Random bids
David Stevenson
In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not ban
Destructive Bids,
But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club to
show any thirteen cards.
So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new Orange
book.
--
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 ~
jame...@hotmail.com
David Stevenson wrote:
> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not
ban
> Destructive Bids,
>
> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
to
> show any thirteen cards.
>
> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
Orange
> book.
>
> --
> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\
/\
IMHO a random bid is one where a range of possible bids can be, by
agreement, chosen randomnly for a given hand.
To avoid legalistic quibbling, one needs to define the alternatives as
being quite different,not different game tries etc.
Hence always bidding 1s with a given hand, or given situation is not
random, IMHO.The bid may convey no meaning, as it is always made in
that situation, but is not made randomly.
James
ted
Get a new phrase for "random bid". Mathematicians may know what random
numbers are but even they can't be certain they have successfully
generated one. This is a toughie but since you can't bid with any 13
cards that should be the definition. Consequently any call made must
contain information about the bidders hand different from "any 13
cards". Basically it appears that the bidders partner must be uncertain
as to whether the call is psychic, whereas with any 13 cards he is sure
it is.
vida
I am not sure you're looking for the definition of a *random bid*.
There is nothing random w/ bidding an automatic 1S when RHO opens 1C.
It is actually pretty consistant. What you might want to ban are
*triggered bids*, which I guess could be defined as bids that are
"automatically triggered by an opponents call, and made regardless of
the cards you're holding"
danc...@yahoo.com
There are lots of relay systems where information about only one hand
is shared while the other hand makes meaningless bids of the lowest
step in order to keep the auction open. These systems would be
outlawed if you outlawed meaningless calls. Do you really want that?
There are other meaningless calls that are commonly used. If opening a
weak NT in first seat with the following auction:
1NT X P P
?
Many pairs play that opener is required to redouble regardless of what
his actual hand is. In this case, the redouble is a meaningless call.
> Basically it appears that the bidders partner must be uncertain
> as to whether the call is psychic, whereas with any 13 cards he is
sure
> it is.
But the opponents also know that it is psychic so they won't be fooled.
David Stevenson
>Get a new phrase for "random bid". Mathematicians may know what random
>numbers are but even they can't be certain they have successfully
>generated one. This is a toughie but since you can't bid with any 13
>cards that should be the definition. Consequently any call made must
>contain information about the bidders hand different from "any 13
>cards".
Fine. I am looking for suggestions. What phrase do you suggest?
> Basically it appears that the bidders partner must be uncertain
>as to whether the call is psychic, whereas with any 13 cards he is sure
>it is.
I am sure you mean "sure it isn't". If you meaning for a bid is that
it is random it is impossible ot psyche it.
raija d
"vida" <facun...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110385742.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I like this definition *triggered bid* where that sort of call is made over
an artificial strong opener. If there is no trigger, then such calls would
be perhaps easy to classify as frivolous psyching.
>
ewleo...@hotmail.com
David Stevenson wrote:
> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not
ban
> Destructive Bids,
>
> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
to
> show any thirteen cards.
Okay, I define a 1S overcall to be an exclusion bid specifically
denying the existence of exactly three spades to the two, three, and
four. Happy now? :)
>
> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
Orange
> book.
Perhaps, you should not use the term at all. Random in one sense could
suggest a judgement on the person making the bid. That last thing you
want to do is have an appeals committee quibble about is if a bid is
random or not. Better would be to say something like: "An overcall,
natural or artificial, promises at least four cards in one specific
suit. The partnership is not allowed to have agreements or
understandings that would allow the partner of the overcaller to check
back if the overcaller has less than four cards in the suit promised."
Eric Leong
Thomas Dehn
"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not ban
> Destructive Bids,
>
> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club to
> show any thirteen cards.
>
> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new Orange
> book.
Isn't, what you really want to ban, not "random bids",
but destructive bids which are so undefined that the side making
the destructive bid will have an unfair advantage?
Say, the difference between:
"When we are white, and RHO opens a strong club,
we will always overcall 1S. ALWAYS."
vs.
"1S shows 13 cards. Oh, and btw, we also play
the colour, rank, shape defense, and weak jumps."
(Now try to figure out with what hands they will
overcall 1S)
Thomas
John (MadDog) Probst
ewleo...@hotmail.com writes
>
>David Stevenson wrote:
>> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
>> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
>> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not
>ban
>> Destructive Bids,
>>
>> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
>to
>> show any thirteen cards.
>
>Okay, I define a 1S overcall to be an exclusion bid specifically
>denying the existence of exactly three spades to the two, three, and
>four. Happy now? :)
>
>
>
>>
>> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
>Orange
>> book.
>
>Perhaps, you should not use the term at all. Random in one sense could
>suggest a judgement on the person making the bid. That last thing you
>want to do is have an appeals committee quibble about is if a bid is
>random or not. Better would be to say something like: "An overcall,
>natural or artificial, promises at least four cards in one specific
>suit. The partnership is not allowed to have agreements or
>understandings that would allow the partner of the overcaller to check
>back if the overcaller has less than four cards in the suit promised."
>
I like this, Eric. How about "A call that usually denies a hand suitable
for any other call, often flattish and weak". John
>Eric Leong
>
>
>>
>> --
>> David Stevenson Bridge RTFLB Cats Railways /\
--
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
David Stevenson
>
>ted wrote:
>> David Stevenson wrote:
>> > In a current thread there is a question over whether you are
>allowed
>> > to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
>> > balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does
>not
>> ban
>> > Destructive Bids,
>> >
>> > But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong
>club
>> to
>> > show any thirteen cards.
>> >
>> > So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
>> Orange
>> > book.
>> Get a new phrase for "random bid". Mathematicians may know what
>random
>> numbers are but even they can't be certain they have successfully
>> generated one. This is a toughie but since you can't bid with any 13
>> cards that should be the definition. Consequently any call made must
>> contain information about the bidders hand different from "any 13
>> cards".
>
>There are lots of relay systems where information about only one hand
>is shared while the other hand makes meaningless bids of the lowest
>step in order to keep the auction open. These systems would be
>outlawed if you outlawed meaningless calls. Do you really want that?
No, of course not. I was seeking help, not foolish ideas.
>There are other meaningless calls that are commonly used. If opening a
>weak NT in first seat with the following auction:
>
>1NT X P P
>?
>
>Many pairs play that opener is required to redouble regardless of what
>his actual hand is. In this case, the redouble is a meaningless call.
So?
David Stevenson
>"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
>> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
>> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not ban
>> Destructive Bids,
>>
>> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club to
>> show any thirteen cards.
>>
>> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new Orange
>> book.
>
>Isn't, what you really want to ban, not "random bids",
>but destructive bids which are so undefined that the side making
>the destructive bid will have an unfair advantage?
I am certainly not worried by the name - that's why I asked for help.
But remember that most destructive bids are allowed here. 1S over 1C
showing any five-card suit is legal.
>Say, the difference between:
>
>"When we are white, and RHO opens a strong club,
>we will always overcall 1S. ALWAYS."
That we want to ban.
>vs.
>"1S shows 13 cards. Oh, and btw, we also play
>the colour, rank, shape defense, and weak jumps."
>(Now try to figure out with what hands they will
>overcall 1S)
That's bad disclosure, and certainly illegal.
David Stevenson
>
>David Stevenson wrote:
>> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
>> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
>> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not
>ban
>> Destructive Bids,
>>
>> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
>to
>> show any thirteen cards.
>
>Okay, I define a 1S overcall to be an exclusion bid specifically
>denying the existence of exactly three spades to the two, three, and
>four. Happy now? :)
No. I am looking for a useful rule. It would be one that excludes
this possibility.
>> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
>Orange
>> book.
>
>Perhaps, you should not use the term at all. Random in one sense could
>suggest a judgement on the person making the bid. That last thing you
>want to do is have an appeals committee quibble about is if a bid is
>random or not. Better would be to say something like: "An overcall,
>natural or artificial, promises at least four cards in one specific
>suit. The partnership is not allowed to have agreements or
>understandings that would allow the partner of the overcaller to check
>back if the overcaller has less than four cards in the suit promised."
I do not like that suggestion. The 1S random overcall that is
disliked tends to have no particular agreements as to partner's action.
I want a wording that outlaws that 1S overcall and anything similar
without outlawing anything that has some sensible meaning, however
strange. But I think anything that limits *partner's* action will not
do this.
Eddie Grove
> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are
> allowed to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a
> weak balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does
> not ban Destructive Bids,
>
> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
> to show any thirteen cards.
>
> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
> Orange book.
[ I use "you" below to refer to the rulemakers, not to DS in particular ]
The definition of "random" that fits best is "lacking a pattern".
In a bridge context, any agreement that amounts to making the
same call in a particular auction a sufficiently high proportion
of the time might count as random. I'd suggest 90%, but that's
just an arbitrary choice.
