Lying About Stayman

[Cyberyeti]

OP will probably go to hell. :ph34r:

 

Where TBF he'll meet about 95% of the other bridge players who are there for various misdemeanours.

[kenberg]

I've found that when playing 2n-3♣-3♥ as no 4-card major, the opponents are often not amused when you show up with 6 hearts and insist partner's explanation was correct.

 

I see your point, but all in all if my opponents want to suppress a six card major during the bidding, I don't mind. I might even say that I would happily encourage them to do it.

[EricK]

My partner did this to me last week. Suffice it to say it was wrong on the hand he had. Personally, I think you need a really good reason to lie in response to a direct question from partner. And when your hand is in line with your previous bidding, you almost certainly don't have a really good reason.

[Stephen Tu]

Absolutely not. No-one, least of all I, advocates having implicit concealed understandings, and I trust that you do not suggest that this is possible in the robot tourney environment or that the action is in anyway illegal, "essentially" or otherwise, in that environment.

 

It is not possible to disclose system info to the robots. Thus you are operating with a tendency that in real life would have to be disclosed to human opponents, but vs. robots you can't. I suggest this is against the spirit of bridge law, even though in a robot tourney there is no enforcement mechanism and lots of people do these things.

[helene_t]

It is not possible to disclose system info to the robots. Thus you are operating with a tendency that in real life would have to be disclosed to human opponents, but vs. robots you can't.

Not true. In real life it would have to be disclosed if his partner knew about his history of lying. Here, his partner doesn't know anything about his history.

[chasetb]

What you really need is a way for partner to 'Checkback' to see how good your hand, and particularly your trump suit is. If you have the other suits well stopped (Strong NT, weak NT 2 of 3 suits stopped) but garbage trump, then 3NT might be the best game.

[ArtK78]

I have been playing this game for nearly 42 years, and I have yet to lie in response to Stayman. I have to admit thinking about it once or twice, but the fact of the matter is that partner asked if you have a 4-card major, and I am going to respond honestly. I don't know yet what he will do with the information, but at least he will have honest information to deal with.

[Zelandakh]

What you really need is a way for partner to 'Checkback' to see how good your hand, and particularly your trump suit is.

If you wanted you could use SID for this purpose rather than the traditional idea of checking back for 4333 shape.

[aguahombre]

I have been playing this game for nearly 42 years, and I have yet to lie in response to Stayman. I have to admit thinking about it once or twice, but the fact of the matter is that partner asked if you have a 4-card major, and I am going to respond honestly. I don't know yet what he will do with the information, but at least he will have honest information to deal with.

Yes, and in those 42 years you probably never opened 1NT with a 6-card major. I would be concerned about the information/thought processes which went into that decision and the collateral choice not to show the suit at all in response to Stayman. I might wonder if, upon a Smolen continuation, they carefully avoided their 6-6 fit.

[Lovera]

Here's a few other things to think about

 

1. The bulk of your HCPs are in Aces and Kings. Aces and Kings (often) suggest that a suit contract will play better than NT

2. You have very few useful intermediates (Jacks, 10s, 9s, etc). These slow stoppers can be very useful in a NT contract

3. You have A4 in the diamond suit which is two big flaws for a NT contract. (The suit is short, so its likely to be lead and you can only hold up on the suit once)

4. You're at the bottom of your range for a 12-14 HCP NT opening. (Holding 24-25 HCPs, a 4-4 fit will often take 1 more trick in the suit than in NT. Less true with 27-28 or so)

 

I wouldn't string my partner up for lying about a four card major, but this isn't the hand to do so...

 

Here's a 12-14 HCP 1NT opening where I'd be more tempted

 

♠ KJT

♥ 8652

♦ KQT

♣ KQT

[Lovera]

Questa mano non credo sia proprio idonea alla dichiarazione senza atout debole Stayman che rrichiede che la forza della mano sia distribuita almeno in tre colori e non costituita solo da teste (sembra una mano povera). Penso sia preferibile l'apertura di 1 fiori.

[kuhchung]

I've found that when playing 2n-3♣-3♥ as no 4-card major, the opponents are often not amused when you show up with 6 hearts and insist partner's explanation was correct.

