Asymmetric partnership understandings?
Clive Jones
stated clearly on both convention cards, can one say that in a
particular circumstance one partner does X, but the other does Y?
In practice, it's no doubt better for a partnership to decide once and
for all what it's doing, but I'm not aware of any rule which prevents,
for example, an agreement that one partner would do takeout doubles
where the other would do penalty.
--Clive.
John (MadDog) Probst
use...@nsict.org> writes
A sponsoring organisation has the ability to create a regulation such as
"Both members of a partnership must play the same system". This still
allows variation in judgement by each player, but the systemic
agreements must be symmetric. Most sponsoring organisations do make such
a regulation.
The ebu does, for example.
>
>--Clive.
--
John (MadDog) Probst| . ! -^- |AIM GLChienFou
451 Mile End Road | /|__. \:/ |BCLive ChienFou
London E3 4PA | / @ __) -|- |john:at:asimere:dot:com
+44-(0)20 8983 5818 | /\ --^ | |www.asimere.com/~john
Barry Margolin
"John (MadDog) Probst" <jo...@asimere.com> wrote:
> In article <cosd13$1k7$1...@tux.nsict.org>, Clive Jones <clive-
> use...@nsict.org> writes
> >Can a partnership's bidding system be asymmetric? Provided it is
> >stated clearly on both convention cards, can one say that in a
> >particular circumstance one partner does X, but the other does Y?
> >
> >In practice, it's no doubt better for a partnership to decide once and
> >for all what it's doing, but I'm not aware of any rule which prevents,
> >for example, an agreement that one partner would do takeout doubles
> >where the other would do penalty.
>
> A sponsoring organisation has the ability to create a regulation such as
> "Both members of a partnership must play the same system". This still
> allows variation in judgement by each player, but the systemic
> agreements must be symmetric. Most sponsoring organisations do make such
> a regulation.
What if the system allows for multiple sequences with similar hands, and
one partner always chooses one sequence while the other goes the other
way?
In Orlando, the caddies frequently played in the midnight zips, but many
of them had virtually no idea how to bid. One night we were at the
table with Justin Lall and a teenage girl, and their "system" was that
if she had 13 HCP she would open 3S, and he would set the contract
(usually 3NT). Presumably the system allowed natural openings at the 1
and 2 levels, but her "style" was to not use them, so that Justin would
always become declarer.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
Chris Pisarra
> In Orlando, the caddies frequently played in the midnight zips, but
> many of them had virtually no idea how to bid. One night we were at
> the table with Justin Lall and a teenage girl, and their "system" was
> that if she had 13 HCP she would open 3S, and he would set the
> contract (usually 3NT). Presumably the system allowed natural
> openings at the 1 and 2 levels, but her "style" was to not use them,
> so that Justin would always become declarer.
More than slightly illegal in the ACBL, but (IMHO) completely
acceptable for a young expert playing with a cute caddy in the midnight
zip.
Chris
--
These are my opinions. If you don't like them, I have others
pfriedmanNoSpam
news:7-2dnUT36pb...@comcast.com...
Would it be ok for a dogmeat middle-aged guy playing with a cute caddy?
Paul
Sven Pran
news:barmar-C3D4F2....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
> In article <GxtQAjA1...@asimere.com>,
> "John (MadDog) Probst" <jo...@asimere.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <cosd13$1k7$1...@tux.nsict.org>, Clive Jones <clive-
>> use...@nsict.org> writes
>> >Can a partnership's bidding system be asymmetric? Provided it is
>> >stated clearly on both convention cards, can one say that in a
>> >particular circumstance one partner does X, but the other does Y?
>> >
>> >In practice, it's no doubt better for a partnership to decide once and
>> >for all what it's doing, but I'm not aware of any rule which prevents,
>> >for example, an agreement that one partner would do takeout doubles
>> >where the other would do penalty.
>>
>> A sponsoring organisation has the ability to create a regulation such as
>> "Both members of a partnership must play the same system". This still
>> allows variation in judgement by each player, but the systemic
>> agreements must be symmetric. Most sponsoring organisations do make such
>> a regulation.
>
> What if the system allows for multiple sequences with similar hands, and
> one partner always chooses one sequence while the other goes the other
> way?
This would be illegal if the SO has issued a regulation that both players
must
play the same system. The agreement that one player always selects one
path while the other selects another is part of their respective systems
which
then become different.
And incidentally, if this difference is not clearly announced it should be
treated
as an undisclosed (hidden) agreement which is illegal everywhere.