However, I doubt you wish to actually ban random bids. For example,
the semi-automatic 2D response to a strong 2C is a random bid under
many reasonable definitions of random. Do you really want to ban it?
How about the 1D response to a Precision club? I bet that if the opps
overcalled 1S on the same set of hands that responder would bid 1D,
some people would consider the 1S overcall to be destructive or
"random". If you ban the 1S overcall because of "randomness", you
should ban the 1D response as well.
The man who first introduced me to duplicate bridge told me that
on the auction 2D[weak]-X[takeout]-? he would bid 3D so often that
he might as well not bother looking at his hand, but that he might
vary his tactics on occasion. Do you want to ban that? How could you
possibly word the regulation?
Suppose a bid shows precisely 1 of the four deuces. Then it is no
more random than a 5D response to Blackwood. I would guess the people
who want to ban "random" bids would want to ban this under the same
heading. Do you wish to ban a simple overcall in spades of a strong
artificial opening that shows precisely two deuces?
You are not going to find a satisfactory definition. If the intent is
to outlaw rule-of-10 overcalls [which I would guess is in line with
the actual intent], why not simply state the rule in those terms?
Or place requirements of the form: must promise one of
(1) 4+ cards in a specific suit
(2) 5+ cards in one of two specific suits
(3) minimum number of hcp (say 7+)
(4) maximum range of hcp (say 5)
(5) control of a specific suit
etc
Certain 3N calls are going to be hard to allow in a consistent way.
Or perhaps random calls are allowed on later rounds of bidding. Ugh.
Perhaps "random" bids are allowed above 2N to allow for Blackwood
responses? Takeout doubles may be somewhat problematic. Presumably
CRaSh is considered non-random, but maybe not, and if so must be
accounted for. Perhaps the rule should be to promise at least two
from the list, but then preempts [which basically show length in a
particular suit and nothing else] might get a bit dicy.
Eddie
ted
David Stevenson wrote:
> ted wrote
>
> >Get a new phrase for "random bid". Mathematicians may know what
random
> >numbers are but even they can't be certain they have successfully
> >generated one. This is a toughie but since you can't bid with any 13
> >cards that should be the definition. Consequently any call made must
> >contain information about the bidders hand different from "any 13
> >cards".
>
> Fine. I am looking for suggestions. What phrase do you suggest?
Call it a "Meaningless Call" literally a call without meaning and which
the partner will recognize as such.
>
> > Basically it appears that the bidders partner must be uncertain
> >as to whether the call is psychic, whereas with any 13 cards he is
sure
> >it is.
>
> I am sure you mean "sure it isn't". If you meaning for a bid is
that
> it is random it is impossible ot psyche it.
I guess the closest I can come to describing this would be if your RHO
opened a strong club in 1st seat and you, without looking at your
cards, bid 1S(this is close to a random bid). Now your partner knows
you didn't look at your cards and knows you have no clue what your hand
is. That to me means he has picked up the psyche and will react
accordingly.
Otis Bricker
news:rjyVk3Ou...@blakjak.demon.co.uk:
I can see that the problem of defining "random" in this context would be
dificult. Since you are not really trying to bar random bids but rather
ones that carry no useful information.
Always bidding 1S over 1C is not random. Nor is always bidding it with <6
HCP. Or <24 HCP. Or if your spot cards do not add to a prime number. All
of these convey information and are not random. But the last two
certainly provide little useful information.
I could be wrong but it sounds like what you want to achieve is barring
bids that have so little information value, they are in essentially
meaningless. This seems very hard to define since some information might
be useful occasionally.
And in most relay systems, the relay is not meaningless. It means, " I do
not yet heard enough to want to place the contract and your answer will
help". Since you can break the relay, not doing so means you are not yet
ready to do so.
Otis
Just Visiting
news:Ptx8XrFj...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
>
> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new Orange
> book.
>
> --
How about "a bid that fails to suggest useful information to the bidder's
partner"?
That obviously leaves the definition of 'useful' to be decided by
directors... but is pretty clear I think. Knowing, to quote another
response, that partner doesn't have the 2, 3, 4 of spades is clearly
useless.
Richard Pavlicek
> David Stevenson wrote:
>
> > So, how should we define a 'random bid'?
> > This is for the new Orange book.
>
> How about "a bid that fails to suggest useful information
> to the bidder's partner"?
>
> That obviously leaves the definition of 'useful' to be decided by
> directors... but is pretty clear I think. Knowing, to quote another
> response, that partner doesn't have the 2, 3, 4 of spades is clearly
> useless.
Leaving rules open to interpretation only creates problems,
e.g., someone could argue that showing two deuces is "useful
to partner" in reading your subsequent leads and signals.
How about a "binary subset" rule: All bids (or doubles)
must show something about your high-card strength or hand
pattern, such that the subset of possible hands you could
hold is not greater than half of all possible hands.
This would exclude meaningless "noise bids" but allow almost
any realistic method. For example, a bid of 1S to show long
spades (5+) or short spades (0-1) would be fine; but a bid to
show 2-4 spades (and nothing else) would be illegal because
that's about 73 percent of all hands.
Similarly, bids that show HCP only are OK provided the range
is a binary subset or less. If opener shows 16+, I think an
overcall showing 0-7 HCP would be OK, but 0-8 (or more) would
be illegal (I didn't check the math).
Using this rule, one could _not_ play that a bid denies a
specific honor card (say, 1S denies the SA) as it is easily
proved that this exceeds half the possible hands when opener
has 16+ HCP. However, a bid that _shows_ only the SA would
be OK. Note that this silliness cannot be done with deuces
(or whatever) as all definitions must be based on shape or
high cards (A-J).
--
Richard Pavlicek
Web site: http://www.rpbridge.net
March poll: http://www.rpbridge.net/8w25.htm
Eddie Grove
> How about a "binary subset" rule: All bids (or doubles)
> must show something about your high-card strength or hand
> pattern, such that the subset of possible hands you could
> hold is not greater than half of all possible hands.
This might fail on auctions like 2N-P-3N. Does one raise directly to
3N more than half the time? It seems possible to me.
It certainly rules out a 2D waiting response to 2C, completing
a transfer, and a host of similar things.
Eddie
Andrew Gumperz
I like this standard because of the precise criteria it includes for
identifying violations. Richard is absoutely right that without precise
criteria you leave things open for endless, and pointless, heated
arguments in committee.
Andrew
David Collier
David Stevenson wrote:
> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not
ban
> Destructive Bids,
>
> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
to
> show any thirteen cards.
As others have said, this 1S bid is not "random" if you really do bid
it whenever you have 13 cards. So a different term is needed. I doubt
that there are any English words that do exactly what we want. The best
I can do is "non-descriptive".
> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
Orange
> book.
It seems literally impossible.
But anyway, as a Precision player, it makes no difference to me whether
a 1S overcall shows "any hand" or "an unspecified 5-card suit". That
is, if you play Precision you need to have an agreement about what to
do against sufficiently meaningless overcalls. So why do we need a ban
on such overcalls at all? I admit that I would not be happy if I found
my opponents were playing a random 1S overcall, but that is only
because it means they will be bidding 1S very frequently and it will
randomise the results - their 1S bid is no harder to deal with than
CRASH, say, when it comes up.
Perhaps the reason that meaningless bids are banned is because of
problems with disclosure. If that is the case, then I don't see the
need for a regulation banning them; it would be sufficient to point out
that the fact that any defence is allowed does not mean you can get
away with less than full disclosure, and give an example: "You should
not describe 1S as showing `any 13 cards' if in fact your methods allow
you to pass or make some other bid with certain hands."
--
David Collier
Manchester, UK
Douglas Newlands
:
: In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
:balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not ban
:Destructive Bids,
:
: But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club to
:show any thirteen cards.
:
: So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new Orange
:book.
Do you really need to ban these bids at all?
The partner of the overcaller can do nothing if they are truly
random and the defence to this 1S overcall is trivial.
Around here there are people who play "wonder bids" as their defence to
a strong club (1A = A or the other 3 suits). They are in love with their
invention but again the partner is not able to make a preemptive raise
in most cases and the proponents speak such nonsense as "they don't know
which suits are real and which is a cue".
If anyone wants to play strong club they just have to learn how to
defend against this. It's nearly as brain-damaged a tactic as transfer preempts!
Dougie
David Collier
Richard Pavlicek wrote:
>
> Leaving rules open to interpretation only creates problems,
> e.g., someone could argue that showing two deuces is "useful
> to partner" in reading your subsequent leads and signals.
>
> How about a "binary subset" rule: All bids (or doubles)
> must show something about your high-card strength or hand
> pattern, such that the subset of possible hands you could
> hold is not greater than half of all possible hands.
Great idea! Someone was asking me yesterday what I would be able to do
with a PhD in mathematics. Now I'll be able to tell them - I can
adjudicate on whether people's bidding systems are legal!
Sadly, I don't think this will be adopted by the EBU, as it includes
"any hand which does not contain a deuce", and it seems that this is
the sort of thing they want to ban.
