A curious question.
scott andrew taddiken
what if two pairs sit down to play in, say, the US Open Pairs competition,
and cannot agree on what system they are playing?
The simplest example I can think of is this: One pair announces to the other
that they make VERY undisciplined use of weak two's (made illegal now, from
what I hear, but this is a hypothetical question). The other pair say, ok, in
that case they will play the Fishbein convention, which allows the player over
the weak two bidder to double for penalties with the right kind of hand. Now
the first pair look startled and say, well, they won't play those undisciplined
weak two's after all. Then the second pair says they won't use Fishbein after
all. Etcetera.
Of course I know this is silly. But it seems to me that something like it
could happen. In the knockouts, where I am told you are briefed about your
opponents' bidding system in advance, you might devise a defense to one of
their unusual sequences. Upon being informed of your defence, they devise a
defense to your defense. Upon being informed of their defense to your defense,
you devise a defense to... and you don't get to play in this lifetime.
Do the Laws or Proprieties have anything to say?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott A. Taddiken, University of Kentucky
Steve Altus
>The 'defenses to defenses to a strong 1c bid' thread has made me curious:
>what if two pairs sit down to play in, say, the US Open Pairs competition,
>and cannot agree on what system they are playing?
>
>The simplest example I can think of is this: One pair announces to the other
>that they make VERY undisciplined use of weak two's (made illegal now, from
>what I hear, but this is a hypothetical question). The other pair say, ok, in
>that case they will play the Fishbein convention, which allows the player over
>the weak two bidder to double for penalties with the right kind of hand. Now
>the first pair look startled and say, well, they won't play those undisciplined
>weak two's after all. Then the second pair says they won't use Fishbein after
>all. Etcetera.
>
legend has it that the so-called "Merry-Go-Round Rule" applies here, and
that Bo-Yin once collected 1100 in committee when someone who normally
opens Bergen-esque weak twos failed to against him, apparently because he
knew Bo-Yin played optional direct doubles and the either-or double in
balancing.
Bo-Yin, care to elaborate?
--steve altus
Asya Kamsky
>In article <1992Sep9....@ms.uky.edu> sata...@nx06.mik.uky.edu (scott andrew taddiken) writes:
>>what if two pairs sit down to play in, say, the US Open Pairs competition,
>>and cannot agree on what system they are playing?
>>The simplest example I can think of is this: One pair announces to the other
>>that they make VERY undisciplined use of weak two's (made illegal now, from
Not illegal at all, this is a myth.
>>what I hear, but this is a hypothetical question). The other pair say, ok, in
>>that case they will play the Fishbein convention, which allows the player over
>>the weak two bidder to double for penalties with the right kind of hand. Now
>>thefirst pair look startled and say, well, they won't play those undisciplined
>>weak two's after all.
Too bad, they don't have a choice. In these cases, each team gets one chance to
decide what they are playing. Then you must stick to it.
Same reason the law says you can't change your system during the session.
>legend has it that the so-called "Merry-Go-Round Rule" applies here, and
Merry-go-round?
--
"In nature there are no rewards or punishments, only consequences"
Asya Kamsky e-mail: as...@ux5.lbl.gov Go Red Sox
"In order to command you must first learn to submit" - chinese fortune cookie
professor_who?
>... One pair announces to the other that they make VERY undisciplined use
>of weak two's (...). The other pair say, ok, in that case they will play
>the Fishbein convention, which allows the player over the weak two bidder
>to double for penalties with the right kind of hand. Now the first pair
>look startled and say, well, they won't play those undisciplined weak
>two's after all. Then the second pair says they won't use Fishbein after
>all. Etcetera. Of course I know this is silly.
In case someone hasn't jumped at the question, the WBF DOES have a rule to
cover this situation--- in esssence it is a Rule of Causality, or timing...
ONLY calls that have been made BEFORE the call in question may affect the
meaning of the call. Any other agreement is deemed illegal.
This is only enforceable in long team matches in reality, but in the Far
East, I am told, it is enforced in important championships.
In the situation above, what this means is that the pair to call first MUST
decide -- in this instance the preemptors. IF they announce that they will
open certain "aggressive" hands, then they MUST, else they can be assessed
procedural IMP penalties and adjusted boards.
