[Vampyr]

aguahombre, on 2014-January-02, 13:30, said:

And where do you get the requirement to decide "before you arrive"? You are playing against one pair at the table if you are E/W, and I don't think the silliness of standing up and then sitting back down is necessary if you are N/S.

This is irrelevant and silly. I wish that when you start a topic you could lock people out of it, because so far you have posted two entirely inane messages.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-02, 14:39, said:

So it is true, then, that the person who happens to know what defenses the pair play has an advantage. I do not think this is fair..

Pair A has different "aggessive" methods depending on opponents' defenses.
Pair D has different "defenses" depending on opponents' aggressive methods.

In that case pair A must select its methods before pair D decides on theirs. (I know that this has been discussed - I believe within WBFLC).

If pair D has just one defense then of course pair A is free to select their aggresive methods accordingly and this places pair D at a disadvantage. Is this fair? Of course it is because pair D has not used their options.

[GreenMan]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-January-02, 14:00, said:

You are permitted to change your methods if they are prepared to tell you their defences. They aren't obliged to do so, however.

I would be surprised if this were strictly true; I would think that a pair ought to have to disclose this sort of thing when asked. Of course, the proper answer may be "Our defense to 2-level openings depends on their meaning; what are yours?" In that case the opener has to go first.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2014-January-02, 16:26, said:

Pair A has different "aggessive" methods depending on opponents' defenses.
Pair D has different "defenses" depending on opponents' aggressive methods.

In that case pair A must select its methods before pair D decides on theirs. (I know that this has been discussed - I believe within WBFLC).

If pair D has just one defense then of course pair A is free to select their aggresive methods accordingly and this places pair D at a disadvantage. Is this fair? Of course it is because pair D has not used their options.

Right, you have not understood. I am not talking about advantage and disadvantage between the two pairs at the table together. I must not have been very clear, because several people have not understood what I have said.

[pran]

pran, on 2014-January-02, 16:26, said:

Pair A has different "aggessive" methods depending on opponents' defenses.
Pair D has different "defenses" depending on opponents' aggressive methods.

In that case pair A must select its methods before pair D decides on theirs. (I know that this has been discussed - I believe within WBFLC).

If pair D has just one defense then of course pair A is free to select their aggresive methods accordingly and this places pair D at a disadvantage. Is this fair? Of course it is because pair D has not used their options.

Vampyr, on 2014-January-02, 16:45, said:

Right, you have not understood. I am not talking about advantage and disadvantage between the two pairs at the table together. I must not have been very clear, because several people have not understood what I have said.

Is it surprising that a pair using only a limited part of their options will usually be at disadvantage compared to another pair that makes (good) use of all their options in a similar situation? And is this disadvantage in any way unfair?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2014-January-03, 02:30, said:

Is it surprising that a pair using only a limited part of their options will usually be at disadvantage compared to another pair that makes (good) use of all their options in a similar situation? And is this disadvantage in any way unfair?

I think that it is unfair, yes, because the pair that do not know the opponents' defenses do not have all options available to them. They will be stuck with the system on the CCs they give to their opponents and will only then become aware of the latter's defenses. The pair with foreknowledge will be able to switch beforehand. It is not the first pair's fault that their options were fewer. They would have switched too, but could not do so after declaring themselves.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-03, 06:39, said:

I think that it is unfair, yes, because the pair that do not know the opponents' defenses do not have all options available to them. They will be stuck with the system on the CCs they give to their opponents and will only then become aware of the latter's defenses. The pair with foreknowledge will be able to switch beforehand. It is not the first pair's fault that their options were fewer. They would have switched too, but could not do so after declaring themselves.

To take this further and into a more general aspect: Is it unfair to an unexperienced pair that they are at disadvantage compared to a more excperienced pair because this pair knows (far) more bridge?

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2014-January-03, 07:21, said:

To take this further and into a more general aspect: Is it unfair to an unexperienced pair that they are at disadvantage compared to a more excperienced pair because this pair knows (far) more bridge?

This is not remotely related to the topic at hand. You haven't the vaguest notion what this thread is about, so why do you continue to comment?