Richard Pavlicek
My understanding was that this thread was related to
defensive actions, or more specifically, interference
over a strong 1C bid. Surely, it would not apply to
partnership responses and rebids.
--
RP
Otis Bricker
news:1110405212.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> What if we amend the statement to say, "all initial actions in an
> auction by a partnership other than pass must show..." etc. This would
> rule out opening ferts and random overcalls.
>
Would that rule out ferts? My memory is that the the ranges of for Forcing
Pass systems (P=13+, 1D=7-, others =8-12) were choosen so that most hands
were opened. Only about 1 in 4 opens 1D or passes.
Not that this is important to the topic at hand.
Otis
Andrew Gumperz
What if we amend the statement to say, "all initial actions in an
auction by a partnership other than pass must show..." etc. This would
rule out opening ferts and random overcalls.
Andrew
Eddie Grove
Is P-P-P-1C; 1S an initial action?
If you answer yes, what if 3rd seat's pass showed 12+ hcp?
Besides, if (1C)-1S shows precisely 1 deuce, are the authorities
really going to allow that agreement even though it is less than 50%?
Eddie
Adam Beneschan
I think a rule like this would have to be applicable only when neither
member of the partnership has yet made a non-pass call.
-- Adam
Richard Willey
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
>to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
>balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not ban
>Destructive Bids,
>
> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club to
>show any thirteen cards.
>
> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new Orange
>book.
Hi David
Two comments:
1. In some ways, I think that you are putting the cart before the
horse. For the moment, we should shelve discussion regarding the
precise wording for the regulation. I think that its far more
important to generate consensus regarding the general purpose of the
regulation in question. Once everyone is on the same wavelength, we
can worry about proper diction. As a starting point: You note that
current EBU regulations ban "Random" bids. Does the EBU currently
have a working definition of "Random" that it applies?
2. From my own perspective, the expression random suggests the use of
a "mixed" strategy. I'm attaching a short article that I drafted
describing the application of mixed strategies to Bridge. I would be
interested in any comments that you might have regarding the extent to
which this is relevant to the question at hand.
Mixed Strategies as applied to Bridge
The academic discipline of game theory differentiates between
“pure” strategies and “mixed” strategies. Pure strategies are
deterministic. Players choosing a pure strategy follow a predictable
course of action. In contrast, mixed strategies deliberately
incorporate random action. The simplest example of a mixed strategy
equilibrium is the Penny Matching game. Two players simultaneous
display a penny. If the two coins “match” (both coins are heads or
both coins are tails) then Player 1 keeps the two pennies. If the two
coins don't match then Player 2 keeps both pennies. The only
equilibrium strategy to this game is mixed. Each player should
randomly determine whether to display Heads or Tails using a 50/50
weighting scheme.
The concept of a mixed strategy can be applied to a number of
areas within bridge. The simplest and best know examples come from
declarer play and defense. Many well understood problems like
restricted choice make use of mixed strategies. For example, declarer
leads a low Diamond into D QJ9 and plays the Queen after LHO plays
low. RHO holds both the Ace and the King and needs to determine which
card to cover with. Restricted choice analysis presumes that the
defender is applying a mixed strategy will randomly chose to cover
with the Ace or the King, once again applying a 50/50 weighing scheme.
Mixed strategies can also be applied to the design of bidding
systems. Players applying a “pure” bidding strategy will always chose
the same bid bid with a given hand. In contrast, players employing a
mixed bidding strategy allow deliberate randomization. Consider the
following example taken from Bridge My Way by Zia Mahmood. You hold
S AQJ3
H K5
D 873
C A653
The auction starts
1H – 1S
3S - ???
and you need to chose a rebid. Zia advocates a bidding style in which
players should randomize between 4C and 4D cuebids. Zia never goes so
far as to discuss probabilities, but hypothetically he might chose a
4C cuebid 80% of the time and a 4D cuebid 20% of the time.
Alternatively, consider the following example: White versus Red
partner opens 1H in first seat promising 5+ Hearts and 10-15 HCP. RHO
passes. You hold:
S 742
H AK762
D 9732
C 4
I advocate a hypothetical “mixed” strategy in which players bidders
4H: 60% of the time
3NT: 20% of the time
2NT: 10% of the time
2D: 5% of the time
1S: 5% of the time
Players who adopt mixed bidding strategies allow for the use of
multiple bids to describe a single hand. As a consequence, many
responses could show radically different hand types. For example,
players adopting Zia's Sting Cue bid style need to describe their 4C
cue bids as either “First round control of Clubs or [rarely] no
control of clubs”. In an equivalent fashion, my partners would need
to describe my 3NT raise of a Precision 1H openings as either a strong
balanced hand willing to declare 3NT OR [rarely] a preemptive raise of
Hearts.
In turn, this brings us to the last major area in which mixed
strategies and bridge overlap: Regulatory structures. Few if any
Zonal authorities incorporate mixed bidding strategies into their
regulatory structures. Instead, regulators attempt to sidestep the
issue using the concept of a psychic call. Regulators and players
pretend that psychic calls are “deliberate and gross misstatements of
honor strength or suit length”. In actuality, so-called psychic calls
are a subset of a more complex meta-agreement involving mixed bidding
strategies. I argue that neither players nor regulators are served by
this pretense. Complete disclosure can never be achieved unless the
regulatory structure matches the actual strategies employed by
players.
Travis Crump
> honor strength or suit length”. In actuality, so-called psychic calls
> are a subset of a more complex meta-agreement involving mixed bidding
> strategies. I argue that neither players nor regulators are served by
> this pretense. Complete disclosure can never be achieved unless the
> regulatory structure matches the actual strategies employed by
> players.
>
>
>
>
The counter argument is that complete disclosure can never be achieved
which is the whole problem with the system. You say that partner makes
a bid A 80% of the time and bid B 20% of the time, but have you actually
charted out every time that bid has come out to determine this or is
this just an 'approximation'. Do you have a better idea that the 'real'
percentage is closer than 75/25 or 85/15 than the opponents[from your
disclosure]?
Travis
Gordon Rainsford
> David Stevenson wrote:
> > ted wrote
> >
> > >Get a new phrase for "random bid". Mathematicians may know what
> random
> > >numbers are but even they can't be certain they have successfully
> > >generated one. This is a toughie but since you can't bid with any 13
> > >cards that should be the definition. Consequently any call made must
> > >contain information about the bidders hand different from "any 13
> > >cards".
> >
> > Fine. I am looking for suggestions. What phrase do you suggest?
>
> Call it a "Meaningless Call" literally a call without meaning and which
> the partner will recognize as such.
This seems like a good term for it.
>
>
> >
> > > Basically it appears that the bidders partner must be uncertain
> > >as to whether the call is psychic, whereas with any 13 cards he is
> sure
> > >it is.
> >
> > I am sure you mean "sure it isn't". If you meaning for a bid is
> that
> > it is random it is impossible ot psyche it.
>
>
> I guess the closest I can come to describing this would be if your RHO
> opened a strong club in 1st seat and you, without looking at your
> cards, bid 1S(this is close to a random bid).
This is already prohibited by L7B2. However, I think what is wanted is
to prevent such bidding when you *have* looked at your cards.
> Now your partner knows
> you didn't look at your cards and knows you have no clue what your hand
> is. That to me means he has picked up the psyche and will react
> accordingly.
That's a different question.
--
Gordon Rainsford
London UK
Gordon Rainsford
> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not ban
> Destructive Bids,
>
> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club to
> show any thirteen cards.
>
> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new Orange
> book.
I go along with those who prefer to avoid the term "random" altogether -
not least because it's used in a different context to describe a style
of pre-empting.
However, if the word does continue to be used, I hope it will be made
clear that the prohibition on such bids takes primacy over the freedom
to use "any defence" to certain opening bids. At present it's not
immediately clear to a casual reader of the Orange Book.
I suspect it might be better, instead of saying "you can do anything
except make random bids", to say "you can do the following..." and make
the list very broad.
For example: "In defence to a strong club, you may ascribe to any call
any of the following meanings, or any combination of the following
meanings:
a specified suit of at least four cards length
a specifed shortage (singleton or void)
a two-suiter (at least four cards in each suit)"
I don't have any particular attachment to that specific list - it's just
meant as an example of the way it might be approached.
Barry Margolin
"Richard Pavlicek" <ric...@rpbridge.net> wrote:
> How about a "binary subset" rule: All bids (or doubles)
> must show something about your high-card strength or hand
> pattern, such that the subset of possible hands you could
> hold is not greater than half of all possible hands.
>
> This would exclude meaningless "noise bids" but allow almost
> any realistic method. For example, a bid of 1S to show long
> spades (5+) or short spades (0-1) would be fine; but a bid to
> show 2-4 spades (and nothing else) would be illegal because
> that's about 73 percent of all hands.