[I.e. pair A plays McCallum-Shuman style, i.e. any hand with 5 card suits
must be opened, but they decide not to do so against a pair that plays
Fishbein, and did so MORE THAN ONCE. Their opponents appealed, and on all
the hands they SHOULD have opened they were hit with 3 imps each. This I
was told actually happened.]
Similarly, I overcall like there is no to-morrow, but I will do so even
against people who play penalty doubles unless I tell them beforehand, and
to do otherwise is unethical and against the rules.
ObAnti-American Rant: Of course Wolff and company got an exception inserted
that this does not apply to people playing Forcing pass systems. Please
write the ACBL and register your protest if you agree with me that this is
David desJardins
> Too bad, they don't have a choice. In these cases, each team gets one
> chance to decide what they are playing. Then you must stick to it.
>
> Same reason the law says you can't change your system during the session.
Is this by itself sufficient? Obviously it is permissible to play a
system of the form, "If your bid means A, then my bid means B, but if
your bid means X, then my bid means Y." Otherwise, it wouldn't be
possible to play different defenses against strong and weak notrumps,
for example. So I think that it is clear that the meaning of a bid can
depend on the meaning of the opponents' *previous* bids.
The question apparently refers to a different kind of conditional
agreement. Can the meaning of one's bids vary based on the meaning of
the opponents' *subsequent* bids?
On the one hand, there is an obvious problem with this. Unless some
order is defined in which the sides make their decisions, then circular
situations can result. It is not at all enough to say that each side
only gets to decide once, because you haven't answered the question of
who has to decide first.
On the other hand, if you ban all bids with meaning based on the
opponents' subsequent agreements, then virtually everyone in the ACBL is
cheating. For example, I can't believe that most players don't take
into account their opponents' ability to penalize them when they decide
whether and how high to preempt. I certainly do, and I think that that
is obvious bridge strategy. (This is precisely what the reference to
Bo-Yin is about; if taking such information into account is illegal,
then one side could be penalized for failing to preempt when they
normally would.)
Another example. Many pairs have gone into matches against pairs with
strong club relay systems with an explicit plan to interfere extremely
frequently over 1C. If it is not permissible to play a system which
conditions on the meaning of the opponents' subsequent bids, then such
pairs would not be permitted to play that way if they do not do so
against all strong club systems.
Another example. I have played against pairs who play negative doubles
after their side opens a strong NT. Certainly such an agreement is not
completely without merit. But I believe that the major reason that such
a system works is that the opponents know that you cannot be too
destructive, because most pairs play penalty doubles, and you would get
smashed too often. They are gaining by playing a system which is
unusual, and which I don't believe is technically superior, but which
works because of the opponents' inability to adapt to it by choosing the
best defense. (This, BTW, is the supposed reason that the ACBL bans
conventions, is it not?) (Of course, the main reason that it works is
not that the opponents refrain to adapt because of the rules, but
because they fail to mark it on their cards. One of my major peeves.)
David desJardins
professor_who?
>> [About "Merry-go-round" and who decides to play what when...]
>legend has it that the so-called "Merry-Go-Round Rule" applies here, and
>that Bo-Yin once collected 1100 in committee when someone who normally
>opens Bergen-esque weak twos failed to against him, apparently because he
>knew Bo-Yin played optional direct doubles and the either-or double in
>balancing.
>
>Bo-Yin, care to elaborate?
Okay, okay, here I am.
The gist of the case was this: someone, who was not a popular player, plays
Kamikaze weak two's and did not open against me. He waqs also stupid
enough to admit it when I found out that he declined to open his usually
"mandatory" weak twos-- repeatedly. I was then awarded a huge penalty on
one of the boards that he failed to open. A local committee stuck to the
ruling much to his displeasure.
Well, I was tickled pink with the result until I talked to Edgar Kaplan of
the Bridge World, and old Edgar convinced me that however pleasing the
result this ruling and committee decision) was WRONG.
Why?
