Another sort of contingency

[Vampyr]

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?

 

I think that it is unfair, yes, because the pair that do not know the opponents' defenses do not have all options available to them. They will be stuck with the system on the CCs they give to their opponents and will only then become aware of the latter's defenses. The pair with foreknowledge will be able to switch beforehand. It is not the first pair's fault that their options were fewer. They would have switched too, but could not do so after declaring themselves.

[pran]

I think that it is unfair, yes, because the pair that do not know the opponents' defenses do not have all options available to them. They will be stuck with the system on the CCs they give to their opponents and will only then become aware of the latter's defenses. The pair with foreknowledge will be able to switch beforehand. It is not the first pair's fault that their options were fewer. They would have switched too, but could not do so after declaring themselves.

To take this further and into a more general aspect: Is it unfair to an unexperienced pair that they are at disadvantage compared to a more excperienced pair because this pair knows (far) more bridge?

[Vampyr]

To take this further and into a more general aspect: Is it unfair to an unexperienced pair that they are at disadvantage compared to a more excperienced pair because this pair knows (far) more bridge?

 

This is not remotely related to the topic at hand. You haven't the vaguest notion what this thread is about, so why do you continue to comment?

 

But I'll answer your question: I don't think that happening to know, before you sit down against them, the methods of the pair you are about to meet does not know that you know "far more bridge" than the pair who have never seen them before.

[nige1]

To take this further and into a more general aspect: Is it unfair to an unexperienced pair that they are at disadvantage compared to a more excperienced pair because this pair knows (far) more bridge?

Perhaps we can distinguish between:

• Basic bridge-skills: like bidding judgement, play-technique and partnership rapport.
• Bridge lawyering skills: taking advantage of legal quirks created by over-sophisticated laws. Vampyr shows how you might exploit such a loop-hole. (A possible fix: the law could prevent a partnership from changing its basic constructive system during a competition but permit it to add defences to unanticipated methods of opponents).

Other recently highlighted Secretary-bird skills are:

• Asking about an alert just to create UI for opponents, who appear to be suffering from a bidding misunderstanding.
• Agreeing radical variations in your methods, contingent on options chosen by a player after an infraction.

[mycroft]

I know Player A - in my partnership, there are "no" optional doubles - "any" DTRT double sent to me will get passed. Players from Penticton, or either London, are at a disadvantage to me because they don't realize that the best description I've heard of Player A is "he plays a trick better than the room. That's a good thing, because he's usually two tricks higher than the room."

 

I know partnership B-C - they're "the best pair in Canada you've never heard of." They're also fairly old-fashioned (not stodgy, just sounder than your average junior). I would expect that I will do better against them than my clone from London, too, because I can make better judgements at the table than they.

 

In LeftPondia, we can't adjust our system to the pair (at least in a pair game; our definition of session is such that we could at Swiss Teams). But assume we could - is it fair that I can decide whether to play 2/1 or EHAA depending on whether I think they can handle a 10-12 NT? or whether they'll be pissed off at all their auctions starting at the 2 level, "randomly"? or whether I like them? or whether they gripe about "all those pairs with their weird conventions - they just want to win by confusing me" (Note, I am very good at explaining that EHAA is "less conventional than your system - we don't open 3-card suits, we don't make bids that show 'any shape', we don't bid the suit under the one we actually have, ..." with a straight face. Some people deserve it. Some don't, and I would, in fact, like to be allowed to vary my system so that we play something mildly recognizable against those pairs. But I can't, so I apologize, and do my best to make sure they understand what we're doing.)

 

Not knowing that they play special defences that you won't like is a disadvantage, true; but not more a disadvantage than any of the above - which *won't* appear on the SCs.

[Vampyr]

Not knowing that they play special defences that you won't like is a disadvantage, true; but not more a disadvantage than any of the above - which *won't* appear on the SCs.

 

I think that it is, because it affects pairs so differently. Suppose I am about to play pair 7. I play Precision, and these people play a very random defense to artificial 1♣ openings. I am well placed to win the event, and don't want the randomising effect this pair might have on my score. So I pull out my Acol CC.

 

The other pair in contention also play a strong club, or a short club or whatever, and they would not like a random element added to their score either. But they do not know this pair, and will be committed when they sit down and hand over their CC.

 

I think that these two pairs are operating under different CoC, which is what bothers me.