>
> In Orlando, the caddies frequently played in the midnight zips, but many
> of them had virtually no idea how to bid. One night we were at the
> table with Justin Lall and a teenage girl, and their "system" was that
> if she had 13 HCP she would open 3S, and he would set the contract
> (usually 3NT). Presumably the system allowed natural openings at the 1
> and 2 levels, but her "style" was to not use them, so that Justin would
> always become declarer.
There is much we do allow when inexperienced players (novices) are involved.
regards Sven
Barry Margolin
"pfriedmanNoSpam" <p.paulfrie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Chris Pisarra" <Ch...@Pisarra.com> wrote in message
> news:7-2dnUT36pb...@comcast.com...
> > Barry Margolin burbled to the world:
> >
> >> In Orlando, the caddies frequently played in the midnight zips, but
> >> many of them had virtually no idea how to bid. One night we were at
> >> the table with Justin Lall and a teenage girl, and their "system" was
> >> that if she had 13 HCP she would open 3S, and he would set the
> >> contract (usually 3NT). Presumably the system allowed natural
> >> openings at the 1 and 2 levels, but her "style" was to not use them,
> >> so that Justin would always become declarer.
> >
> >
> > More than slightly illegal in the ACBL, but (IMHO) completely
> > acceptable for a young expert playing with a cute caddy in the midnight
> > zip.
Right. We were taken aback, but went with it in the spirit of the event.
> Would it be ok for a dogmeat middle-aged guy playing with a cute caddy?
Asymmetric systems would be the least of the problem there....
David Stevenson
No, that's not right. They are playing the same system, but different
styles - and that's legal everywhere.
>And incidentally, if this difference is not clearly announced it should be
>treated
>as an undisclosed (hidden) agreement which is illegal everywhere.
Sure: but that just means that stylistic differences, which are legal,
require to be disclosed.
--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\ /\
Liverpool, England, UK Fax: +44 870 055 7697 @ @
<bri...@blakjak.com> ICQ 20039682 bluejak on OKB =( + )=
Bridgepage: http://blakjak.com/brg_menu.htm ~
Clive Jones
David Stevenson <bne...@blakjak.com> wrote:
[...]
> No, that's not right. They are playing the same system, but different
>styles - and that's legal everywhere.
> Sure: but that just means that stylistic differences, which are legal,
>require to be disclosed.
Hmm. I've not seen a distinction between systems/conventions and
styles anywhere in the rules I've read. How, where and when would
stylistic differences be disclosed?
--Clive.
Sven Pran
news:0PKSvFRR...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
I cannot accept this theory:
According to what you say we can have Player A playing traditional
Culbertson
as of 1935 and player B playing Goren as of 1950.
It is perfectly correct for both of them to declare that they play
"Natural", their
differences are merely a matter of style.
Shall we accept them to form a partnership continuing their individual
styles?
regards Sven
David Stevenson
>>>This would be illegal if the SO has issued a regulation that both players
>>>must
>>>play the same system. The agreement that one player always selects one
>>>path while the other selects another is part of their respective systems
>>>which
>>>then become different.
>>
>> No, that's not right. They are playing the same system, but different
>> styles - and that's legal everywhere.
>>
>>>And incidentally, if this difference is not clearly announced it should be
>>>treated
>>>as an undisclosed (hidden) agreement which is illegal everywhere.
>>
>> Sure: but that just means that stylistic differences, which are legal,
>> require to be disclosed.
>
>I cannot accept this theory:
>
>According to what you say we can have Player A playing traditional
>Culbertson
>as of 1935 and player B playing Goren as of 1950.
>
>It is perfectly correct for both of them to declare that they play
>"Natural", their
>differences are merely a matter of style.
>
>Shall we accept them to form a partnership continuing their individual
>styles?
They are playing different systems, illegal under most SO rules.
But if you are both playing the same system, and you use one bit of it
when your partner would use a different bit with the same hand, that is
a different of style - that's legal.
David Stevenson
The distinction between systems/conventions and styles is given by
L40E1:
E. Convention Card
1. Right to Prescribe
The sponsoring organisation may prescribe a convention card on which
partners are to list their conventions and other agreements, and may
establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both
members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must
not restrict style and judgement, only method).
How you should disclose systems, conventions or styles is up to the
SO. But whether you should is based on L75A:
A. Special Partnership Agreements
Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be
fully and freely available to the opponents (see Law 40). Information
conveyed to partner through such agreements must arise from the calls,
plays and conditions of the current deal.
"Fully and freely". The ratbags of this game are those who try to
hide their agreements.
Sven Pran
..................
>>According to what you say we can have Player A playing traditional
>>Culbertson as of 1935 and player B playing Goren as of 1950.
>>It is perfectly correct for both of them to declare that they play
>>"Natural", their differences are merely a matter of style.
>>
>>Shall we accept them to form a partnership continuing their individual
>>styles?