Because the Director and the committee invoked the WRONG law. The
infraction committed was MISINFORMATION not Acting on Unauthorised
Information. I was never really hurt by his infraction (the failure to
tell me about his implicit switch of methods). In fact I would not be hurt
unless I played him not to have a five diamond card suit when he passed at
favorable at some point, or if I got stuck in a situation because I was
using specialised defences to what I thought was an undisciplined
preempting style. If either of the above occured, said Edgar, a score
adjustment will be in order.
Edgar goes on to comment that a procedural penalty, or in worse cases a
meeting with the C&D committee may be in order but the ruling that the guy
got gave him the short end of the stick.
I agree with his assessment.
[Also the ObAntiAmericanRant before initially came from Edgar-- the Bridge
World Office had an argument about whether it was or should be legal to
play a defence to a Strong pass system wherein a 1st-seat pass showed
either a normal pass or a strong hand with length in the presumed fert
suit. Edgar agreed with me that the opponents should be able to switch to
using a different fert altogether without penalty after this "marmic-ish"
pass and pronounced the specific exception to the WBF merry-go-round rule
A______n, especially W____-inspired _tauris_excretio_.]
Hope this provides food for thought for everyone.
line-eater fodder
professor_who?
>> ... each team gets one chance to decide what they are playing. ...
>Is this by itself sufficient? ... clear that the meaning of a bid can
>depend on the meaning of the opponents' *previous* bids.
>the opponents' *subsequent* bids?
Exactly. Also, can the meaning of one's bids vary based on the meaning of
the opponents' ability to judge competitive auctions, to defend, to play
stupid contracts, etc. etc. ....?
>... obvious problem with this. Unless some order is defined in which the
>sides make their decisions, then circular situations can result. It is
>not at all enough to say that each side only gets to decide once, because
>you haven't answered the question of who has to decide first.
Hence the Merry-Go-Round Rule. It is like the Timing Rule in many games--
SOMEONE has to decide first.
>... if you ban all bids with meaning based on the opponents' subsequent
>agreements, then virtually everyone in the ACBL is cheating.
I simply fail to see this.
>... I can't believe that most players don't take into account their
>opponents' ability to penalize them when they decide whether and how high
>to preempt.
I think that is irrelevant. For one, I don't, personally, but the
important point is that partner EXPLAINS your call correctly, including any
hidden stylistic inferences (e.g. We think you two are complete idiots so
we won't bother preempting at all against you..... :-) and that the
opponents are correctly appraised of the situation.
>I certainly do, and I think that that is obvious bridge strategy.
Well, perhaps some part of that is "obvious bridge strategy" but some part
of that treads dangerously close to the line of unethical behaviour. The
last refers to DISCLOSURE. As long as your opponents GET to know about
these modifications in a timely fashion so that they may spring any
countermeasures, you are fine, else you have committed MISINFORMATION.
>(This is precisely what the reference to Bo-Yin is about; if taking such
>information into account is illegal, then one side could be penalized for
>failing to preempt when they normally would.)
No, as I explained in the other post, one side could be penalised for
failing to preempt when they normally would CONSISTENTLY against CERTAIN
OPPOSITION and WITHOUT DISCLOSING said fact.
>Many pairs have gone into matches against pairs with strong club relay
>systems with an explicit plan to interfere extremely frequently over 1C.
>If it is not permissible to play a system which conditions on the meaning
>of the opponents' subsequent bids, then such pairs would not be permitted
>to play that way if they do not do so against all strong club systems.
Currently you are allowed to change the STYLE of your bids (stupid to make
such a distinction, IMNSHO, but I don't count on the ACBL for any sense) so
you are fine AS LONG AS THE OPPONENTS' KNOW before they need to take any
commital action depending on your explanations.
E.g. if you normally never have less than 5-5 in a CRASH bid over 1C*, but
you will only promise seven cards between the two suits against RELAY
players, of which I am one (say) then you MUST disclose such an agreement
when asked ("I expect him to have 4-4 most of the time and even 4-3...") so
that I can unleash a special set of penalty-oriented methods used against
really aggressive CRASHers only by agreement.
>[...] I believe that the major reason that [Neg.X's over 1N] works is that
>the opponents know that you cannot be too destructive, because most pairs
>play penalty doubles, and you would get smashed too often.