 

The other thing about playing different systems according to what the opponents can't handle or don't like is a different situation, and I happen to think that it is fair, but can appreciate the opposite point of view. I don't know anyone who actually does this; it seems like too much trouble.

[pran]

This is not remotely related to the topic at hand. You haven't the vaguest notion what this thread is about, so why do you continue to comment?

 

But I'll answer your question: I don't think that happening to know, before you sit down against them, the methods of the pair you are about to meet does not know that you know "far more bridge" than the pair who have never seen them before.

So you do not agree that what this really is about is whether it is fair that a player with better knowledge has an advantage over a player with less knowledge?

 

Players who know about doubles for penalty or takeout will often in advance have agreed their relevant defences against such doubles. They will automatically choose the desired defence when receiving opponents' explanation of doubles and they will explain their own defences accordingly.

 

These players will of course have an advantage over other players that are unprepared for different kinds of doubles, and this advantage is (again of course) fair, there cannot be any question about that.

[Vampyr]

So you do not agree that what this really is about is whether it is fair that a player with better knowledge has an advantage over a player with less knowledge?

 

I guess it is, And I do not really think that it is fair. I do not understand the relevance of the rest of your post. It has nothing to do with this thread, and I really wish you would learn to read and stop wasting other people's time. Obviously if you are talking about bridge knowledge or detailed agreements you are correct, but I would love to know what this has to do with the topic I have brought up. Actually, no, I wouldn't.

[blackshoe]

i have some thoughts about this question of fairness, but since I'm unsure precisely what Vampyr is getting at I'm not going to voice them. I will say that given the fact that a significant number of us "don't get it", perhaps Vampyr should be less inclined to complain about folks being off topic and more inclined to try to clarify what she meant.

[Vampyr]

Well, some people "get it" but let me try again.

 

You can change your methods between rounds, but not after a round has begun and convention cards have been exchanged. So a pair who know (from previous experience, or because they are friends or whatever) what defenses their opponents will be playing can change, but a pair who would like to make the same changes for the same reasons will be too late if they learn about the defenses at the table, because if they are reading the opponents' convention cards they have already handed over their own and are committed to the system written thereon.

[pran]

Well, some people "get it" but let me try again.

 

You can change your methods between rounds, but not after a round has begun and convention cards have been exchanged. So a pair who know (from previous experience, or because they are friends or whatever) what defenses their opponents will be playing can change, but a pair who would like to make the same changes for the same reasons will be too late if they learn about the defenses at the table, because if they are reading the opponents' convention cards they have already handed over their own and are committed to the system written thereon.

 

I believe you have the fundamental misunderstanding that having different defences to different types of calls is "changing (or varying) your system".

 

It isn't!

 

The original question was raised years ago when a pair requested information on opponents' defence against preemptive bids so that they could choose between light or solid preemptive bids. The were told that they had to choose their preemptive style first, they were not permitted to vary their preemptive style depending on their opponents' subsequent defence.

 

A partnership playing one defence (e.g. double for penalty) against light preemptive bids and a different defence (e.g. double for takeout) against more solid preemptive bids does not vary their system (or Methods). Their system simply contains different defences for different situations.

[blackshoe]

Methinks you've misstated the rule. Isn't it that a pair can change its defenses to opponent's methods, but that once that choice is made, the opponents can't change methods based on the stated defenses? Either way I gather you would like a different rule. How do you avoid the infinite loop then (you've changed your defense, so we'll change our method; okay, you've changed your method, so we'll change our defense…)?

[PhilKing]

I think that it is unfair, yes, because the pair that do not know the opponents' defenses do not have all options available to them.

 

If you have faith in your methods, you should be prepared to play them against all comers. And undoubtedly you will have agreements against relevant countermeasure.

 

If they are designed to work solely against rookies and fish, then that is unfair. You should not be allowed to revert to bridge if you are rumbled.

 

Perhaps coincidentally, the laws and fairness are in agreement on this issue.

[wanoff]

Methinks you've misstated the rule. Isn't it that a pair can change its defenses to opponent's methods, but that once that choice is made, the opponents can't change methods based on the stated defenses? Either way I gather you would like a different rule. How do you avoid the infinite loop then (you've changed your defense, so we'll change our method; okay, you've changed your method, so we'll change our defense…)?

