Conditional bidding standards

[Howard Brazee]

Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular
anticipated opponents?

[Stu Goodgold]

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 6:47:10 AM UTC-8, Howard Brazee wrote:
> Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular
>
> anticipated opponents?

Certainly. Knowing your opponents is part of the game. It is entirely reasonable to bid more against weak opposition.

For example, one of my partners often partnered a 3rd player, and not a weak one. He said she took the push to the 5 level much too often. With that information, I generally compeated to the 4 level when even close to rational.

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA

[mc110...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:18:13 PM UTC-5, Stu Goodgold wrote:
> On Sunday, November 4, 2012 6:47:10 AM UTC-8, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> > Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular
>
> >
>
> > anticipated opponents?
>
>
>
> Certainly. Knowing your opponents is part of the game. It is entirely reasonable to bid more against weak opposition.

It depends on which part of their game is weak. If they like to take the push when both sides have a trump fit (or even just when they do), then pushing them around in the auction as you described in the remainder of your post makes sense. On the other hand, it often pays not to balance 1NT-P-P- against a weak declarer when you would do so against a strong one. Another example of bidding differently (neither more nor less, just differently) against weak opponents is the auction 1NT(12-14)-Dbl- to you. Let us say partner dealt and neither side is vulnerable, and you hold xxxx x xxxx KJxx. Against most opponents, I'd bid 2C and hope either we have a club fit or the opponents bid to their heart fit (and partner will then break ties in favor of a club lead). Against truly horrid opponents who can be trusted to drop a trick on defense, I'd rather bid 2H and then redouble to show the other three suits. This risks only one extra undertrick (if partner doesn't fit spades, and which I will probably get back) and insures against playing in a ridiculous strain which might result in the opponents' lack of skill not mattering.

Christopher Monsour

[Eric Leong]

On Nov 4, 6:47 am, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular
> anticipated opponents?

Sure but why not adjust for who you have as a partner also?

Eric Leong

[Howard Brazee]

I imagine everybody does that!

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[france...@googlemail.com]

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 2:47:10 PM UTC, Howard Brazee wrote:
> Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular anticipated opponents?

Yes of course. Not just whether they are strong or weak, but rather what you know about their bidding style:

- Person X doesn't bid a slam unless they can count it in top tricks, so we will save if we have a cheap save.

- Person Y bids game and slam at random and it often goes off, so we will tend not to save

- Person Z opens most 14-counts a 15-17 NT whether or not anyone sane would consider them worth an upgrade, so we penalty double slightly more often

- Person W likes to defend low-level doubled contracts if we come in over their strong club, so we tend to under-pre-empt against them

[dake50]

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 9:47:10 AM UTC-5, Howard Brazee wrote:
> Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular
>
> anticipated opponents?

***
It doesn't matter what my Convention Card says.
I am always allowed to use my judgment.
Any advantage I see I may exploit:
they're poorly discussed, then get them into rare auctions.
They fear to penalty double, bid-em-up.
They are defenseless to psyches, joke them.
Even to having a second CC for certain opponents.

[derek]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:00:28 AM UTC-4, dake50 wrote:
> On Sunday, November 4, 2012 9:47:10 AM UTC-5, Howard Brazee wrote:
>
> > Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular
> > anticipated opponents?
>

> Even to having a second CC for certain opponents.

Highly illegal.

[Adam Beneschan]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 8:17:48 AM UTC-8, derek wrote:

> > > Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular
> > > anticipated opponents?
>
> > Even to having a second CC for certain opponents.
>
> Highly illegal.

I think it's illegal in the ACBL, according to their Conditions of Contest, but I don't see anything in the Laws that would make this illegal everywhere.

-- Adam

[france...@googlemail.com]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:48:39 PM UTC, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> On Monday, November 5, 2012 8:17:48 AM UTC-8, derek wrote: > > > Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular > > > anticipated opponents? > > > Even to having a second CC for certain opponents. > > Highly illegal. I think it's illegal in the ACBL, according to their Conditions of Contest, but I don't see anything in the Laws that would make this illegal everywhere. -- Adam

It's not. It's certainly legal in at least some EBU events.