No, the reason that it works IN THEORY is that you can agree to play
penalty against "too destructive" (defined by partnership) overcalls only
so if you switch to that style they CAN "smack" you anyway.
And if you switch to "too destructive" overcalls without telling them you
are unethical and subject to penalty. [Me, I have ONE standard which I
stick to in my egoistic belief that this works against all counters. ]
>They are gaining by playing a system which is unusual, and which I don't
>believe is technically superior, but which works because of the opponents'
>inability to adapt to it by choosing the best defense.
[heavy humour mode on] If you want to choose the best defense, such as the
Manfield Trap over doubles, the Parking Lot Redouble, the Fit-Showing Free
Bid, and the Scrambling No-Trump, you are perfectly welcome to.... What?
Your "best defence" involves making crazy overcalls that the opponents
can't double for penalties? Nah, you can't do that! [hh mode off]
Seriously, you have to decide FIRST what overcalls you wish to play, and
then the opponents' agreement that explicitly depends on your answer can
take effect. THAT is what the MGR timing rule is about.
>... the supposed reason that the ACBL bans conventions, is it not?)
The supposed reason does not matter. Everyone KNOWS what the reason is.
>(Of course, the main reason that it works is not that the opponents
>refrain to adapt because of the rules, but because they fail to mark it on
>their cards. One of my major peeves.)
As I said, you are PERFECTLY welcome to adapt AFTER their bid is invoked
and explained-- you can unleash ANY countermeasure you have at this point,
even if it is the Modified Arcturan Delayed Pseudo-Gerber. You cannot
"adapt" by changing your style implicitly and without proper disclosure. I
have standing agreements that fires up against negative doubles in general
which will protect me when they invoke a negative double, and I also have
standards that don't change implicitly because of my opponents.
I apologise for any truncated lines and any possible condescension in this
post-- I am still suffering from insomnia and am rather touchy.
David desJardins
>> [...] if you ban all bids with meaning based on the opponents'
>> subsequent agreements, then virtually everyone in the ACBL is
>> cheating.
>> opponents' ability to penalize them when they decide whether and how
>> high to preempt.
> I think that is irrelevant. For one, I don't, personally, but the
> important point is that partner EXPLAINS your call correctly,
> including any hidden stylistic inferences (e.g. We think you two are
> complete idiots so we won't bother preempting at all against you.....
> :-) and that the opponents are correctly appraised of the situation.
I agree on the need for disclosure, but I don't see why it is
sufficient. Doesn't the decision to bid in a certain way, based on the
opponents' expressed system in the subsequent auction, violate the Rule
of Causality? Perhaps it would be sufficient to prealert it, in order
to give the opponents a chance to change their system. It certainly is
not sufficient to explain it at the time of the bid, because the
opponents don't have a chance to adjust their bidding system at that
point, in the manner which you correctly point out that the Rule of
Causality is designed to allow.
> Currently you are allowed to change the STYLE of your bids (stupid to
> make such a distinction, IMNSHO, but I don't count on the ACBL for any
> sense) so you are fine AS LONG AS THE OPPONENTS' KNOW before they need
> to take any commital action depending on your explanations.
Well, a distinction between changing the "style" and changing the
"meaning" is completely ridiculous. I'm sure we both agree on that.
> E.g. if you normally never have less than 5-5 in a CRASH bid over 1C*,
> but you will only promise seven cards between the two suits against
> RELAY players, of which I am one (say) then you MUST disclose such an
> agreement when asked ("I expect him to have 4-4 most of the time and
> even 4-3...") so that I can unleash a special set of penalty-oriented
> methods used against really aggressive CRASHers only by agreement.
But it is my contention that, under the "Rule of Causality," such an
agreement is or would be *illegal* in the first place, and presumably
subject to procedural penalties. Obviously the form of the statement,
"Shows 5-5 in two suits, except if when I had passed the opponents'
subsequent bids would have been relays, in which case it only promises
seven cards," directly violates that Rule. Why would anyone be allowed
to play this way, in your interpretation?