But I'll answer your question: I don't think that happening to know, before you sit down against them, the methods of the pair you are about to meet does not know that you know "far more bridge" than the pair who have never seen them before.

[nige1]

pran, on 2014-January-03, 07:21, said:

To take this further and into a more general aspect: Is it unfair to an unexperienced pair that they are at disadvantage compared to a more excperienced pair because this pair knows (far) more bridge?

Perhaps we can distinguish between:

• Basic bridge-skills: like bidding judgement, play-technique and partnership rapport.
• Bridge lawyering skills: taking advantage of legal quirks created by over-sophisticated laws. Vampyr shows how you might exploit such a loop-hole. (A possible fix: the law could prevent a partnership from changing its basic constructive system during a competition but permit it to add defences to unanticipated methods of opponents).

Other recently highlighted Secretary-bird skills are:

• Asking about an alert just to create UI for opponents, who appear to be suffering from a bidding misunderstanding.
• Agreeing radical variations in your methods, contingent on options chosen by a player after an infraction.

[mycroft]

I know Player A - in my partnership, there are "no" optional doubles - "any" DTRT double sent to me will get passed. Players from Penticton, or either London, are at a disadvantage to me because they don't realize that the best description I've heard of Player A is "he plays a trick better than the room. That's a good thing, because he's usually two tricks higher than the room."

I know partnership B-C - they're "the best pair in Canada you've never heard of." They're also fairly old-fashioned (not stodgy, just sounder than your average junior). I would expect that I will do better against them than my clone from London, too, because I can make better judgements at the table than they.

In LeftPondia, we can't adjust our system to the pair (at least in a pair game; our definition of session is such that we could at Swiss Teams). But assume we could - is it fair that I can decide whether to play 2/1 or EHAA depending on whether I think they can handle a 10-12 NT? or whether they'll be pissed off at all their auctions starting at the 2 level, "randomly"? or whether I like them? or whether they gripe about "all those pairs with their weird conventions - they just want to win by confusing me" (Note, I am very good at explaining that EHAA is "less conventional than your system - we don't open 3-card suits, we don't make bids that show 'any shape', we don't bid the suit under the one we actually have, ..." with a straight face. Some people deserve it. Some don't, and I would, in fact, like to be allowed to vary my system so that we play something mildly recognizable against those pairs. But I can't, so I apologize, and do my best to make sure they understand what we're doing.)

Not knowing that they play special defences that you won't like is a disadvantage, true; but not more a disadvantage than any of the above - which *won't* appear on the SCs.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2014-January-03, 11:20, said:

Not knowing that they play special defences that you won't like is a disadvantage, true; but not more a disadvantage than any of the above - which *won't* appear on the SCs.

I think that it is, because it affects pairs so differently. Suppose I am about to play pair 7. I play Precision, and these people play a very random defense to artificial 1♣ openings. I am well placed to win the event, and don't want the randomising effect this pair might have on my score. So I pull out my Acol CC.

The other pair in contention also play a strong club, or a short club or whatever, and they would not like a random element added to their score either. But they do not know this pair, and will be committed when they sit down and hand over their CC.

I think that these two pairs are operating under different CoC, which is what bothers me.

The other thing about playing different systems according to what the opponents can't handle or don't like is a different situation, and I happen to think that it is fair, but can appreciate the opposite point of view. I don't know anyone who actually does this; it seems like too much trouble.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-03, 08:09, said:

This is not remotely related to the topic at hand. You haven't the vaguest notion what this thread is about, so why do you continue to comment?

But I'll answer your question: I don't think that happening to know, before you sit down against them, the methods of the pair you are about to meet does not know that you know "far more bridge" than the pair who have never seen them before.

So you do not agree that what this really is about is whether it is fair that a player with better knowledge has an advantage over a player with less knowledge?

Players who know about doubles for penalty or takeout will often in advance have agreed their relevant defences against such doubles. They will automatically choose the desired defence when receiving opponents' explanation of doubles and they will explain their own defences accordingly.

These players will of course have an advantage over other players that are unprepared for different kinds of doubles, and this advantage is (again of course) fair, there cannot be any question about that.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2014-January-03, 13:25, said:

So you do not agree that what this really is about is whether it is fair that a player with better knowledge has an advantage over a player with less knowledge?