[Will in New Haven]

In a pairs contest, it is usually illegal most places. if you are
starting a new team match against a different pair, you can change
your entire system.

--
Will in New Haven

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 09:47:14 -0800 (PST), france...@googlemail.com

wrote:

>On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:48:39 PM UTC, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>> On Monday, November 5, 2012 8:17:48 AM UTC-8, derek wrote: > > > Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular > > > anticipated opponents? > > > Even to having a second CC for certain opponents. > > Highly illegal. I think it's illegal in the ACBL, according to their Conditions of Contest, but I don't see anything in the Laws that would make this illegal everywhere. -- Adam
>
>It's not. It's certainly legal in at least some EBU events.

Only if you change within the event. But if you know your
opponents, ahead of time, you can tailor your style for that event.

Same thing as golfers picking their set of clubs for a particular golf
tournament, but not being able to change out between holes.

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 09:47:14 -0800 (PST), france...@googlemail.com
wrote:

>It's not. It's certainly legal in at least some EBU events.

I wonder if we could make a note on the card ahead of time that says
"against xxx, we play yyy".

[Will in New Haven]

On Nov 5, 5:13 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 09:47:14 -0800 (PST), franceshin...@googlemail.com

> wrote:
>
> >It's not.  It's certainly legal in at least some EBU events.
>
> I wonder if we could make a note on the card ahead of time that says
> "against xxx, we play yyy".
>

If XXX is a different system, sure. If it is a different NT range or
something else definable in bridge terms, sure. If it is just "against
bad players" or even "against timid or inexperienced players,"
probably not. I think it is legal to play different methods against
people who preempt with broken, awful suits than against people who
preempt soundly but I have seen that disputed.

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 17:07:01 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

>> I wonder if we could make a note on the card ahead of time that says
>> "against xxx, we play yyy".
>>
>If XXX is a different system, sure. If it is a different NT range or
>something else definable in bridge terms, sure.

That's what I meant by xxx. I can see the confusion though as my
initial post was selecting because of who we were likely to be playing
against.

>If it is just "against
>bad players" or even "against timid or inexperienced players,"
>probably not. I think it is legal to play different methods against
>people who preempt with broken, awful suits than against people who
>preempt soundly but I have seen that disputed.

I play casually with a couple of people who don't seem to have any
system at all. We just need to guess when one of them is at our
table, based upon past experience.

[derek]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:07:01 PM UTC-4, Will in New Haven wrote:
> On Nov 5, 5:13 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 09:47:14 -0800 (PST), franceshin...@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > >It's not.  It's certainly legal in at least some EBU events.
> >
> > I wonder if we could make a note on the card ahead of time that says
> > "against xxx, we play yyy".
>
> If XXX is a different system, sure. If it is a different NT range or
> something else definable in bridge terms, sure. If it is just "against
> bad players" or even "against timid or inexperienced players,"

Exactly. I play against one pair who simply cry out for special methods - and they play a home-grown, and disputably legal (at least per ACBL GCC), system. I can and do play differently against them.

And you're entirely correct that under ACBL regs that its generally permissible to use different convention cards in every round of a team game, but that's because every round is considered a separate match. I'm not concerned with what's legal elsewhere as Dake is posting from acbl-land, and I simply find it fascinating that someone who is always complaining about how everybody else acts unethically without penalty, thinks he can get away with changing system for individual pairs.

[Mich Ravera]

"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:jtvc981dfvfq0m10v...@4ax.com...

>
> Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular
> anticipated opponents?

Do you mean something like using a double to show a strong hand and the
cheapest suit bid to show a takeout, if the fields tends to preempt on any
suit of appropirate length regardless of overall high card strength or suit
quality?

Do you mean picking a penalty-oriented no trump defense when you expect to
come up against a field of 10/11-13/14 1NT openers or abandoning a
penalty-oriented double entirely if you are going to come up against a bunch
of "15-18 all suits at least half-stopped" players?

Do you mean just changing your style a little like tending to compete at the
3-level whenever possible (rather than the 2-level) against 2C openers whose
agreements are poorly defined in competition.