>
> Similarly, bids that show HCP only are OK provided the range
> is a binary subset or less. If opener shows 16+, I think an
> overcall showing 0-7 HCP would be OK, but 0-8 (or more) would
> be illegal (I didn't check the math).
>
> Using this rule, one could _not_ play that a bid denies a
> specific honor card (say, 1S denies the SA) as it is easily
> proved that this exceeds half the possible hands when opener
> has 16+ HCP. However, a bid that _shows_ only the SA would
> be OK. Note that this silliness cannot be done with deuces
> (or whatever) as all definitions must be based on shape or
> high cards (A-J).
So what about *asking* bids? E.g. Blackwood doesn't necessarily show
something about your strength or pattern (if you leap directly to
Blackwood partner may be able to infer some of this, but in many cases
it doesn't imply anything).
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
Mark Brader
> > be defined as bids that are "automatically triggered by an opponents
> > call, and made regardless of the cards you're holding"
> I like this definition *triggered bid* where that sort of call is made over
> an artificial strong opener...
Or "automatic defensive bids".
Presumably it would also be desired to ban actions such as always opening
1S when dealer against opponents playing a strong club system. That is,
the triggering action might be the opponents' agreement rather than their
actual calls.
I think the regulation does have to mention that it's the opponents'
actions or agreements are the trigger. There are other bids that may
by partnership agreement convey no information, such as acceptance of
a transfer (supposing that superaccepts don't apply), but these don't
have the destructive or so-called random nature relevant to this thread.
--
Mark Brader "Inventions reached their limit long ago,
Toronto and I see no hope for further development."
m...@vex.net -- Julius Frontinus, 1st century A.D.
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mark Brader
> How about "A call that usually denies a hand suitable
> for any other call, often flattish and weak".
Like a natural pass?
--
Mark Brader | "The default choice ... is in many ways the most
Toronto | important thing. ... People can get started
m...@vex.net | without reading a big manual." -- Brian Kernighan
Just Visiting
news:afuu21913v8j1gs38...@4ax.com...
Please remind me not to ask "What does that 3N bid mean?" when I'm playing
against you.
David Stevenson
>David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are
>> allowed to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a
>> weak balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does
>> not ban Destructive Bids,
>>
>> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
>> to show any thirteen cards.
>>
>> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
>> Orange book.
>
>[ I use "you" below to refer to the rulemakers, not to DS in particular ]
>
>The definition of "random" that fits best is "lacking a pattern".
>In a bridge context, any agreement that amounts to making the
>same call in a particular auction a sufficiently high proportion
>of the time might count as random. I'd suggest 90%, but that's
>just an arbitrary choice.
>
>However, I doubt you wish to actually ban random bids. For example,
>the semi-automatic 2D response to a strong 2C is a random bid under
>many reasonable definitions of random. Do you really want to ban it?
>
>How about the 1D response to a Precision club? I bet that if the opps
>overcalled 1S on the same set of hands that responder would bid 1D,
>some people would consider the 1S overcall to be destructive or
>"random". If you ban the 1S overcall because of "randomness", you
>should ban the 1D response as well.
I do not believe this has anything to do with random bids whatever.
These are part of a constructive bidding system.
>The man who first introduced me to duplicate bridge told me that
>on the auction 2D[weak]-X[takeout]-? he would bid 3D so often that
>he might as well not bother looking at his hand, but that he might
>vary his tactics on occasion. Do you want to ban that? How could you
>possibly word the regulation?
>
>Suppose a bid shows precisely 1 of the four deuces. Then it is no
>more random than a 5D response to Blackwood. I would guess the people
>who want to ban "random" bids would want to ban this under the same
>heading. Do you wish to ban a simple overcall in spades of a strong
>artificial opening that shows precisely two deuces?
>
>You are not going to find a satisfactory definition. If the intent is
>to outlaw rule-of-10 overcalls [which I would guess is in line with
>the actual intent], why not simply state the rule in those terms?
There is certainly no intent at all to bar such things. A 1S overcall
that shows at least four hearts would be non-random, and could be
Rule-of-seven for all anyone cares.
>Or place requirements of the form: must promise one of
>(1) 4+ cards in a specific suit
>(2) 5+ cards in one of two specific suits
>(3) minimum number of hcp (say 7+)
>(4) maximum range of hcp (say 5)
>(5) control of a specific suit
>etc
This would be unbearably complicated, while probably not achieving the
object.
David Stevenson
>"Richard Willey" <richard...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:afuu21913v8j1gs38...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 13:49:42 +0000 (UTC), David Stevenson
>> <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
>> >to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
>> >balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not ban
>> >Destructive Bids,
>> >
>> > But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club to
>> >show any thirteen cards.
>> >
>> > So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new Orange
>> >book.
>>
>> Hi David
>>
>> Two comments:
>>
>> 1. In some ways, I think that you are putting the cart before the
>> horse. For the moment, we should shelve discussion regarding the
>> precise wording for the regulation.
Thanks very much. But since all I want is help in wording a reg I
don't see that this helps.
David Stevenson
I do not know what your Committees are like, but that is not a
problem. The Chairman would not allow such silliness to go on. Yes,
imprecision does lead to problems, but not this one.
David Stevenson
>But anyway, as a Precision player, it makes no difference to me whether
>a 1S overcall shows "any hand" or "an unspecified 5-card suit". That
>is, if you play Precision you need to have an agreement about what to
>do against sufficiently meaningless overcalls. So why do we need a ban
>on such overcalls at all? I admit that I would not be happy if I found
>my opponents were playing a random 1S overcall, but that is only
>because it means they will be bidding 1S very frequently and it will
>randomise the results - their 1S bid is no harder to deal with than
>CRASH, say, when it comes up.
>
>Perhaps the reason that meaningless bids are banned is because of
>problems with disclosure. If that is the case, then I don't see the
>need for a regulation banning them; it would be sufficient to point out
>that the fact that any defence is allowed does not mean you can get
>away with less than full disclosure, and give an example: "You should
>not describe 1S as showing `any 13 cards' if in fact your methods allow
>you to pass or make some other bid with certain hands."
I don't see the point of this.
The question is how to word a regulation. Whether it is a good
regulation or not is not relevant.
David Stevenson
I don't see the point of this. I am asking for help in wording a
regulation. Whether it is the world's best or worst regulation seems
totally irrelevant.
Richard Willey
<bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Thanks very much. But since all I want is help in wording a reg I
>don't see that this helps.
David,
your posting has generated an enormous number of replies touching on a
wide variety of topics. To me, at least, this suggests that there is
some degree of confusion regarding precisely what your regulation is
designed to accomplish.
It seems remarkably strange to worry about how to "word" something
before there is agreement regarding what we are trying to say...
raija d
"ted" <tmo...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1110393720....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> David Stevenson wrote:
>> ted wrote
>>
>> >Get a new phrase for "random bid". Mathematicians may know what
> random
>> >numbers are but even they can't be certain they have successfully
>> >generated one. This is a toughie but since you can't bid with any 13
>> >cards that should be the definition. Consequently any call made must
>> >contain information about the bidders hand different from "any 13
>> >cards".
>>
>> Fine. I am looking for suggestions. What phrase do you suggest?
>
> Call it a "Meaningless Call" literally a call without meaning and which
> the partner will recognize as such.
>
>
>>
>> >as to whether the call is psychic, whereas with any 13 cards he is
> sure
>> >it is.
>>
>> I am sure you mean "sure it isn't". If you meaning for a bid is
> that
>> it is random it is impossible ot psyche it.
>
>
> I guess the closest I can come to describing this would be if your RHO
> opened a strong club in 1st seat and you, without looking at your
> you didn't look at your cards and knows you have no clue what your hand
> is. That to me means he has picked up the psyche and will react
> accordingly.
Psyche is a deliberate and gross deviation from system. If one hasnt looked
at one's cards, the bid cannot be a psyche as there is "nothing" to base the
deviation upon. IMO. Also, such behavior already is illegal (not looking at
one's cards before bidding)
Wayne Burrows
> David Stevenson wrote:
>
>>In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
>>to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
>>balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not
>
> ban
>
>>Destructive Bids,
>>
>> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
>
> to
>
>>show any thirteen cards.
>>
>> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
>
> Orange
>
>>book.
>>
>>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 ~
>
>
> There is nothing random w/ bidding an automatic 1S when RHO opens 1C.
> It is actually pretty consistant. What you might want to ban are
> *triggered bids*, which I guess could be defined as bids that are
> "automatically triggered by an opponents call, and made regardless of
> the cards you're holding"
>
What is random is not the bid but the contents of your hand. If you
have not looked at your hand then it is completely random with the
constraint that one opponent has 16+ hcp.
Wayne
Wayne Burrows
> David Stevenson wrote:
>
>>In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
>>to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
>>balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not
>
> ban
>
>>Destructive Bids,
>>
>> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
>
> to
>
>>show any thirteen cards.
>
>
> denying the existence of exactly three spades to the two, three, and
> four. Happy now? :)
>
>
>
>
>> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
>
> Orange
>
>>book.