If I were to play in a pair event, and play the 5-5 interpretation
against a standard Precision pair, and the 4-3 interpretation against a
relay pair, either I would have violated the rule against changing my
system during the session, or I would have violated the rule of
causality. No?
Actually, on reflection, I don't think that this is necessarily so bad.
But I'm sure that it is not enforced and that players aren't aware of
it. IMO any rule which exists but is not enforced, or is selectively
enforced, is a bad rule.
>> [...] I believe that the major reason that [Neg.X's over 1N] works is
>> that the opponents know that you cannot be too destructive, because
>> most pairs play penalty doubles, and you would get smashed too often.
> No, the reason that it works IN THEORY is that you can agree to play
> penalty against "too destructive" (defined by partnership) overcalls
> only so if you switch to that style they CAN "smack" you anyway.
Certainly, though, if negative doubles were really wise, and the
substantial majority of players were to start playing them, then it
would become worthwhile to preempt more aggressively over 1NT. And
then, there would come to be an advantage to the few pairs who played
penalty doubles.
However, I think you are right in theory, and you have a good point.
In theory the process should converge to a point where the
destructiveness of overcalls is at the break-even point between penalty
and negative doubles.
David desJardins
David desJardins
> ObAnti-American Rant: Of course Wolff and company got an exception inserted
> that this does not apply to people playing Forcing pass systems. Please
> write the ACBL and register your protest if you agree with me that this is
I assume that this is semi-facetious; I would of course do it, but
arguing with the ACBL is like arguing with a four year old. I have
better things to do with my time. Do you really think that it would
have any chance of accomplishing anything? (Or that this particular
ACBL gaffe is one of their most significant, if I only want to pick the
top few to rant about?)
David desJardins
professor_who?
[David desJardins to me:]
>>> [...] if you ban all bids with meaning based on the opponents'
>>> subsequent agreements, then virtually everyone in the ACBL is cheating.
>>> [...] I can't believe that most players don't take into account their
>>> opponents' ability to penalize [...]
>> I think that is irrelevant. [...] the important point is that partner
>> EXPLAINS your call correctly, including any ... inferences ...
>... I don't see why it is sufficient. Doesn't the decision to bid in a
>certain way, based on the opponents' expressed system in the subsequent
>auction, violate the Rule of Causality?
No, no, I apologise if I have been confusing again. [I also apologise for
bad spelling and anything else that might happen in this post.] As I MEANT
to say, the Merry-Go-Round Rule insists that whoever gets the call first
decide on his/her style/system/conventions, and release that information to
the opponents, whose system may include certain switches depending on said
meaning. It has NOTHING to do with the ACBL rule that you can only play
one system per session [also wrong and stupid, IMHO].
Note that the opp's countermeasures would have to be in place BEFORE the
convention/style/system was invoked.
>Perhaps it would be sufficient to prealert it, in order
>to give the opponents a chance to change their system.
Certainly that is the case if your conventional meaning changes with the
opp's system and the markingon your convention card was wrong. I have
always said that if you write CRASH you need to specify how bad it may be
just like weak two's and then you have to stick with it UNLESS you
explicitly tell everyone at the table.
>It certainly is not sufficient to explain it at the time of the bid,
>because the opponents don't have a chance to adjust their bidding system
>at that point, in the manner which you correctly point out that the Rule
>of Causality is designed to allow.
No, no, the Rule of Causality (the MGR rule) is designed to allow the
opponents the POSSIBILITY of switching systems. To use two different
systems depending on the meaning of the opp's previous bids you need to
have them BOTH ready to go. You are SUPPOSED to prepare beforehand for
things that people are allowed to throw.
>> E.g. if you normally never have less than 5-5 in a CRASH bid over 1C*,
>> but you will only promise seven cards between the two suits against
>> RELAY players ... then you MUST disclose such an agreement ...
>But it is my contention that, under the "Rule of Causality," such an
>agreement is or would be *illegal* in the first place, and presumably
>subject to procedural penalties.
See above.
>Obviously the form of the statement, "Shows 5-5 in two suits, except if
>when I had passed the opponents' subsequent bids would have been relays,
>in which case it only promises seven cards," directly violates that Rule.