How about opening light at the 1-level in the first seat when you know that
opponents have a hole in their overcall systems?

My answer is that you can and SHOULD alter your standards if you expect a
field against which your normal methods won't do well or if the field is
vulnerable to particular methods.

On the other hand, if you think that your particular table opponents for
this round are good defenders and have excellent passed hand bidding
methods, it is perfectly acceptable and advisable to use your judgment to
pass a balanced 11-count in the fourth seat.

On the other hand, you get to the pollo-ovian paradox, if you decide that
"we open light in the minors when opponents don't have a conventional
overcall to show spades and the other minor". However, if you think that the
most of the field plays Michaels and not BUNT, Ghestem, or Roman overcalls,
it is just fine to use a "light minors" style.

The list goes on. If you change stated methods for the FIELD, you might do
well, if the field plays as you expect. If you want to use judgement against
particular players, that's OK too. But, in ACBL-Land, you are not allowed to
decide to play 6-10 1NT opener for just one round in a pairs game because
you think that your opponents for that round are particularly vulnerable to
it.

[David Stevenson]

Howard Brazee wrote

>
>Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular
>anticipated opponents?

Of course. I will overcall on some dreadful hands against certain
opponents but not others, I pre-empt similarly.

When I was much younger I read that an expert is one who makes the
same call on the same hand today, tomorrow, and next week.

BS. It is true, I grant you, in constructive auctions usually, but
not in defensive bidding, which depends on various things like quality,
attitude, system and approach of opponents, and the score, and so forth.
Even in constructive auctions a player might push for a slam against
weaker opponents, or when he needs a few tops for a win.

--
David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways
Liverpool, England, UK bluejak on BBO Mbl: +44 7778 409 955
<webj...@googlemail.com> EBL TD Tel: +44 151 677 7412
bluejak666 on Skype Bridgepage: http://blakjak.org/brg_menu.htm

[David Stevenson]

David Stevenson wrote

>Howard Brazee wrote
>>
>>Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular
>>anticipated opponents?

> Of course. I will overcall on some dreadful hands against certain
>opponents but not others, I pre-empt similarly.

Further to this, it occurs to me that tonight I opened 2S [weak] on

JT873
xxx
xx
Axx

2nd in hand at pairs, white [nv v nv] because LHO was a good player but
very staid. This led to an 85% board.

Later I opened 2H [weak] on

xx
KJT8
J9xx
Kxx

3rd in hand at pairs, green [nv v v] because opponents, while not too
bad, were very trusting. This led to a 100% board, though they did not
mind because they won anyway!

I would not have opened either hand against anyone else who was
playing that night.

[David Stevenson]

derek wrote

Is it? I think not!

It may be illegal in certain jurisdictions, but ti is not against the
Laws, and is certainly permitted by at least one jurisdiction.

===============================================================

Will in New Haven wrote

>In a pairs contest, it is usually illegal most places. if you are
>starting a new team match against a different pair, you can change
>your entire system.

Are you sure?

[Steve Willner]

>>> ... having a second CC for certain opponents.

On 2012-11-05 11:48 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> I think it's illegal in the ACBL,

It's illegal in games controlled by the ACBL. At an ACBL club, it's up
to the club. At our club, we can play almost anything, but we're
_required_ to avoid "weird stuff" against beginners. In practice that
means no multi 2D against the beginners. Technically we should have a
second system card, but in practice we don't bother because none of the
beginners looks at one anyway. I suppose if we had lots of differences
we'd bring a second SC just in case.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swil...@nhcc.net
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

[Steve Willner]

>> if you are
>> starting a new team match against a different pair, you can change
>> your entire system.

On 2012-11-07 8:30 PM, David Stevenson wrote:
> Are you sure?

That's the case in the ACBL, at least in normal team games. Every match
is considered a separate "session," and the rule forbids changing system
"during a session." You could change partnerships, after all, so how
can it make sense to disallow system changes?

