blackshoe Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 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.It seems to me that B is free to select any defense to whatever A has on their card, including one which is not on either of the cards B has shown to A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pran Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 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. It seems to me that B is free to select any defense to whatever A has on their card, including one which is not on either of the cards B has shown to A. I think that is correct if none of the defence systems B has listed appears suitable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 I think that is correct if none of the defence systems B has listed appears suitable.I do not think the laws impose that restriction. I think that if a regulation is to impose it, it must be explicit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
broze Posted January 5, 2014 Report Share Posted January 5, 2014 This was essentially the OP question although slightly concealed.The question has already been answered several times. Yes, I understand this. I was trying to show that both of Frances' scenarios will amount to the same thing: that the party arriving at the table will be able to find out the relevant defences to the different No Trumps before disclosing which one they play, though as you say they can then change their defence. Style and methods must be declared before opponents select their defences to them. Which law are we actually dealing with? Or if it is only a regulation can someone tell me what the EBU one is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gombo121 Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Everybody in the topic keep talking about "methods" and "defenses". Anybody care to provide definitions for the terms? If pair A plays strong club system, pair B uses CRASH after opponent's 1c opening, and pair A have special understandings for doubles/cuebids for the case of CRASH-style two-suited interventions - which one is a method and which is a defense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Everybody in the topic keep talking about "methods" and "defenses". Anybody care to provide definitions for the terms? If pair A plays strong club system, pair B uses CRASH after opponent's 1c opening, and pair A have special understandings for doubles/cuebids for the case of CRASH-style two-suited interventions - which one is a method and which is a defense?Strong club is a method, CRASH is a defense, the special understandings are a counter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Strong club is a method, CRASH is a defense, the special understandings are a counter.And then, if a NT advance to the CRASH call is a strong bid requesting CRASHer's fragment after a Pass ---but is something else if the Double or Redouble showed values --- this would be a defensive recounter? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Actually I think that too would fall under "defense". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aguahombre Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 Actually I think that too would fall under "defense".So do I. I was extending to the absurd...trying to say that the "counter" is part of the method itself, and there are only two categories: method, and defense to the method. No continuum back and forth out to infinity to worry about when figuring out who gets to change what based on whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I think we're agreed that this is not Galaxy Quest. B-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 We have been through this before. There is no loop providing you completely describe your methods. In the classic case of strong/weak NT for example, the statement "strong if doubles are pentltay, weak if doubles are not penalty" is not full disclosure because it does not cover all cases. What this really states is "strong if you play a penalty double of a strong NT, weak if you play a non-penalty double of a weak NT" but that leaves a case unaccounted for. You therefore need an additional clause "otherwise 14-16" or whatever. This works for all cases. The fact that noone does this is neither here nor there. You do not need different phases or to think about methods, defenses and counters - just give complete disclousre on the original system definition and everything works just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.