>
> They are playing different systems, illegal under most SO rules.
>
> But if you are both playing the same system, and you use one bit of it
> when your partner would use a different bit with the same hand, that is a
> different of style - that's legal.
Although I believe we agree in the realities I must claim that this doesn't
make sense:
Both A and B "declare" a "system" being the combination of Culbertson
1935 and Goren 1950. A "declares" that he uses the part corresponding
to Culbertson as his "style" and B the part corresponding to Goren for
his?
There is little if any problem with this, after all Goren made his "system"
as an update to Culbertson's ideas, the main difference was in fact the
adaption of Milton Work's high cards points scale instead of the Honour
tricks scale for evaluating the strength of a hand. Different scales alone
are certainly not enough to make the systems "different". (I have known
Vienna players who used the 4-3-2-1 scale instead of 7-5-3-1)
Going to the other extreme: Is a "natural" system with 1NT opening bids
showing 15-17HCP a different "system" than another identical "system"
except that it shows 16-18 HCP?
If yes, would you accept two players to play "the same system" if
their declaration shows 1NT range 15-18 with the additional information
that A always uses an aggressive "style" with 15-17 while B uses a
more careful "style" with 16-18?
What if the system declaration shows a 1NT opening bid range 13-18?
There is nothing illegal in that but then A "declares that he always uses
13-15 while B declares that he uses 16-18. Do we still have just a
different style or have we now crossed the line between style and system?
It all boils down to the most important question:
Exactly what distinguishes "system" from "style"?
To me the answer is easy: A "system" is a set of explicit and
implicit "agreements" (including partnership experience). Any two
"systems" where at least one such corresponding agreement differs
in any way between the two systems are "different" systems. (I am
fully aware that extreme cases can be constructed where this
definition leads to no two systems being equal, and I am open for
other definitions. However, please avoid variations over the theme:
"I cannot define an elephant but I know him when I see him")
My definition leaves for "style" such things as: "Our 1NT opening range
is 15-17 but my partner tends to prefer opening one in a suit rather than
NT with 15 lousy HCP". Or: "My partner is generally more eager to play
with trumps while I am more often looking for contracts without trumps".
Regards Sven
Clive Jones
David Stevenson <bne...@blakjak.com> wrote:
> The distinction between systems/conventions and styles is given by
>L40E1:
> How you should disclose systems, conventions or styles is up to the
>SO. But whether you should is based on L75A:
There are a lot of terms used, there: convention, agreement, system,
style, method; of which only "convention" appears in the definitions.
I'll pick a couple of concrete examples, for the sake of argument. I'm
marginally more eager to play in no-trump, and my partner slightly
more keen on suit contracts. I will double game-level contracts for
penalties much more readily than my partner.
These are, I hope, entirely acceptable differences in what I would
think of as style or judgment rather than system. Since we're both
fully aware of one another's habits, are we allowed to take them into
account when considering our bidding decisions?
Does that sort of thing have to be disclosed on convention cards, or
merely stated if asked? (We're in EBU-land, if that makes a
difference.)
--Clive.
Sven Pran
"Clive Jones" <clive-...@nsict.org> wrote in message
news:covqqa$v3t$1...@tux.nsict.org...
Strictly speaking these are examples of partnership experiences which
should be disclosed to opponents. However, as you describe tendencies
rather than tangible differences I would designate these differences as
differences in style, not in system.
regards Sven
David Stevenson
>In article <bWwJJnE5...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>,
>David Stevenson <bne...@blakjak.com> wrote:
>> The distinction between systems/conventions and styles is given by
>>L40E1:
>[...]
>> How you should disclose systems, conventions or styles is up to the
>>SO. But whether you should is based on L75A:
>
>There are a lot of terms used, there: convention, agreement, system,
>style, method; of which only "convention" appears in the definitions.
>
>I'll pick a couple of concrete examples, for the sake of argument. I'm
>marginally more eager to play in no-trump, and my partner slightly
>more keen on suit contracts. I will double game-level contracts for
>penalties much more readily than my partner.
>
>These are, I hope, entirely acceptable differences in what I would
>think of as style or judgment rather than system. Since we're both
>fully aware of one another's habits, are we allowed to take them into
>account when considering our bidding decisions?
Of course.
>Does that sort of thing have to be disclosed on convention cards, or
>merely stated if asked? (We're in EBU-land, if that makes a
>difference.)
Merely stated if asked.
David Stevenson
Of course that is a different system.
>It all boils down to the most important question:
>Exactly what distinguishes "system" from "style"?