 

Why would there be an infinite loop. The example given was of penalty doubles over your weak 2. If for some reason the op wished to swap to intermediate 2s, are you saying that a defence of takeout or penalty doubles to this would be so uncomfortable that the loop would continue?

btw I have no real interest, good intermediates or suit would suffice and I'd just let them play their c**p defense.

[blackshoe]

Why would there be an infinite loop. The example given was of penalty doubles over your weak 2. If for some reason the op wished to swap to intermediate 2s, are you saying that a defence of takeout or penalty doubles to this would be so uncomfortable that the loop would continue?

btw I have no real interest, good intermediates or suit would suffice and I'd just let them play their c**p defense.

There are some situations in which the loop might apply. There are other situations where it would probably not. Do you wish the rules to cater to all possibilities individually? Or would you prefer a general rule that, while it might not be perfect, is at least easy to understand and apply?

[wanoff]

There are some situations in which the loop might apply. There are other situations where it would probably not. Do you wish the rules to cater to all possibilities individually? Or would you prefer a general rule that, while it might not be perfect, is at least easy to understand and apply?

 

Agree, though to allow one switch would also be easy to understand and apply.

[blackshoe]

Agree, though to allow one switch would also be easy to understand and apply.

That's what the current rule does, isn't it? Attackers <g> must specify their mode of attack, defenders can switch their defense.

[Vampyr]

I believe you have the fundamental misunderstanding that having different defences to different types of calls is "changing (or varying) your system".

 

It isn't!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure that switching from Precision to Acol is "changing (or varying) your system". I have never mentioned "having different defenses", nor suggested that it was in any way relevant.

 

Methinks you've misstated the rule. Isn't it that a pair can change its defenses to opponent's methods, but that once that choice is made, the opponents can't change methods based on the stated defenses? Either way I gather you would like a different rule. How do you avoid the infinite loop then (you've changed your defense, so we'll change our method; okay, you've changed your method, so we'll change our defense…)?

 

I don't know what rule I would like, but as you say the opponents can't change their methods after being told the defenses, because you may create a loop and maybe other reasons. But if they had known the defenses before the round, they would have changed their methods before the round.

 

If you have faith in your methods, you should be prepared to play them against all comers. And undoubtedly you will have agreements against relevant countermeasure.

 

Naturally, but as I mentioned above, if the opponents have a high-variance defense to something, you may wish to avoid it, say if you are qualifying for a final but not by much. Or maybe something else; I mean, I don't know when or why this might apply. Just that it is possible.

 

Why would there be an infinite loop. The example given was of penalty doubles over your weak 2.

 

Yeah, that was a stupid example. Switching from strong club to Acol is a lot better.

 

Sorry, Phil, I deleted too much of your message, and it's a big pain to redo something on my iPad Mini. But if you wish to have one system against a weak players and one against strong players, it is both legal and, IMO, fair.

[pran]

But if you wish to have one system against a weak players and one against strong players, it is both legal and, IMO, fair.

 

Agreed, but that is (as far as I have noticed) not what this discussion is about:

 

Q: What style are your preemptive opening bids (at the three-Level)?

A: That depends on your doubles. If you double for penalty our bids are solid, if you double for takeout our bids are light.

[nige1]

Agreed, but that is (as far as I have noticed) not what this discussion is about:

Q: What style are your preemptive opening bids (at the three-Level)?

A: That depends on your doubles. If you double for penalty our bids are solid, if you double for takeout our bids are light.

Pran's scenario is different from Vampyr's:

 

• You know a formidable pair always employ penalty doubles against weak twos.
• You employ weak twos, are doing well, and are about to play against that pair.
• Before you play against them, you decide to change to beef-up your twos.
• The rules allow that change; but is it fair on other pairs not privy to your local knowledge?
• Of course, opponents are now free to change their defence to your two-openers.
• But you may still feel that you have dodged a bullet.

[Vampyr]

Pran's scenario is different from Vampyr's:

 

• [*]You know a formidable pair always employ penalty doubles against weak twos.

 

Or or they are an inexperienced pair and you don't want to subject them to your highly experimental system. Or something; it is not important what you want to change and why. The point, as Nige1 has put more clearly than I have apparently been able to do, is that you have knowledge of the opponents and can make an informed decision before starting the round and committing yourself. Others without this knowledge cannot do the same.