As I said before, the Rule is not what you seem to think it is. You are
perfectly welcome to do ANYTHING so long as your opp's KNOW what they mean,
and you decide first before they need to make any decisions. When you
explain to this pair, you merely announce that you are supposed to have two
suits of the same rank but you do it on all 4-4's and some 4-3-3-3's. They
can use whatever they have against this call. IF you know these people and
also that they like to double and defend well, and decide not to overcall
without 5-5's after all, that is also fine, provided that your partner
explains your bid as 5-5. Of course, now they may use a different defence
to THIS defence to maximise constructivity.....
>If I were to play in a pair event, and play the 5-5 interpretation
>against a standard Precision pair, and the 4-3 interpretation against a
>relay pair, either I would have violated the rule against changing my
>system during the session, or I would have violated the rule of
>causality. No?
No, see above.
>Actually, on reflection, I don't think that this is necessarily so bad.
>But I'm sure that it is not enforced and that players aren't aware of
>it. IMO any rule which exists but is not enforced, or is selectively
>enforced, is a bad rule.
I just told you the WBF rules, and that I agree with this rule. That the
ACBL does not enforce it is anot the point.
>>> [...] I believe that the major reason that [Neg.X's over 1N] works is
>>> that the opponents know that you cannot be too destructive, ...
>> No, the reason that it works IN THEORY is that you can agree to play
>> penalty against "too destructive" (defined by partnership) overcalls
>> only so if you switch to that style they CAN "smack" you anyway.
>Certainly, though, if negative doubles were really wise, and the
>substantial majority of players were to start playing them, then it
>would become worthwhile to preempt more aggressively over 1NT. [...]
How many times do I have to say this-- you can't do that without giving the
opp's a chance to switch back to penalty doubles.
>However, I think you are right in theory, and you have a good point.
>In theory the process should converge to a point where the
>destructiveness of overcalls is at the break-even point between penalty
>and negative doubles.
Precisely my po
David desJardins
>No, no, the Rule of Causality (the MGR rule) is designed to allow the
>opponents the POSSIBILITY of switching systems. To use two different
>systems depending on the meaning of the opp's previous bids you need to
>have them BOTH ready to go. You are SUPPOSED to prepare beforehand for
>things that people are allowed to throw.
This isn't supported by the Laws, as kindly quoted by Asya:
LAW 40 E. 1. 2. At the outset of a round or session, a pair may
review their opponents' convention card and alter their defenses
against the opponents' conventional calls and preemptive bids. This
must be announced to their opponents. The opponents may not vary
their system after being informed of these alterations in defense.
This supports the Rule of Causality, with the understanding (not
explicit in the language of the laws, but reasonable) that a "defense"
to a call or bid is an action taken subsequently to that call or bid.
This says that you don't have to have a previous, prepared agreement of
the form, "If they decide to do this, then we will do that." You can
make that decision at the table, once it is announced what "this" is.
IMO this is only reasonable; you can't really be expected to prepare a
response in advance to every convention which possibly might be played
against you.
>>>> [...] I believe that the major reason that [Neg.X's over 1N] works is
>>>> that the opponents know that you cannot be too destructive, ...
>>Certainly, though, if negative doubles were really wise, and the
>>substantial majority of players were to start playing them, then it
>>would become worthwhile to preempt more aggressively over 1NT. [...]
>How many times do I have to say this-- you can't do that without giving the
>opp's a chance to switch back to penalty doubles.
It seems significant that the laws specifically distinguish conventions,
"preemptive bids" (are these even defined?), and other bids. I assume
that a negative or a penalty double is considered a "defense" to an
opponents' system. Thus, it appears that you are not allowed to react
to your opponents' announcement that they make very light overcalls by
switching to penalty doubles, because this is not a conventional call
but just a treatment. However, it would be OK over very light jump
overcalls?
It certainly makes sense that you should be able to make the agreement
in advance that doubles of sound overcalls are negative, but doubles of
very light overcalls are penalty. However a rules lawyer might question
whether this is a legal conventional understanding under ACBL
regulations. I doubt you would have any trouble at the table, though.
David desJardins