>
>To me the answer is easy: A "system" is a set of explicit and
>implicit "agreements" (including partnership experience). Any two
>"systems" where at least one such corresponding agreement differs
>in any way between the two systems are "different" systems. (I am
>fully aware that extreme cases can be constructed where this
>definition leads to no two systems being equal, and I am open for
>other definitions. However, please avoid variations over the theme:
>"I cannot define an elephant but I know him when I see him")
>
>My definition leaves for "style" such things as: "Our 1NT opening range
>is 15-17 but my partner tends to prefer opening one in a suit rather than
>NT with 15 lousy HCP". Or: "My partner is generally more eager to play
>with trumps while I am more often looking for contracts without trumps".
You can always find borderline and impractical examples. BLML loves
them.
But a realistic example is a Precision sequence
1C - 1S - 1NT
which asks for controls, and is followed by other asking bids, including
in spades.
However
1C - 1S - 2S
is natural, with natural/cue-bid continuations.
Now a pair can play these arrangements - as I did for many years - but
in practice one player usually asks, and his partner usually adopts a
natural approach. That's a difference of style, and is thus legal,
whatever the SO might say about different systems.
Sven Pran
...............
> But a realistic example is a Precision sequence
>
> 1C - 1S - 1NT
>
> which asks for controls, and is followed by other asking bids, including
> in spades.
>
> However
>
> 1C - 1S - 2S
>
> is natural, with natural/cue-bid continuations.
>
> Now a pair can play these arrangements - as I did for many years - but
> in practice one player usually asks, and his partner usually adopts a
> natural approach. That's a difference of style, and is thus legal,
> whatever the SO might say about different systems.
Absolutely no problem. Within a single system there will often be several
possible lines between which to select in an auction. I assume the
1C - 1S part is disclosed identically in both sequences above?
(When I played precision I played "advanced" so that 1NT asked for controls
while 2S asked for the quality of the spade suit. Both calls were of course
part of the same "system").
But do we agree that for instance if one of the precision players never
opens
in 1C with less than 17 HCP while the other is satisfied with 16 HCP then
they play "different" systems and not just different styles?
Regards Sven
John (MadDog) Probst
use...@nsict.org> writes
Yes.
> or
>merely stated if asked? (We're in EBU-land, if that makes a
>difference.)
>
>--Clive.
--
DavJFlower
One member of the Blue Team (Garozzo?) could never remember all the sequences
following a 2D opening bid, and consequently tended to avoid it.
Dave Flower
Ron Johnson
DavJFlower <davjf...@aol.com> wrote:
>Can someone remember the details ?
>
>One member of the Blue Team (Garozzo?)
Forquet.
>could never remember all the sequences following a 2D
>opening bid, and consequently tended to avoid it.
And on at least one occasion ended up in a bad contract
because there was no provision for handling his actual
hand type after a 1C start
It wasn't so much that he couldn't remember the sequences
but he found the need to dredge up the responses to an
endless series of questions irritating so he simply
avoided the issue.
Matters like this broke up the Bergen/Cohen partnership.
And Meckstroth is by temperment much less interested
in matters of system than Rodwell is. They've been
playing together for 30 years in spite of this.
Part of the reason is of course that Rodwell can flat play.
The other reason is that Rodwell is very good at
thinking matters through so his suggestions tend to have
both obvious theoretical merit and details backing up
the ideas.
Garozzo by contrast seems to have not fully thought through
some of his ideas before adding them to the system. (For
instance they added a solid suit response to a 1C opening.
When it first came up Garozzo realized he'd forgotten to
add any way to ask for the suit, and by a fluke he simply
couldn't tell from his hand. He revamped the response
structure, but the hand type never came up again)
--
RNJ
nige1
between two players playing the same methods. If, however, partners
A. Make different calls in the same postion with the same hand.
B. Do this, regularly, on several kinds of hand.
C. Know that they call differenttly and allow for it in the auction.
Then, IMO, de facto, they have an assymetric *agreement": it must be
declared (and may be illegal).
(: For example, always beidding 3S with opening values is obvioulsy a
method not a style :).
It seems to me that some TDs are hypocritical about this issue.
Kent Feiler
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct in theory, but in practice this would literally, not
figuratively, lead to alerting every bid that was made.
In fact, I'd say that having two partners who play everything exactly
the same way is a bad thing, not something desireable. The successful
partnerships are ones that have complimentary styles, not identical
ones. I recall a pair from years ago who were both good players but
were hopeless when they tried to play with each other. They were both
such aggressive bidders that they were in game on all the partscore
hands and in slam on the game hands!
I'd say that we simply have to resign ourselves to knowing a bit less
about opponents auctions than they do. The alternative is taking 15
minutes for every board, 5 to play the hand and 10 for the
explanations and questions.
Regards,
Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com