>
>
> suggest a judgement on the person making the bid. That last thing you
> want to do is have an appeals committee quibble about is if a bid is
> random or not. Better would be to say something like: "An overcall,
> natural or artificial, promises at least four cards in one specific
> suit. The partnership is not allowed to have agreements or
> understandings that would allow the partner of the overcaller to check
> back if the overcaller has less than four cards in the suit promised."
>
I think limiting defenses to bids that promise a specific suit is too
restrictive in this sort of situation. Someone might like to play 1S is
an overcall in either minor (or 4+ cards in either minor) and I think
that should be ok. Similarly for two unknown suits - both majors or
both minors would be ok. I would not want to exclude those sorts of
agreements.
Wayne
Kieran Dyke
"David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ptx8XrFj...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
>
> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not ban
> Destructive Bids,
>
> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club to
> show any thirteen cards.
>
> book.
>
> 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 ~
How about "Random" bids like a 2D response to 2C. Or are the partners of
people with good hands allowed to make random bids?
Tiggrr
Kieran Dyke
"Just Visiting" <bl...@blah.com> wrote in message
news:422f4b8d$0$8749$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> "David Stevenson" <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Ptx8XrFj...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > book.
> >
> > --
>
> partner"?
>
> That obviously leaves the definition of 'useful' to be decided by
> directors... but is pretty clear I think. Knowing, to quote another
> response, that partner doesn't have the 2, 3, 4 of spades is clearly
> useless.
>
>
OK... you're suggesting we ban:
2D waiting response to 2C.
3C rebid over lebensohl.
A simple accept of a transfer unless superaccepts are available.
2D rebid over 2C if playing two way checkback.
Or are you suggesting that we permit your pure and honourable conventions,
and ban other people's impure and evil conventions?
Tiggrr
Jon Haugsand
> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are
> allowed to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a
> weak balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which
> does not ban Destructive Bids,
>
> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
> to show any thirteen cards.
Interesting. When I played precision some years ago, several
opponents had "comical one spade" on their bidding card to show any
hand. If this was forbidden in Norway at the time, we didn't know
about it.
I felt uneasy about such bids because I didn't think it really showed
any hand. The partnership certainly used it more often with some kind
of hands than other.
--
Jon Haugsand
Dept. of Informatics, Univ. of Oslo, Norway, mailto:jon...@ifi.uio.no
http://www.ifi.uio.no/~jonhaug/, Phone: +47 22 85 24 92
Keith Sheppard
One which conveys no information about hand shape and which has no agreed
maximum or minimum strength requirement? Or have I misunderstood the term?
Actually, I have a nasty suspicion that if you go for any definition like
that, it would be possible to get round it. For example, if a side agrees
they can't do it on 40 points <g> they now have a maximum strength
requirement. You may need to attack it from another angle - like a single
bid which can cover more than, say, 90% of all possible holdings?
Just some random thoughts
Keith
Gordon Rainsford
I don't think it's random to always make the same bid, even on a variety
of hands. I think it would be random to have at least two responses to
2C, not distinguished in any way by content of the bidder's hand.
David Collier
Well, this being rgb, it's inevitable that if you ask about the wording
of a regulation, people will comment on the regulation itself. But
anwyay, here is my answer to how the regulation might be worded. You
have four options:
1. Define precisely the calls that are not allowed.
This will not work, because people could simply use the most random
thing which was not on the list. As a trivial eaxmple, if you disallow
"any 13 cards" then people will play "any hand of less than 12HCP", or
"any hand not including the beer card". If you then add things to your
regulation to disallow these, people could just move on to the next
most random thing available, and the regulation will have accomplished
nothing.
2. Define precisely the calls that *are* allowed.
This works fine: it's the way everything else in the OB is done. The
problem is that we would lose our nice "any defence is allowed"
regulation. And the list of allowed calls would have to be rather long,
as it wold certainly have to encompass most things that are played at
the moment (which is a huge variety).
3. Define *vaguely* the calls that are not allowed.
Someone has suggested "a bid that fails to suggest useful information
to the bidder's partner". This is good, because morally it describes
exactly what it is that ought to be banned. But having regulations
which rely heavily on the opinion of the TD might not be a good idea.
And if you try to be less vague but still leave it open to
interpretation, you combine this problem with the problems of 1.
4. Define vaguely the calls that are allowed.
This would be equivalent to 3 except for the word "not".
IMO the only workable idea is 2, but DWS has already indicated that he
doesn't want to do it that way. So I think we're searching for a
wording that doesn't exist.
--
David Collier
Manchester, UK
Rob Morris
[Snippage]
> David Stevenson wrote:
>
>>ted wrote
>>>Get a new phrase for "random bid". Mathematicians may know what
>
>
> Call it a "Meaningless Call" literally a call without meaning and which
> the partner will recognize as such.
The problem is, anyone can come up with a spurious or unhelpful meaning
for a bid - so the problem of choosing how to regulate this still exists.
All the best,
Rob M
Keith Sheppard
>>bid which can cover more than, say, 90% of all possible holdings?
must make it clear when they are prohibited and when not. If a "random" bid
is always prohibited you may accidentally ban, for example, completing
partner's transfer.
Keith
Arend Bayer
> Richard Pavlicek wrote:
>>
>> Leaving rules open to interpretation only creates problems,
>> e.g., someone could argue that showing two deuces is "useful
>> to partner" in reading your subsequent leads and signals.
>>
>> How about a "binary subset" rule: All bids (or doubles)
>> must show something about your high-card strength or hand
>> pattern, such that the subset of possible hands you could
>> hold is not greater than half of all possible hands.
>
> with a PhD in mathematics. Now I'll be able to tell them - I can
> adjudicate on whether people's bidding systems are legal!
>
> Sadly, I don't think this will be adopted by the EBU, as it includes
> "any hand which does not contain a deuce", and it seems that this is
> the sort of thing they want to ban.
You missed the bit about "must show something about your high-card strength
or hand pattern, such that...".
Of course you could circumvent this by "bid 1S if you have odd number of
HCP, 1H if even", but if I have to go that silly (and ineffective) to
circumvent the rule, then the rule cannot be that bad.
About your PhD: Better requiring a math PhD in the committee to compute
percentages that a linguistics PhD to determine whether a call is
meaningless... Especially as most good bridge players seem to be better at
math than at linguistics :)
IMHO it is clearly the best suggestion in this thread so far.
Arend
ted
I agree with Gordon. A list of allowable actions is probably easier to
expand than a list of disallowed actions.
Frances
David Stevenson wrote:
> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not
ban
> Destructive Bids,
>
> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
to
> show any thirteen cards.
>
It's possible I misunderstand the issue, but I believe that under the
current regulations - which we are merely trying to reword, not change
-
a) A choice between a 1C and 1D opening on a balanced hand based on the
parity of the pips in the minors is legal
b) a choice between a 1S overcall of a strong club and a pass based
solely on the parity of pips in the minors is not (intended to be)
legal
The difference between these two is that the decision to open 1 minor
was not random (balanced hand, outside NT range, at least 12 HCP) and
that in fact the 1C and 1D openings are individually legal; whereas a
1S overcall showing "13 cards" is not legal.
So I conclude the ban on "random" (I agree with other people who don't
like the use of the word random) is related to the auction in which it
occurs - as others have said, some calls in a relay sequence may be
made on 99% of hands but should be legal while a 1S overcall of a
strong club made on 99% of calls is not legal.
In addition, there are in effect two different bans on random bids: one
says I'm not allowed to open 1C or 1D "At random" because it is
believed there will always be some partnership experience which makes
it non-random. The other says I'm not allowed to overcall 1S over 1C on
all hands because it's overly destructive or without bridge merit or
something. If I'm right here (and I'm not totally sure I am) then
perhaps there should be two different regulations/definitions.
I like Richard Pavlicek's suggestion about having to eliminate a
certain percentage of hands, but I need to think a bit more about it.
And I think the ban needs to be clear about whether contested or
uncontested auctions are included.
> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
Orange
> book.
>
Stu Goodgold
>disliked tends to have no particular agreements as to partner's
action.
>I want a wording that outlaws that 1S overcall and anything similar
>without outlawing anything that has some sensible meaning, however
>strange. But I think anything that limits *partner's* action will not
>do this.
All this discussion seems to be beating around the bush. The consensus
appears to be that 'random calls' cannot be defined in a way to satisfy
your desire to ban what you want.
An overcall that has 'some sensible meaning' offers a description of
your hand, or suggests partner describe his hand, with the intent of
finding a contract to play. An overcall that does not have a sensible
meaning can only be made with the primary purpose of disrupting the
opponent's auction. If you allow primarily destructive overcalls, then
you allow bids with no sensible meaning beyond getting in the
opposition's way.
Someone could argue that (1C) 1S asks partner to compete, and is
essentially a 4 suited takeout. If you wish to ban such an agreement,
then you have to take the view that the 1S overcall is made with the
main intent of getting in the way instead of finding a playable
contract, ie. it is primarily destructive.