 

Maybe partner should have explained it as "no 4 OR 5 card major"

[ggwhiz]

On the general subject of lying, when Zia first hit the scene their partnership would open on air and later show zero aces in response to blackwood, hiding one. The next bid up asked "Are you sure?".

 

I think it was Billy Eisenberg coaching them later that convinced them to dump check back blackwood but son of check back stayman may appeal.

[ArtK78]

Yes, and in those 42 years you probably never opened 1NT with a 6-card major. I would be concerned about the information/thought processes which went into that decision and the collateral choice not to show the suit at all in response to Stayman. I might wonder if, upon a Smolen continuation, they carefully avoided their 6-6 fit.

I believe that the only poster who mentioned 6-card majors was JLOGIC, and he emphasized that this tactic is particularly effective in robot games on BBO, but also works in face-to-face games. Being a veteran of thousands of sessions of robot games on BBO, I can tell you that tactics that work in robot games are things I would never think of doing in real life. But I occasionally play online with a friend from Virginia who has opened 1NT with a six card major. He has some "interesting" ideas about the game.

[1eyedjack]

It is not possible to disclose system info to the robots. Thus you are operating with a tendency that in real life would have to be disclosed to human opponents, but vs. robots you can't. I suggest this is against the spirit of bridge law, even though in a robot tourney there is no enforcement mechanism and lots of people do these things.

 

I lose no sleep over being unable to describe my system to the robots.

For one thing there is nothing that I could tell them about my system that they do not already know. It is a system imposed upon me by my partner, who happens to be a clone of the opponents.

My decisions to depart from the system are for me alone to know (at the time), and all other three players at the table to discover as the hand plays out. I am afforded the luxury of departing frequently from the system because all three other players at the table (crucially including partner) have the memory of a goldfish.

 

For another thing, this practice does not disturb the fundamental principle of equity that requires it to be a level playing field. The only other adversaries are other humans sitting South who have the same options.

 

For as long as the level playing field is preserved, and and the letter of the law is observed, in my opinion if you seek to suggest that I am breaking the spirit of the law then the onus is on you to back it up and be a bit more explicit.

 

There is one exception to the level playing field that may be worth closer examination, and that is the "Instant" tourneys, where the other human Souths are playing with and against a different version of robot. It is not possible to predict with certainty that the same opportunity to psych will be available to South at separate tables for the same pre-set conditions preceding the psychic bid, nor that the actions resulting from it will be identical. It may be worth noting that the Instant tourney is definitely NOT a level playing field even before you make a decision to psych, however frequently if at all, for that very reason. Indeed you are walking into the tournament with a built in disadvantage, having two enhanced opponents to only one enhanced partner, compared with other human adversaries. If psyching plays a small part in levelling that playing field then if anything it reinforces the spirit of the law.

[Stephen Tu]

I suppose I can see that it is "fair" but playing in this way starts to be a different game than bridge which is supposed to be full disclosure game with occasional psyching, not a "make everyone guess" free for all rampant psyching against handicapped opponents not knowing they are playing a different game.

 

I think gaming "bridge vs. 3 robots" for max BBO tourney score should be discussed in a different thread not brought up in a question presumably intended to ask what's best in a game with humans.

[1eyedjack]

The unfortunate confusion resulting from raising the point has been the issue of frequency; namely, an unwarranted inferred assumption that a high frequency in a robot tourney might be acceptable in F2F. While a high frequency in a robot tourney MAY be a long term optimal strategy (in that environment) each individual occasion is, as far as the robots are concerned, the first occasion in their combined cybernetic lives. IF it is a long term winning strategy (in that environment), that results from each isolated event providing a small statistical edge.

 

The sole relevance (to this thread) of the high frequency in robot tourneys is that it provides the opportunity to amass a lot of data over a short time frame that would not be possible in F2F. From that large population you hope to prove the small statistical edge afforded to an isolated psych, which then (hopefully) can be compared with an isolated psych at F2F.

