[wanoff]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-03, 17:14, said:

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?

Agree, though to allow one switch would also be easy to understand and apply.

[blackshoe]

wanoff, on 2014-January-03, 17:27, said:

Agree, though to allow one switch would also be easy to understand and apply.

That's what the current rule does, isn't it? Attackers <g> must specify their mode of attack, defenders can switch their defense.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2014-January-03, 16:11, said:

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!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure that switching from Precision to Acol is "changing (or varying) your system". I have never mentioned "having different defenses", nor suggested that it was in any way relevant.

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…)?

I don't know what rule I would like, but as you say the opponents can't change their methods after being told the defenses, because you may create a loop and maybe other reasons. But if they had known the defenses before the round, they would have changed their methods before the round.

PhilKing, on 2014-January-03, 16:17, said:

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.

Naturally, but as I mentioned above, if the opponents have a high-variance defense to something, you may wish to avoid it, say if you are qualifying for a final but not by much. Or maybe something else; I mean, I don't know when or why this might apply. Just that it is possible.

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.

Yeah, that was a stupid example. Switching from strong club to Acol is a lot better.

Sorry, Phil, I deleted too much of your message, and it's a big pain to redo something on my iPad Mini. But if you wish to have one system against a weak players and one against strong players, it is both legal and, IMO, fair.

[pran]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-03, 18:48, said:

But if you wish to have one system against a weak players and one against strong players, it is both legal and, IMO, fair.

Agreed, but that is (as far as I have noticed) not what this discussion is about:

Q: What style are your preemptive opening bids (at the three-Level)?
A: That depends on your doubles. If you double for penalty our bids are solid, if you double for takeout our bids are light.

[nige1]

pran, on 2014-January-04, 05:09, said:

Agreed, but that is (as far as I have noticed) not what this discussion is about:
Q: What style are your preemptive opening bids (at the three-Level)?
A: That depends on your doubles. If you double for penalty our bids are solid, if you double for takeout our bids are light.

Pran's scenario is different from Vampyr's:

• You know a formidable pair always employ penalty doubles against weak twos.
• You employ weak twos, are doing well, and are about to play against that pair.
• Before you play against them, you decide to change to beef-up your twos.
• The rules allow that change; but is it fair on other pairs not privy to your local knowledge?
• Of course, opponents are now free to change their defence to your two-openers.
• But you may still feel that you have dodged a bullet.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2014-January-04, 19:39, said:

Pran's scenario is different from Vampyr's:

[list][*]You know a formidable pair always employ penalty doubles against weak twos.

Or or they are an inexperienced pair and you don't want to subject them to your highly experimental system. Or something; it is not important what you want to change and why. The point, as Nige1 has put more clearly than I have apparently been able to do, is that you have knowledge of the opponents and can make an informed decision before starting the round and committing yourself. Others without this knowledge cannot do the same.

Just by the by, Sven has, in his most recent post, created an endless loop. Well, not so much a loop, but an example of what you can't do. Of course tightening up your requirements is a minor change if it is a change at all, but for substantive changes at least, you cannot say "we are playing method M", hear "OK, we play defense D over that" and then say, "oh, well in that case we play method N".

[FrancesHinden]

Vampyr, on 2014-January-04, 20:27, said:

Or or they are an inexperienced pair and you don't want to subject them to your highly experimental system. Or something; it is not important what you want to change and why. The point, as Nige1 has put more clearly than I have apparently been able to do, is that you have knowledge of the opponents and can make an informed decision before starting the round and committing yourself. Others without this knowledge cannot do the same.

You 'inexperienced pair' example is totally different from where you started on this thread, because an inexperienced pair couldn't change their 'system' even if they wanted to.

I think your assumptions are just wrong here. We're in theoretical-world rather than real life, but in theoretical-world there is no reason that you have to commit yourself in advance. The difference between 'committing yourself' before and after the start of the round doesn't really exist in theoretical-world. Let's say that I want to play strong NT against pairs who don't play double as penalties, but weak NT against those who play double of a strong NT as penalties. The following scenario is what would happen in real life:

Option 1
"Hi. What defence do you play against strong NT?"
"Multi-landy.... double is major/minor canape"
"We play strong NT"

The following scenario also strikes me as entirely legal
Option 2
"Hi. What defence do you play against strong NT?"
"Do you play strong NT?"
"We haven't decided yet"
"Well, you tell me what you play and we'll tell you our defence"

The difference is that in Option 1 the opposing pair are giving more disclosure than they are obliged to do so. They could, in theory, have multiple convention cards... one gives only the defence against a strong NT and the other gives only the defence against a weak NT, and they give you the relevant card when they find out what you are playing.

The pair who have the 'disadvantage' in your original post aren't the other hypothetical pair sitting your way, but the opponents you know, because apparently they have told you in advance what their defence to both strong and weak NT is. I know you've played them before, but they could have changed their methods since then.

I realise my theoretical-world construct starts to fall down a little in events where you have to submit your system in advance. But if there were actually a real life issue (which there isn't*) then we'd simply do our convention-card submitting in two stages: once showing opening bids and then secondly showing defences.