I guess it is, And I do not really think that it is fair. I do not understand the relevance of the rest of your post. It has nothing to do with this thread, and I really wish you would learn to read and stop wasting other people's time. Obviously if you are talking about bridge knowledge or detailed agreements you are correct, but I would love to know what this has to do with the topic I have brought up. Actually, no, I wouldn't.

[blackshoe]

i have some thoughts about this question of fairness, but since I'm unsure precisely what Vampyr is getting at I'm not going to voice them. I will say that given the fact that a significant number of us "don't get it", perhaps Vampyr should be less inclined to complain about folks being off topic and more inclined to try to clarify what she meant.

[Vampyr]

Well, some people "get it" but let me try again.

You can change your methods between rounds, but not after a round has begun and convention cards have been exchanged. So a pair who know (from previous experience, or because they are friends or whatever) what defenses their opponents will be playing can change, but a pair who would like to make the same changes for the same reasons will be too late if they learn about the defenses at the table, because if they are reading the opponents' convention cards they have already handed over their own and are committed to the system written thereon.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-03, 15:28, said:

Well, some people "get it" but let me try again.

You can change your methods between rounds, but not after a round has begun and convention cards have been exchanged. So a pair who know (from previous experience, or because they are friends or whatever) what defenses their opponents will be playing can change, but a pair who would like to make the same changes for the same reasons will be too late if they learn about the defenses at the table, because if they are reading the opponents' convention cards they have already handed over their own and are committed to the system written thereon.

I believe you have the fundamental misunderstanding that having different defences to different types of calls is "changing (or varying) your system".

It isn't!

The original question was raised years ago when a pair requested information on opponents' defence against preemptive bids so that they could choose between light or solid preemptive bids. The were told that they had to choose their preemptive style first, they were not permitted to vary their preemptive style depending on their opponents' subsequent defence.

A partnership playing one defence (e.g. double for penalty) against light preemptive bids and a different defence (e.g. double for takeout) against more solid preemptive bids does not vary their system (or Methods). Their system simply contains different defences for different situations.

[blackshoe]

Methinks you've misstated the rule. Isn't it that a pair can change its defenses to opponent's methods, but that once that choice is made, the opponents can't change methods based on the stated defenses? Either way I gather you would like a different rule. How do you avoid the infinite loop then (you've changed your defense, so we'll change our method; okay, you've changed your method, so we'll change our defense…)?

[PhilKing]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-03, 06:39, said:

I think that it is unfair, yes, because the pair that do not know the opponents' defenses do not have all options available to them.

If you have faith in your methods, you should be prepared to play them against all comers. And undoubtedly you will have agreements against relevant countermeasure.

If they are designed to work solely against rookies and fish, then that is unfair. You should not be allowed to revert to bridge if you are rumbled.

Perhaps coincidentally, the laws and fairness are in agreement on this issue.

[wanoff]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-03, 16:12, said:

Methinks you've misstated the rule. Isn't it that a pair can change its defenses to opponent's methods, but that once that choice is made, the opponents can't change methods based on the stated defenses? Either way I gather you would like a different rule. How do you avoid the infinite loop then (you've changed your defense, so we'll change our method; okay, you've changed your method, so we'll change our defense…)?

Why would there be an infinite loop. The example given was of penalty doubles over your weak 2. If for some reason the op wished to swap to intermediate 2s, are you saying that a defence of takeout or penalty doubles to this would be so uncomfortable that the loop would continue?
btw I have no real interest, good intermediates or suit would suffice and I'd just let them play their c**p defense.

[blackshoe]

wanoff, on 2014-January-03, 17:11, said:

Why would there be an infinite loop. The example given was of penalty doubles over your weak 2. If for some reason the op wished to swap to intermediate 2s, are you saying that a defence of takeout or penalty doubles to this would be so uncomfortable that the loop would continue?
btw I have no real interest, good intermediates or suit would suffice and I'd just let them play their c**p defense.

There are some situations in which the loop might apply. There are other situations where it would probably not. Do you wish the rules to cater to all possibilities individually? Or would you prefer a general rule that, while it might not be perfect, is at least easy to understand and apply?