 

Just by the by, Sven has, in his most recent post, created an endless loop. Well, not so much a loop, but an example of what you can't do. Of course tightening up your requirements is a minor change if it is a change at all, but for substantive changes at least, you cannot say "we are playing method M", hear "OK, we play defense D over that" and then say, "oh, well in that case we play method N".

[Finch]

Or or they are an inexperienced pair and you don't want to subject them to your highly experimental system. Or something; it is not important what you want to change and why. The point, as Nige1 has put more clearly than I have apparently been able to do, is that you have knowledge of the opponents and can make an informed decision before starting the round and committing yourself. Others without this knowledge cannot do the same.

 

You 'inexperienced pair' example is totally different from where you started on this thread, because an inexperienced pair couldn't change their 'system' even if they wanted to.

 

I think your assumptions are just wrong here. We're in theoretical-world rather than real life, but in theoretical-world there is no reason that you have to commit yourself in advance. The difference between 'committing yourself' before and after the start of the round doesn't really exist in theoretical-world. Let's say that I want to play strong NT against pairs who don't play double as penalties, but weak NT against those who play double of a strong NT as penalties. The following scenario is what would happen in real life:

 

Option 1

"Hi. What defence do you play against strong NT?"

"Multi-landy.... double is major/minor canape"

"We play strong NT"

 

The following scenario also strikes me as entirely legal

Option 2

"Hi. What defence do you play against strong NT?"

"Do you play strong NT?"

"We haven't decided yet"

"Well, you tell me what you play and we'll tell you our defence"

 

The difference is that in Option 1 the opposing pair are giving more disclosure than they are obliged to do so. They could, in theory, have multiple convention cards... one gives only the defence against a strong NT and the other gives only the defence against a weak NT, and they give you the relevant card when they find out what you are playing.

 

The pair who have the 'disadvantage' in your original post aren't the other hypothetical pair sitting your way, but the opponents you know, because apparently they have told you in advance what their defence to both strong and weak NT is. I know you've played them before, but they could have changed their methods since then.

 

I realise my theoretical-world construct starts to fall down a little in events where you have to submit your system in advance. But if there were actually a real life issue (which there isn't*) then we'd simply do our convention-card submitting in two stages: once showing opening bids and then secondly showing defences.

 

*Many people play different defences to different opening bids. Some people may choose their opening bid as a consequence of knowing opposing methods (most commonly when deciding what psyche to make, much less frequently a decision on partnership agreements). But nobody actually wants their defensive methods to remain a secret until the opposition have chosen their opening bids. (I am aware of exactly one ruling ever on this topic, where a pair were accused of lying about their defensive methods to induce the other pair to play a particular opening bid that otherwise they wouldn't have done)

[broze]

The following scenario also strikes me as entirely legal

Option 2

A. "Hi. What defence do you play against strong NT?"

B. "Do you play strong NT?"

A. "We haven't decided yet"

B. "Well, you tell me what you play and we'll tell you our defence"

 

This might continue:

 

A. "Well, can we see your convention card?"

B. "We have two and which one we play depends on what you play."

A. "Is that legal?"

B. "Pff."

A. "Can we see them both then?"

B. "Not until you show us yours."

A. "Director!"

 

What should happen now?

[Vampyr]

You 'inexperienced pair' example is totally different from where you started on this thread, because an inexperienced pair couldn't change their 'system' even if they wanted to.

 

Sorry, I seem to be having trouble making myself clear. I meant that the your opposition were inexperienced, and you don't want to play, against them, something that they would not understand or enjoy playing against.

 

The pair who have the 'disadvantage' in your original post aren't the other hypothetical pair sitting your way, but the opponents you know, because apparently they have told you in advance what their defence to both strong and weak NT is. I know you've played them before, but they could have changed their methods since then.

 

Yes, them too I guess.

[pran]

This might continue:

 

A. "Well, can we see your convention card?"

B. "We have two and which one we play depends on what you play."

A. "Is that legal?"

B. "Pff."

A. "Can we see them both then?"

B. "Not until you show us yours."

A. "Director!"

 

What should happen now?

This was essentially the OP question although slightly concealed.

The question has already been answered several times.

 

Style and methods must be declared before opponents select their defences to them.

 

A is entitled to see both convention cards used by B, but B is free to select which of their defences will apply until A has shown their CC.