

If pair D has just one defense then of course pair A is free to select their aggresive methods accordingly and this places pair D at a disadvantage. Is this fair? Of course it is because pair D has not used their options.

 

Right, you have not understood. I am not talking about advantage and disadvantage between the two pairs at the table together. I must not have been very clear, because several people have not understood what I have said.

 

Is it surprising that a pair using only a limited part of their options will usually be at disadvantage compared to another pair that makes (good) use of all their options in a similar situation? And is this disadvantage in any way unfair?