-Stu Goodgold
San Jose, CA
Todd A. Anderson
news:Ptx8XrFj...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
>
> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not ban
> Destructive Bids,
>
> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club to
> show any thirteen cards.
>
> book.
Those playing 1S over strong 1C do not bid 1S with every hand but with
every hand that does not qualify for any other bid. Even (1C)-P may be
reserved to have some strong meaning and therefore 1S is simply the
catchall bid. I see no reason to legislate that pass has to be the catchall
bid. I haven't really seen what I would be willing to call "random" bidding
from anyone. Random to me would mean you have some number of
bids available that all mean the same thing and you pick between these
randomly. The first such case would be that every bid means "I have 13
cards" and you select randomly between the bids. I would have a problem
with this sort of random bidding but simply assigning an unorthodox meaning
to 1S is not random. 1S is no more random than a pass is even if its
meaning
is "no other bid available," i.e., the catchall.
The problem with ACBL is that somebody doesn't like somebody else using
1S as the catchall after 1C strong (or using 1C/1D/1H opening as the
catchall
bid in a strong pass system) and so they try to ban that approach. However,
in many cases, it is basically impossible to write a regulation clearly
enough to
ban what they want to ban without banning something else that they don't
want
to ban. So, what happens in practice is they just write down whatever they
want and with a wink and a nod everybody is informed of what was intended
to be banned and what wasn't. There are enough regulations to pretty much
stop new stuff that people don't like but keep the LOLs happy.
Todd A. Anderson
news:W3JXd.19420$5T6....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> Just Visiting wrote:
>
> > David Stevenson wrote:
> >
> > > This is for the new Orange book.
> >
> > to the bidder's partner"?
> >
> > That obviously leaves the definition of 'useful' to be decided by
> > directors... but is pretty clear I think. Knowing, to quote another
> > response, that partner doesn't have the 2, 3, 4 of spades is clearly
> > useless.
>
> e.g., someone could argue that showing two deuces is "useful
> to partner" in reading your subsequent leads and signals.
>
> How about a "binary subset" rule: All bids (or doubles)
> must show something about your high-card strength or hand
> pattern, such that the subset of possible hands you could
> hold is not greater than half of all possible hands.
>
> any realistic method. For example, a bid of 1S to show long
> spades (5+) or short spades (0-1) would be fine; but a bid to
> show 2-4 spades (and nothing else) would be illegal because
> that's about 73 percent of all hands.
>
> Similarly, bids that show HCP only are OK provided the range
> is a binary subset or less. If opener shows 16+, I think an
> overcall showing 0-7 HCP would be OK, but 0-8 (or more) would
> be illegal (I didn't check the math).
>
> Using this rule, one could _not_ play that a bid denies a
> specific honor card (say, 1S denies the SA) as it is easily
> proved that this exceeds half the possible hands when opener
> has 16+ HCP. However, a bid that _shows_ only the SA would
> be OK. Note that this silliness cannot be done with deuces
> (or whatever) as all definitions must be based on shape or
> high cards (A-J).
In many circumstances, doesn't the call "pass" apply to over 50%
of all possible hands. Why this preference for "pass" as a suitable
catchall instead of a bid? In my view, the laws and regulations should
be completely ambivalent w.r.t. which bid is the catchall. What one
guys says is a destructive bid with no meaning, I call a 4-suited takeout
preemptive bid without jumping.
Todd A. Anderson
news:39bb78F...@individual.net...
This is yet another example of how trying to outlaw something that should
not
be outlawed you wind up with loophole after loophole. You can spend all
your time trying to seal the loopholes or just let people play whatever
defense
they want. If 1S over strong 1C as the catchall bid (especially when nv vs
vul)
means that the weak side can sign off in 2 of a suit and the other side
can't
effectively punish them then it is a good defense. I don't care how much
the
strong 1Cers hate it. Why does this topic come up so often if this 1S bid
doesn't have some merit? If it has merit then why are we trying to ban it?
Same
reason forcing pass not allowed no doubt.
Nick Hughes
news:Ptx8XrFj...@blakjak.demon.co.uk...
>
> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed to
> bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak balanced
> hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not ban
> Destructive Bids,
>
> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club to
> show any thirteen cards.
>
> book.
>
> David Stevenson
As a strong clubber, I would hate to see these bids outlawed. They have been
big earners for us.
The best defence is the same as against a fert.
1C* (1S*) X = 6+ balanced
1N+ = transfers
Now a 16+ opener knows to pass with 4+ spades and often with three.
Important to make them pay for using such a poor method.
Nick Hughes, Sydney
Geoff Edwards
double
would work? Maybe someone with a hand simulator could determine how often
1S*
is a good score, given only that opener has 16+HCP.
I used to play bridge against Bridge Baron and I liked to mix it up a bit
over their 1NT
opener by overcalling with poorish suits. As far as I could tell, it had a
policy of always doubling
the overcall with 8+ HCP irrespective of distribution (for instance, even
with a void in my suit). This
simple strategy worked amazingly well. I regularly went for huge numbers
and eventually I gave it up
trying to push it around this way.
Geoff
"Nick Hughes" <nhu...@bigponddotnet.au> wrote in message
news:p3bYd.192859$K7.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
b...@moscito.org
>As a strong clubber, I would hate to see these bids outlawed.
>1C* (1S*) X = 6+ balanced
> 1N+ = transfers
>
>Now a 16+ opener knows to pass with 4+ spades and often with three.
>Important to make them pay for using such a poor method.
Well said. You can play around with the details but as someone who played
and taught strong club systems for 10 years, the key to defending against
a strong opener is
(1) bid to 2S or, in a pinch, 2H as soon as you can
(2) don't bid anything that you cannot pass with relative safety
(3) pass as soon as they show power and some shape information, unless
you have a *good* guaranteed fit.
That random overcall does none of the above.
--
Time for a little story that I tell about myself.
In 1994 I formed a moscito partnership and started to play in some
national congresses. The first two times that a strong club came up,
we collected 1700 from 1Sx-7 (no slam makes) and 1100 from 2Sx-5 (a
game does make). The next three times that a strong club came up,
no one overcalled, and we played a normal game, 5C on a 3-0 fit and
4H on a 3-3 fit in that order.
After the story got around, we were able to relay to our hearts'
content for most of the next three years with little disturbance. :P
Michael Farebrother
> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
> Orange book.
Having looked at the responses so far, I think you would be best to
scrap the "any defence" and limit it to what you want. From the
descriptions, I think something along these lines may be a start:
Instead of "any defence, but not random", say "Almost any defence":
Almost Any Defence: When "almost any defence" is allowed, calls must
promise one of:
1) a 5+card suit, known or unknown;
2) at least one of no more than two specified 4+card suits;
3) one of no more than two specified pairs of 4+card suits;
4) a balanced hand of no more than 5 HCP range;
5) a three-suiter (4441, 5440, or 5431) with known or unknown
shortness.
6) at least 10+ HCP.
In addition:
7) a call can show none or one of 1-6 or a known 5+card suit;
8) one of Pass and the lowest sufficient bid may be used as a "not
suitable for other calls" catchall;
9) any meaning can be given to:
i) double;
ii) any call after your side has bid, doubled, or passed with meaning
other
than "not suitable for other calls".
That seems to cover the current bases: CRASH, Truscott, 1S "5-card
suit", Suction, Wonder bids; even things like "spades and another
suit". And if you want to show your weakness, you can call 1S with any
*balanced* 3-7; I think that's a losing tactic, but go right ahead.
And if they want to play pass as "they might play it" and the relay as
"nothing", fine.
I'm looking at defences to other conventional bids; I don't see
anything (yet) that causes a problem. I wish I could avoid the "not
suitable for other calls" wording; however I don't see, for instance,
why we should want to regulate differently, 1C-P(reds or blacks)-1H-2D
and 1C-1D(reds or blacks)-1H-2D. I also am sure there's a more
facilitous wording of 2 - I want to allow "a major", or "spades" or
"clubs and a major", while denying "I have a 4-card suit somewhere" (=
13 cards).
As I say, a start. I don't think that compared to the rest of the OB
this is extremely long, or complicated, or difficult to understand.
And like anything else, if a pair wants to play out on the regulatory
edge, they're responsible for understanding the edge, even if it's
non-trivial.
Michael.
Mark Brader
> Instead of "any defence, but not random", say "Almost any defence":
>
> Almost Any Defence: When "almost any defence" is allowed, calls must
> promise one of:
>
> 1) a 5+card suit, known or unknown;
> 2) at least one of no more than two specified 4+card suits;
> 3) one of no more than two specified pairs of 4+card suits;
> 4) a balanced hand of no more than 5 HCP range;
> 5) a three-suiter (4441, 5440, or 5431) with known or unknown
> shortness.
> 6) at least 10+ HCP.
Do you really want to prohibit natural bids of a 4-card suit?