*Many people play different defences to different opening bids. Some people may choose their opening bid as a consequence of knowing opposing methods (most commonly when deciding what psyche to make, much less frequently a decision on partnership agreements). But nobody actually wants their defensive methods to remain a secret until the opposition have chosen their opening bids. (I am aware of exactly one ruling ever on this topic, where a pair were accused of lying about their defensive methods to induce the other pair to play a particular opening bid that otherwise they wouldn't have done)

[broze]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-January-05, 05:18, said:

The following scenario also strikes me as entirely legal
Option 2
A. "Hi. What defence do you play against strong NT?"
B. "Do you play strong NT?"
A. "We haven't decided yet"
B. "Well, you tell me what you play and we'll tell you our defence"

This might continue:

A. "Well, can we see your convention card?"
B. "We have two and which one we play depends on what you play."
A. "Is that legal?"
B. "Pff."
A. "Can we see them both then?"
B. "Not until you show us yours."
A. "Director!"

What should happen now?

[Vampyr]

FrancesHinden, on 2014-January-05, 05:18, said:

You 'inexperienced pair' example is totally different from where you started on this thread, because an inexperienced pair couldn't change their 'system' even if they wanted to.

Sorry, I seem to be having trouble making myself clear. I meant that the your opposition were inexperienced, and you don't want to play, against them, something that they would not understand or enjoy playing against.

Quote

The pair who have the 'disadvantage' in your original post aren't the other hypothetical pair sitting your way, but the opponents you know, because apparently they have told you in advance what their defence to both strong and weak NT is. I know you've played them before, but they could have changed their methods since then.

Yes, them too I guess.

[pran]

broze, on 2014-January-05, 07:38, said:

This might continue:

A. "Well, can we see your convention card?"
B. "We have two and which one we play depends on what you play."
A. "Is that legal?"
B. "Pff."
A. "Can we see them both then?"
B. "Not until you show us yours."
A. "Director!"

What should happen now?

This was essentially the OP question although slightly concealed.
The question has already been answered several times.

Style and methods must be declared before opponents select their defences to them.

A is entitled to see both convention cards used by B, but B is free to select which of their defences will apply until A has shown their CC.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-January-05, 09:38, said:

This was essentially the OP question although slightly concealed.
The question has already been answered several times.

Style and methods must be declared before opponents select their defences to them.

A is entitled to see both convention cards used by B, but B is free to select which of their defences will apply until A has shown their CC.

It seems to me that B is free to select any defense to whatever A has on their card, including one which is not on either of the cards B has shown to A.

[pran]

pran, on 2014-January-05, 09:38, said:

This was essentially the OP question although slightly concealed.
The question has already been answered several times.

Style and methods must be declared before opponents select their defences to them.

A is entitled to see both convention cards used by B, but B is free to select which of their defences will apply until A has shown their CC.

blackshoe, on 2014-January-05, 13:23, said:

It seems to me that B is free to select any defense to whatever A has on their card, including one which is not on either of the cards B has shown to A.

I think that is correct if none of the defence systems B has listed appears suitable.

[blackshoe]

pran, on 2014-January-05, 13:58, said:

I think that is correct if none of the defence systems B has listed appears suitable.

I do not think the laws impose that restriction. I think that if a regulation is to impose it, it must be explicit.

[broze]

pran, on 2014-January-05, 09:38, said:

This was essentially the OP question although slightly concealed.
The question has already been answered several times.

Yes, I understand this. I was trying to show that both of Frances' scenarios will amount to the same thing: that the party arriving at the table will be able to find out the relevant defences to the different No Trumps before disclosing which one they play, though as you say they can then change their defence.

Quote

Style and methods must be declared before opponents select their defences to them.

Which law are we actually dealing with? Or if it is only a regulation can someone tell me what the EBU one is?

[gombo121]

Everybody in the topic keep talking about "methods" and "defenses". Anybody care to provide definitions for the terms?

If pair A plays strong club system, pair B uses CRASH after opponent's 1c opening, and pair A have special understandings for doubles/cuebids for the case of CRASH-style two-suited interventions - which one is a method and which is a defense?

[blackshoe]

gombo121, on 2014-January-26, 04:31, said:

Everybody in the topic keep talking about "methods" and "defenses". Anybody care to provide definitions for the terms?

If pair A plays strong club system, pair B uses CRASH after opponent's 1c opening, and pair A have special understandings for doubles/cuebids for the case of CRASH-style two-suited interventions - which one is a method and which is a defense?

Strong club is a method, CRASH is a defense, the special understandings are a counter.

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-26, 09:43, said:

Strong club is a method, CRASH is a defense, the special understandings are a counter.

And then, if a NT advance to the CRASH call is a strong bid requesting CRASHer's fragment after a Pass ---but is something else if the Double or Redouble showed values --- this would be a defensive recounter?

[blackshoe]

Actually I think that too would fall under "defense".

[aguahombre]

blackshoe, on 2014-January-26, 14:29, said:

Actually I think that too would fall under "defense".

So do I. I was extending to the absurd...trying to say that the "counter" is part of the method itself, and there are only two categories: method, and defense to the method. No continuum back and forth out to infinity to worry about when figuring out who gets to change what based on whatever.

[blackshoe]

I think we're agreed that this is not Galaxy Quest.