The one area I'm not sure about is events where system cards are
required to be filed in advance. In those it might or might not be
permissible to file more than one card per partnership. But in
practice, I don't know of any events in the ACBL that require advance
filing. In fact, I don't think even the USBF events for international
team selection require advance filing. Anybody know for sure?

[Stu Goodgold]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 6:32:39 PM UTC-8, Steve Willner wrote:
> >>> ... having a second CC for certain opponents.
>
>
>
> On 2012-11-05 11:48 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > I think it's illegal in the ACBL,
>
>
>
> It's illegal in games controlled by the ACBL. At an ACBL club, it's up
>
> to the club. At our club, we can play almost anything, but we're
>
> _required_ to avoid "weird stuff" against beginners. In practice that
>
> means no multi 2D against the beginners. Technically we should have a
>
> second system card, but in practice we don't bother because none of the
>
> beginners looks at one anyway. I suppose if we had lots of differences
>
> we'd bring a second SC just in case.

How do you know a beginner from a non-beginner? You can't always be familiar with everyone playing, even at a local club. And do you inform your partner that you are switching systems when a new pair sits down? Couldn't that be a little embarassing for the opps? ("Psst, partner switch to the simple card, these guys looks like newbies.)

-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
>
>
>

[dake50]

***
Sorry you didn't recognise my sarcasm.
Convention Card covers a pairs options. THE END.
*
The interesting case is supplementary notes that essentially change meanings against this pairs "style" or methods. Eg. against 1C-might-be-two, Overcall Structure; Better minor 1C, Standard overcalls.

[mc110...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 9, 2012 9:39:29 PM UTC-5, Steve Willner wrote:
> >> if you are
>
> >> starting a new team match against a different pair, you can change
>
> >> your entire system.
>
>
>
> On 2012-11-07 8:30 PM, David Stevenson wrote:
>
> > Are you sure?
>
>
>
> That's the case in the ACBL, at least in normal team games. Every match
>
> is considered a separate "session," and the rule forbids changing system
>
> "during a session." You could change partnerships, after all, so how
>
> can it make sense to disallow system changes?

This is true in Swisses, head-to-head knockouts, and in round-robins that are run as though they were Swisses. I am not sure but I do not believe it is true within each half of each segment of a 3-team round-robin where you can't substitute. It is definitely NOT true in the movement typically used for board-a-match round-robins (and which is sometimes also used for IMP round-robins, especially by some districts for their GNT qualifiers, where running the round-robin stage like it was a Swiss is massively unfair since teams that know they are out of it are naturally not going to be on top of their game).

Christopher Monsour

[derek]

On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 9:30:25 PM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
> derek wrote
>
> >On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:00:28 AM UTC-4, dake50 wrote:
>
> >> On Sunday, November 4, 2012 9:47:10 AM UTC-5, Howard Brazee wrote:
> >>
> >> > Does anybody here select their bidding standards for particular
> >> > anticipated opponents?
>
> >> Even to having a second CC for certain opponents.
> >
> >Highly illegal.

> Is it? I think not!
>
> It may be illegal in certain jurisdictions, but ti is not against the
> Laws, and is certainly permitted by at least one jurisdiction.

Don't be a jerk. I was responding to ONE specific poster, who complains regularly about exactly this sort of practice in the ACBL, and it is very definitely illegal in the ACBL.

[ttw...@att.net]

I used to play a home-grown (but at the time legal) natural canape
system. Several pairs would change from "Michaels" to "natural" for
their first cue-bids. We didn't play negative doubles either; we could
have without much strain and maybe we should have. We did collect more
penalties than other pairs but that was probably because we read Simon.

[David Stevenson]

dake50 wrote

>Sorry you didn't recognise my sarcasm.
>Convention Card covers a pairs options. THE END.

Oh, yeah?

When the SC says your opening 2s are 6 to 10, does it mention that you
would open with two aces against some players and not others?

There are millions of examples like this. SCs only show an approach.

Also, what happens if you take more than one SC to an event?