--
Mark Brader | "The problem with waiting for a 'smoking gun' is
Toronto | that it means the gun has already been fired."
m...@vex.net | --Michael Chance
Craig Barkhouse
"Mark Brader" <m...@vex.net> wrote in message
news:113hgk4...@corp.supernews.com...
> Michael Farebrother proposes:
>> Instead of "any defence, but not random", say "Almost any defence":
>>
>> Almost Any Defence: When "almost any defence" is allowed, calls must
>> promise one of:
>>
>> 1) a 5+card suit, known or unknown;
>> 2) at least one of no more than two specified 4+card suits;
>> 3) one of no more than two specified pairs of 4+card suits;
>> 4) a balanced hand of no more than 5 HCP range;
>> 5) a three-suiter (4441, 5440, or 5431) with known or unknown
>> shortness.
>> 6) at least 10+ HCP.
>
> Do you really want to prohibit natural bids of a 4-card suit?
That would fall under #2.
Mark Brader
> That would fall under #2.
Oh, right. Never mind.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "More importantly, Mark is just plain wrong."
m...@vex.net -- John Hollingsworth
Gerben Dirksen
> "Andrew Gumperz" <agum...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1110405212.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Eddie Grove wrote:
> >> "Richard Pavlicek" <ric...@rpbridge.net> writes:
> >>
> >> > How about a "binary subset" rule: All bids (or doubles)
> >> > must show something about your high-card strength or hand
> >> > pattern, such that the subset of possible hands you could
> >> > hold is not greater than half of all possible hands.
> >>
> >> 3N more than half the time? It seems possible to me.
> >>
> >> It certainly rules out a 2D waiting response to 2C, completing
> >> a transfer, and a host of similar things.
> >
> > What if we amend the statement to say, "all initial actions in an
> > auction by a partnership other than pass must show..." etc. This would
> > rule out opening ferts and random overcalls.
> >
>
> Would that rule out ferts?
No. 1D is only 25% of all hands. You'd have to use 1D = 0-10 HCP for
that. Now there might be a problem with responses to pass. You can't
have a response to pass that is made on, say, 60% of all hands
opposite 13+.
> My memory is that the the ranges of for Forcing
> Pass systems (P=13+, 1D=7-, others =8-12) were choosen so that most hands
> were opened. Only about 1 in 4 opens 1D or passes.
>
> Not that this is important to the topic at hand.
>
> Otis
13+ = about 25%
7 - = about 25%
8-12 = about 50%
In normal systems the percentage of "pass" is larger than 50%, so it's
already a large difference.
Gerben
OBQuiet
Gerben Dirksen wrote:
> Otis Bricker <obri...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns9614ADAE6A5A5ob...@216.196.97.136>...
> > "Andrew Gumperz" <agum...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > news:1110405212.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > >
> > > What if we amend the statement to say, "all initial actions in an
> > > auction by a partnership other than pass must show..." etc. This
would
> > > rule out opening ferts and random overcalls.
> > >
> >
> > Would that rule out ferts?
>
> No. 1D is only 25% of all hands. You'd have to use 1D = 0-10 HCP for
> that. Now there might be a problem with responses to pass. You can't
> have a response to pass that is made on, say, 60% of all hands
> opposite 13+.
>
> > My memory is that the the ranges of for Forcing
> > Pass systems (P=13+, 1D=7-, others =8-12) were choosen so that most
hands
> > were opened. Only about 1 in 4 opens 1D or passes.
> >
> > Not that this is important to the topic at hand.
> >
> > Otis
>
> 13+ = about 25%
> 7 - = about 25%
> 8-12 = about 50%
>
> In normal systems the percentage of "pass" is larger than 50%, so
it's
> already a large difference.
>
That was my point. I was asking if this would eliminate them since they
didn't seem to be affected.
Otis
pumpk...@hotmail.com
> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not
ban
> Destructive Bids,
>
> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
to
> show any thirteen cards.
>
Orange
> book.
>
> 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
Why not adopt a variation of the WBF System Policy, which currently
addresses this type of problem as follows:
"Random Openings": It is forbidden to open hands which, by agreement,
may contain fewer than 8 high card points and for which no further
definition is provided."
You can achieve your objective by simply increasing the point-count
requirement so that it would be insane for the over-caller to make a
meaningless bid.
For example: "Random Overcalls": It is forbidden to overcall a strong
club opening bid with hands which, by agreement, may contain fewer than
20 high card points and for which no further definition is provided."
By tracking the WBF language you would also have the benefit of having
recourse to the body of case-law that has been developed in respect of
its analogous rule.
Cheers.
Nick
Stig Holmquist
<pumpk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>David Stevenson wrote:
>> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
>> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
>> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not
>ban
>> Destructive Bids,
>>
>> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
>to
>> show any thirteen cards.
>>
>> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
>Orange
>> book.
>>
>> --
>> 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
>
>
>
>Why not adopt a variation of the WBF System Policy, which currently
>addresses this type of problem as follows:
Pumkin wrote:>
> "Random Openings": It is forbidden to open hands which, by agreement,
>may contain fewer than 8 high card points and for which no further
>definition is provided."
> What opening bid if any would WBF allow for a hand with 11 cards in one suit
missing A and K and having no other honor cards? Such a hand is
likely to take 10 tricks because the remaining honor cards will
probably both fall on the first time the suit is played.
Stig Holmquist
ted
Stig Holmquist wrote:
> On 18 Mar 2005 03:21:25 -0800, "pumpk...@hotmail.com"
> <pumpk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
> >
> >
> >Why not adopt a variation of the WBF System Policy, which currently
> >addresses this type of problem as follows:
> Pumkin wrote:>
> > "Random Openings": It is forbidden to open hands which, by
agreement,
> >may contain fewer than 8 high card points and for which no further
> >definition is provided."
> > What opening bid if any would WBF allow for a hand with 11 cards
in one suit
> missing A and K and having no other honor cards? Such a hand is
> likely to take 10 tricks because the remaining honor cards will
> probably both fall on the first time the suit is played.
>
> Stig Holmquist
I don't know what is allowed. But pass seems straight forward to be
followed with a long stroll with the pooch.
Stig Holmquist
>
>Stig Holmquist wrote:
>> On 18 Mar 2005 03:21:25 -0800, "pumpk...@hotmail.com"
>> <pumpk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>
>[snip]
>
>> >
>> >
>> >Why not adopt a variation of the WBF System Policy, which currently
>> >addresses this type of problem as follows:
>> Pumkin wrote:>
>> > "Random Openings": It is forbidden to open hands which, by
>agreement,
>> >may contain fewer than 8 high card points and for which no further
>> >definition is provided."
>> > What opening bid if any would WBF allow for a hand with 11 cards
>in one suit
>> missing A and K and having no other honor cards? Such a hand is
>> likely to take 10 tricks because the remaining honor cards will
>> probably both fall on the first time the suit is played.
>>
>> Stig Holmquist
Ted wrote:>
>I don't know what is allowed. But pass seems straight forward to be
>followed with a long stroll with the pooch.
> I wouldn't leave the table but be prepared to bid my suit at the 4-level or better
once the bidding has started. Partner and I could have a slam.
Stig Holmquist
Adam Beneschan
> On 18 Mar 2005 03:21:25 -0800, "pumpk...@hotmail.com"
> <pumpk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Why not adopt a variation of the WBF System Policy, which currently
> >addresses this type of problem as follows:
> Pumkin wrote:>
> > "Random Openings": It is forbidden to open hands which, by
agreement,
> >may contain fewer than 8 high card points and for which no further
> >definition is provided."
> What opening bid if any would WBF allow for a hand with 11 cards in
one
> suit
> missing A and K and having no other honor cards?
Ummm, a bid in your long suit?
I don't think you read Nick's post carefully. It does not forbid all
openings on fewer than 8 HCP points. It forbids opening bids that, by
convention, may show fewer than 8 HCP AND DON'T SAY ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT
THE HAND (that's what the phrase "for which no further definition is
provided" means, no??).
-- Adam
Kieran Dyke
"Adam Beneschan" <ad...@irvine.com> wrote in message
news:1111173293.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Simple enough. My 1H opening shows 0-7 and no nine card suit.
Tiggrr
David Stevenson
>This is yet another example of how trying to outlaw something that should
>not
>be outlawed you wind up with loophole after loophole. You can spend all
>your time trying to seal the loopholes or just let people play whatever
>defense
>they want. If 1S over strong 1C as the catchall bid (especially when nv vs
>vul)
>means that the weak side can sign off in 2 of a suit and the other side
>can't
>effectively punish them then it is a good defense. I don't care how much
>the
>strong 1Cers hate it. Why does this topic come up so often if this 1S bid
>doesn't have some merit? If it has merit then why are we trying to ban it?
>Same
>reason forcing pass not allowed no doubt.