 

It is certainly appropriate to consider whether robots are handicapped (contrasted with humans) in combatting psychs and, if you so conclude, to adjust your conclusions accordingly (which, incidentally, might not require entirely discarding those conclusions). The robots' greatest handicap, in my view, is their lack of memory, which affords the human an opportunity for "rampant" psyching for the effect of multiplying up each small statistical edge on an arithmetic basis. But it would be wrong to include that particular handicap in any adjustment for this purpose.

 

Robots may have other handicaps, but also they do play a 57% game, and in my experience/opinion their naive defences against a declarer who has psyched generally has sound logic behind it where blind faith is assumed. Blind faith may not be that far removed from F2F reality if, as this thread indicates, lying in response to Stayman is a strict no-no.

 

There are two entirely separate reasons why lying in response to Stayman MIGHT be worthwhile.

1) It may be expected to guide you to a superior contract, regardless of whether oppo are aware, and

2) It may confuse the oppo (which effect may more than compensate for occasions when reason 1 is reversed and you land in theoretically a worse spot).

 

I have only been considering the second point. Most of the other responders have been addressing the first, and with whom I broadly agree.

[Stephen Tu]

I think the main problem with using results against robots as your argument for concealment is their lack of defensive signalling. They have a strong tendency to either lead the right suit but then switch, or find the right switch and then not continue that long suit. These are the exact hand types where being in 3nt is a mistake. Unless you are carefully recording statistics and manually correcting for "hmm humans would never get this defense wrong" conclusions would be invalid.

[Vampyr]

It is not possible to disclose system info to the robots. Thus you are operating with a tendency that in real life would have to be disclosed to human opponents, but vs. robots you can't. I suggest this is against the spirit of bridge law, even though in a robot tourney there is no enforcement mechanism and lots of people do these things.

 

I don't understand this. It seems entirely reasonable to do what you like against robots.

[Stephen Tu]

I can see how people see it's reasonable/fair since it's a tactic available to all the human competitors, just to me it seems unsporting. It's like using a cheat code in a video game. The robots have a bug/limitation, and you are exploiting it, I don't see it as winning bridge strategy as I can't see it working effectively against humans.

[Zelandakh]

I do not see the problem in using a cheat code in a video game either, providing the game is not multiplayer. The only person you are cheating is yourself since you effectively cut out some of the playability.

[helene_t]

it is more akin to exploiting weak pairs in a pairs tourney for example by preempting more against pairs that play fishbein and less against pairs that are bad constructive bidders.

[ArtK78]

I can see how people see it's reasonable/fair since it's a tactic available to all the human competitors, just to me it seems unsporting. It's like using a cheat code in a video game. The robots have a bug/limitation, and you are exploiting it, I don't see it as winning bridge strategy as I can't see it working effectively against humans.

Let's take this out of the Robot context and back into real life play. Suppose you knew for a fact that a legal treatment or convention (10-12 1NT, multi, etc.) would be beyond the ability of a particular field to handle (and likely to lead to good results), not because of its technical merit, but because of its unfamiliarity. Would it be "unsporting" to use such a convention in that field? Keep in mind that I am stating as part of the conditions of contest that the convention is allowed by the sanctioning body for that event.

[mycroft]

I believe quite strongly in the captain theory, and 1NT is the most "Captaincy" call in most system's toolbox. You bid NT naturally, your partner is captain. If you want to mastermind after that, don't bid 1NT (or, if you have to bid 1NT so you get to play the hand, find another partner, thanks). You know nothing about partner's hand, and yet want to show a 3333 because you're scared of a crap suit in a flat hand. Partner knows you have a flat(-tish) hand; partner usually isn't looking at 9xxx himself, so he probably has a good idea about your suit quality. Even when he is looking at 9xxx, frequently the suit breaks 3-2 and you're in the right spot anyway (and it's fun to watch the honours crash).

[eagles123]

[hv=pc=n&s=sak6h8742da4cj982&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=1n(12-14)p2cp]133|200[/hv]

 

I held this hand earlier today. I bid 2d thinking my H holding was so rubbish and I have stops in all the other suits so my p signed off in 3N. I know p could have had a hand that 4H was good but 3N wasn't (if holding 4H) but was lying about stayman right? If not when is it right to lie?

 

thanks,

 

Eagles

 

dear oh dear this wasn't one of my cleverest ideas :D