[David Stevenson]

Steve Willner wrote

>>> if you are
>>> starting a new team match against a different pair, you can change
>>> your entire system.
>
>On 2012-11-07 8:30 PM, David Stevenson wrote:
>> Are you sure?
>
>That's the case in the ACBL, at least in normal team games. Every
>match is considered a separate "session," and the rule forbids changing
>system "during a session." You could change partnerships, after all,
>so how can it make sense to disallow system changes?
>
>The one area I'm not sure about is events where system cards are
>required to be filed in advance. In those it might or might not be
>permissible to file more than one card per partnership. But in
>practice, I don't know of any events in the ACBL that require advance
>filing. In fact, I don't think even the USBF events for international
>team selection require advance filing. Anybody know for sure?

Ok, but nothing in this thread [except, of course, some assumptins by
some later posters] said that this was the ACBL.

[David Stevenson]

derek wrote

Neither the OP nor the nor the subject nor the thread generally nor
the post to which you replied mention the ACBL.

I think a definition of being a jerk might include someone who assumes
everything is about the ACBL with no evidence.

[Mark Brader]

"Derek":

>> Don't be a jerk. I was responding to ONE specific poster, who complains
>> regularly about exactly this sort of practice in the ACBL, and it is
>> very definitely illegal in the ACBL.

David Stevenson:

> I think a definition of being a jerk might include someone who assumes
> everything is about the ACBL with no evidence.

And then there are those who, when an explanation is given of why it was
being assumed in the context of a particular posting, start talking
about the assumption being applied to "everything".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Mark is probably right about something,
m...@vex.net | but I forget what" -- Rayan Zachariassen

[derek]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 11:08:02 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:

> Neither the OP nor the nor the subject nor the thread generally nor
> the post to which you replied mention the ACBL.

Nevertheless, _I_ know he's ACBL, and from previous responses you've made to him, so do you.

> I think a definition of being a jerk might include someone who assumes
> everything is about the ACBL with no evidence.

Or someone who makes specious excuses, given that we both know it WAS ACBL.

[Adam Beneschan]

Well, if he intended to ask his question only of ACBL players, he shouldn't have started it with "Does anybody here ..." implying the question was for everybody on the newsgroup.

-- Adam

[derek]

On Monday, November 12, 2012 10:29:09 PM UTC-4, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> Well, if he intended to ask his question only of ACBL players, he shouldn't have started it with "Does anybody here ..." implying the question was for everybody on the newsgroup.

I'm sure Howard didn't intend his question to be answered only by ACBL players - but I wasn't responding to Howard, I was responding to Dake, about conditions where HE plays.

[David Stevenson]

derek wrote

>On Monday, November 12, 2012 11:08:02 AM UTC-4, David Stevenson wrote:
>
>> Neither the OP nor the nor the subject nor the thread generally nor
>> the post to which you replied mention the ACBL.
>
>Nevertheless, _I_ know he's ACBL, and from previous responses you've
>made to him, so do you.

I don't remember where people come from: why should I bother? it is
normal to say where you are from, especially in OPs where it matters. If
not, it is perfectly reasonable to make a general answer.

>> I think a definition of being a jerk might include someone who assumes
>> everything is about the ACBL with no evidence.
>
>Or someone who makes specious excuses, given that we both know it WAS ACBL.

I did not know, and you are just being a pain in the behind.

[Steve Willner]

On 2012-11-10 2:55 AM, Stu Goodgold wrote:
> How do you know a beginner from a non-beginner? You can't always be
> familiar with everyone playing, even at a local club.

In practice, it hasn't been a problem. It helps that my partner is the
"Stu Goodgold of New England" and knows every bridge player in the
region plus about half in the rest of the country. :-) If we are not
sure, a few friendly questions ("Where are you folks from? How did you
find our club? How long have you been playing?") will reveal the
answer. If we are still not sure, we can ask the Director or just treat
them as a protected pair. As I say, not a problem.

> And do you inform your partner that you are switching systems when a
> new pair sits down? Couldn't that be a little embarassing for the
> opps?