It is not unheard of for people to have differing views from each
other. I asked for help in constructing a regulation, not deciding on
what it should be. You say that we are wrong to do what we do, and your
reason seems to be that it is difficult to construct a regulation. As a
reason that stinks.
It is very very very very difficult to construct adequate laws to stop
tax evasion - ask any accountant or lawyer. Is that a reason not to
have such laws?
--
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 ~
David Stevenson
>David Stevenson wrote:
>> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
>> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
>> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not
>ban
>> Destructive Bids,
>>
>> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
>to
>> show any thirteen cards.
>>
>> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
>Orange
>> book.
>Why not adopt a variation of the WBF System Policy, which currently
>addresses this type of problem as follows:
>
> "Random Openings": It is forbidden to open hands which, by agreement,
>may contain fewer than 8 high card points and for which no further
>definition is provided."
>
>You can achieve your objective by simply increasing the point-count
>requirement so that it would be insane for the over-caller to make a
>meaningless bid.
>
>For example: "Random Overcalls": It is forbidden to overcall a strong
>club opening bid with hands which, by agreement, may contain fewer than
>20 high card points and for which no further definition is provided."
>
>By tracking the WBF language you would also have the benefit of having
>recourse to the body of case-law that has been developed in respect of
>its analogous rule.
First, I don't see any advantage in a point count rule. Fine for
opening bids, no doubt, but not for overcalls. Of course, our rule also
covers some other positions where there are blanket permissions subject
to this over-riding principle.
Second, the WBF hardly does an adequate job of providing case-law and
I am sure the EBU would feel it was counter-productive to rely on such
case-law.
However, whether the rest of the reg answers the question posed is
interesting:
"It is forbidden to make a bid which, by agreement, have no definition
provided."
--
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 ~
Ed Colley
> In a current thread there is a question over whether you are allowed
> to bid 1S over a strong club to show either six spades or a weak
> balanced hand in the ACBL. Well, you are in England, which does not
ban
> Destructive Bids,
>
> But we do ban random bids, so you cannot bid 1S over a strong club
to
> show any thirteen cards.
>
> So, how should we define a 'random bid'? This is for the new
Orange
> book.
How about requiring that until one side has made a bid or double, their
Passes must show a reasonably wide range of hands, including the very
weakest?
David Wagner
>How about a "binary subset" rule: All bids (or doubles)
>must show something about your high-card strength or hand
>pattern, such that the subset of possible hands you could
>hold is not greater than half of all possible hands.
I don't think this does what you want. For example: After RHO opens the
bidding with 1C, 1S shows "an odd number of deuces, and at most 36 HCP".
When this condition is met, 1S over 1C is automatic and mandatory.
This method would be allowed by your rule, because it shows something
about your high-card strength, and it excludes at least half of all
possible hands. Yet I don't think you would want to allow this method.
It is almost equivalent to flipping a coin on the table where everyone can
see the outcome, and calling 1S over 1C if (and only if) the coin comes
up heads. If you want to disallow automatic 1S over 1C, you probably
want to disallow automatic 1S over 1C if heads, and thus you probably
want to disallow automatic 1S over 1C if 1 or 3 deuces and <= 36 HCP.
(Or, consider this: 1S over 1C shows an odd number of HCP.)
I think there is a more fundamental problem here: it is hard to suggest
precise wording until we know precisely what David S does and doesn't
want to ban. I don't have a clear idea in my head of exactly what they
want to ban ("I know it when I see it" doesn't count). If the committee
only wants input on the wording, not the content, of rules, one possible
solution is for the committee to first figure out exactly what they want
to say, and then ask rgb for help figuring out how to say it.
David Stevenson
The aim of the question I posed is to find a definition we can live
with for an existing regulation. To bring in a much harsher regulation
is not the aim.
David Stevenson
I doubt the Committee does know any further than I know it when I see
it. However, I think the later posts in this thread suggest that people
do have a fair idea but are finding it difficult to formulate.
Ron Johnson
> I doubt the Committee does know any further than I know it when I see
> it. However, I think the later posts in this thread suggest that people
> do have a fair idea but are finding it difficult to formulate.
I've been brooding on wording and can't come up with anything acceptable.
What I'd suggest is a brief discussion of the intent of the regulation,
with perhaps a few example hands.
Then take your best shot at laying out the regulation.
I think if you make it clear that EBU directors and AC will be guided by
the intent you'll get what you want.
John (MadDog) Probst
<joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> writes
>David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<oqAFGLDY4ZUC
>Fw...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>...
>
>> I doubt the Committee does know any further than I know it when I see
>> it. However, I think the later posts in this thread suggest that people
>> do have a fair idea but are finding it difficult to formulate.
>
>I've been brooding on wording and can't come up with anything acceptable.
>
>What I'd suggest is a brief discussion of the intent of the regulation,
>with perhaps a few example hands.
>
>Then take your best shot at laying out the regulation.
>
>I think if you make it clear that EBU directors and AC will be guided by
>the intent you'll get what you want.
Like Ron I've been mulling over this, and I do think his approach would
be workable. In general terms we are saying that we want to ban
overalls with *low* information content. "I have 13 cards" falls at the
lowest level. "I have 2 four card suits unspecified" has some
information. "I have 5 spades and a non-opener" contains a lot of
information. Can we work something from this point like
"allowable methods identify a basic shape and either identify at least a
suit or a range". Now this is not suggested as a final wording but it
removes the 'non-information' aspect of the call.
--
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
David Stevenson
>In article <bc4407a.05041...@posting.google.com>, Ron Johnson
><joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> writes
>>David Stevenson <bri...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:<oqAFGLDY4ZUC
>>Fw...@blakjak.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>>> I doubt the Committee does know any further than I know it when I see
>>> it. However, I think the later posts in this thread suggest that people
>>> do have a fair idea but are finding it difficult to formulate.
>>
>>I've been brooding on wording and can't come up with anything acceptable.
>>
>>What I'd suggest is a brief discussion of the intent of the regulation,
>>with perhaps a few example hands.
>>
>>Then take your best shot at laying out the regulation.
>>
>>I think if you make it clear that EBU directors and AC will be guided by
>>the intent you'll get what you want.
>
>Like Ron I've been mulling over this, and I do think his approach would
>be workable. In general terms we are saying that we want to ban
>overalls with *low* information content. "I have 13 cards" falls at the
>lowest level. "I have 2 four card suits unspecified" has some
>information. "I have 5 spades and a non-opener" contains a lot of
>information. Can we work something from this point like
>
>"allowable methods identify a basic shape and either identify at least a
>suit or a range". Now this is not suggested as a final wording but it
>removes the 'non-information' aspect of the call.
One difficulty is that if you respond 2D on all hands to a Benjamin 2C
then this is random but we would not want to exclude that.
One matter that has been discussed by the L&EC is that a pair plays 1C
and 1D openings on balanced hands or hands with a five-card minor on the
basis of opening 1C if the total number of pips on the small cards is
even, 1D otherwise. This is a development: they previously wanted to
open 1C and 1D at random.
This leads to an interesting set of questions:
* Are either of these banned under current regulations of randomness?
* Should they be banned [Ozzies need not answer]?
* If they should be can we include wording disallowing one or both in a
"no random bids" regulation?
Julian Lighton
David Stevenson <bne...@blakjak.com> wrote:
>John (MadDog) Probst wrote
>>Like Ron I've been mulling over this, and I do think his approach would
>>be workable. In general terms we are saying that we want to ban
>>overalls with *low* information content. "I have 13 cards" falls at the
>>lowest level. "I have 2 four card suits unspecified" has some
>>information. "I have 5 spades and a non-opener" contains a lot of
>>information. Can we work something from this point like
>>
>>"allowable methods identify a basic shape and either identify at least a
>>suit or a range". Now this is not suggested as a final wording but it
>>removes the 'non-information' aspect of the call.
>
> One difficulty is that if you respond 2D on all hands to a Benjamin 2C
>then this is random but we would not want to exclude that.
So only apply the rule to competetive methods.
--
Julian Lighton jl...@fragment.com
/* You are not expected to understand this. */
Mark Brader
> Like Ron I've been mulling over this, and I do think his approach would
> be workable. In general terms we are saying that we want to ban
Maybe the right thing is to just *say* that. Start with "a conventional
overcall must provide useful information about the overcaller's hand",
and then go on to list half a dozen examples of useful information,
making clear that there are others. Then there's no loophole in the
regulation, and you only run the risk of a director misunderstanding it.
(An interesting test case is a 4NT overcall meant as Blackwood for a
serious slam try. 1C-4NT-P-5D-P-6S, say. The 4NT bid says nothing
specific about overcaller's strength or shape -- but the implication
of the slam try is sufficient "useful information" that I think there
should be no problem allowing this.)
--
Mark Brader | The lawgiver, of all beings, most owes the law allegiance.
Toronto | He of all men should behave as though the law compelled him.
m...@vex.net | But it is the universal weakness of mankind that what we are
| given to administer we presently imagine we own. -- Wells
My text in this article is in the public domain.