I certainly hope not! In practice, a quick glance at the upcoming pair
and "GCC? Yep." or "No, Midchart is OK." is plenty. Most often we don't
even need that because we know the opponents well, and anyway if we
don't prealert the multi we're not playing it. The newbies wouldn't
have the slightest idea what we're talking about even if they heard our
brief dialog, which they usually don't because we're not all at the
table yet.

If worse came to worst, we could say "We have some Midchart methods to
prealert." If the opponents look baffled, they're protected. If they
strenuously object, they're not. :-) But as I say, it has never come to
that.

[Steve Willner]

>> That's the case in the ACBL, at least in normal team games. Every
>> match is considered a separate "session," and the rule forbids changing
>> system "during a session." You could change partnerships, after all, so
>> how can it make sense to disallow system changes?

On 2012-11-10 1:50 PM, mc110...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is true in Swisses, head-to-head knockouts, and in round-robins
> that are run as though they were Swisses. I am not sure but I do not
> believe it is true within each half of each segment of a 3-team
> round-robin where you can't substitute.

If you mean a normal 3-way match (used when an odd number of teams are
in a Swiss), why can't you substitute? Each match is separate, even
though they are played over two rounds. Obviously you have to
substitute in such a way than no one plays the same board twice. Also,
no kibitzing one's own team (or anywhere else if duplicated boards are
used). Those don't seem difficult requirements, and I wouldn't think
either substituting players or changing system is forbidden. Maybe
there's some rule I'm unaware of, though.

> It is definitely NOT true in
> the movement typically used for board-a-match round-robins (and which
> is sometimes also used for IMP round-robins,

Yes, I'd overlooked those because they are now fairly rare. There's no
reason system changes have to be illegal in these, but I think they
probably are for ACBL-governed events. (As always, clubs can do
whatever they want.)

Swiss Pairs would be an unclear case. One would hope there would be
regulations if the happy day that the ACBL ran any ever came.

[David Stevenson]

Steve Willner wrote

>On 2012-11-10 2:55 AM, Stu Goodgold wrote:
>> How do you know a beginner from a non-beginner? You can't always be
>> familiar with everyone playing, even at a local club.
>
>In practice, it hasn't been a problem. It helps that my partner is the
>"Stu Goodgold of New England" and knows every bridge player in the
>region plus about half in the rest of the country. :-) If we are not
>sure, a few friendly questions ("Where are you folks from? How did you
>find our club? How long have you been playing?") will reveal the
>answer. If we are still not sure, we can ask the Director or just treat
>them as a protected pair. As I say, not a problem.

If you say "Where are you folks from and they reply "Taranty Falls"
with a happy smile, they are poor players. If they give you a surly
look they are medium players. Annoyingly, good players do either!

[Will in New Haven]

On Nov 9, 9:32 pm, Steve Willner <swill...@nhcc.net> wrote:
> >>> ... having a second CC for certain opponents.
>
> On 2012-11-05 11:48 AM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> > I think it's illegal in the ACBL,
>
> It's illegal in games controlled by the ACBL.  At an ACBL club, it's up
> to the club.  At our club, we can play almost anything, but we're
> _required_ to avoid "weird stuff" against beginners.  In practice that
> means no multi 2D against the beginners.  Technically we should have a
> second system card, but in practice we don't bother because none of the
> beginners looks at one anyway.  I suppose if we had lots of differences
> we'd bring a second SC just in case.

There was a pair around here, southern Connecticut, that was
experimenting with Multi. They would simply _ask_ the opponents in a
club game if we, or whoever, would mind if they played it. They didn't
bother to ask novices and life novices, just refrained from playing it
against them. Most of the people that they asked said that they did
not mind.

They explained the bid and had two file cards, one with a description
and one with a suggested defense and they would tell us to ignore the
Weak Two Diamond that they had on their convention cards once we said
it was ok to play the Multi.

We played several rounds against them while they played it but it
never came up. They may still play it but they don't live around here
anymore.

[dake50]

I think you are confusing deviations from SC with
something totally different.
Yes 2xA yes/no 2s is a deviation expected or not.
But 2s on S:AKxxx +AK is not a deviation, that
is totally a system difference.
On the SC? Just against this pair?
Just against this pair's methods?
Which are you advocating?