[Vampyr]

lamford, on 2013-September-16, 16:13, said:

I didn't suggest a change to the Laws. If I had I would have put it in the right forum. I ridiculed the current Laws. As, to some extemt, did Vampyr and gnasher.

But if the current Laws are worthy of ridicule, it is important to make an effort to get them changed. But as Nigel notes, you will have more support if you make forum members aware of the problem. I do disagree with Nigel's statement that most posters (well, those who are aware of the situation) do not think there is a problem here.

[lamford]

GreenMan, on 2013-September-16, 16:34, said:

Under the law that says a business owner can refuse service to anyone. Really, most people over age 10 understand that. How old are you? You set up SB as your Mary Sue so you can get off on feeling persecuted, so go ahead and feel persecuted, I guess. Not my problem.

I think you are making a fool of yourself now. It was not I that created the Secretary Bird. And I think you will find that excluding someone who follows the rules exactly will lead you into trouble. Certainly in the UK.

[billw55]

So exactly which law/rule is under your microscope here lamford? That players are not entitled to information about bids not yet made? If so, why is that a problem?

[aguahombre]

lamford, on 2013-September-16, 16:13, said:

I didn't suggest a change to the Laws. If I had I would have put it in the right forum. I ridiculed the current Laws. As, to some extemt, did Vampyr and gnasher.

I would prefer you found a ridiculous law to ridicule. Here, a change to the laws -- allowing a player to know the likely consequences of his own decisions in advance -- would be ridiculous to a game altering extent.

[campboy]

billw55, on 2013-September-17, 06:11, said:

So exactly which law/rule is under your microscope here lamford? That players are not entitled to information about bids not yet made? If so, why is that a problem?

The issue is that while you cannot ask about bids which your opponents have not had the opportunity to make, you might be able to obtain information about them if it happens to be on the CC. Consequently a pair may disadvantage themsleves by putting more information than absolutely necessary on their CC.

Personally I feel the principle of not being able to ask about future calls is sufficiently important that I am prepared to live with the potential problems Lamford highlights; I certainly can't think of a neat solution. This forum has seen more real cases where putting extra information on their CC would have helped a pair than hypothetical cases where it would have disadvantaged them.

[mycroft]

There are certainly non-hypothetical cases where "minimally-completed" convention cards made opponents, who did a more diligent construction of theirs, feel disadvantaged. At World Championship levels no less.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-17, 06:28, said:

I would prefer you found a ridiculous law to ridicule. Here, a change to the laws -- allowing a player to know the likely consequences of his own decisions in advance -- would be ridiculous to a game altering extent.

I think the current Law is ridiculous, and both Vampyr and gnasher seem to agree. A change to the Law, assuming that this is the Law, making an opponent's question about your methods UI to you, would have a beneficial effect. The reason he has to ask the question is because your CC is incomplete. In addition he provides you with information about his hand type by asking. Furthermore, it is not clear to me that the question by North is indeed AI to East-West. An opponent's question is not listed as information the player may use in 16A. It is not listed either as information a player may not use in 16B, but that only covers UI from partner, so one would not expect it there. Perhaps I am failing to find the clause that specifies that such information is authorized under 16A1( c). I know that common practice is to treat opponent's questions as AI to you, so perhaps there is a clause that says this.

[aguahombre]

Back in 1776-78, perhaps the Colonists should have just asked where you folks planned to be and with what ammunition at a particular date and time in the future....although for the most part they didn't need to ask.

[lamford]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-17, 17:03, said:

Back in 1776-78, perhaps the Colonists should have just asked where you folks planned to be and with what ammunition at a particular date and time in the future....although for the most part they didn't need to ask.

And I thought the Battle of Bound Brook was the reason for the introduction of "pre-alerts"... Or was it some idea that you are entitled to know the opponents' methods?

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2013-September-17, 17:03, said:

Back in 1776-78, perhaps the Colonists should have just asked where you folks planned to be and with what ammunition at a particular date and time in the future....although for the most part they didn't need to ask.

Bridge law should discourage revolting behaviour

[aguahombre]

On the other hand (not a Bridge hand), pre-alerts of retaliation or shift and certain punishment do not seem to have prevented atrocities.

[campboy]

The principal reason for CCs is that you may need to discuss a defence to opponents' methods. They are not there to allow you to vary your own methods based on prior knowledge of opponents' defences. That is not something you are in general intended to be able to do, which is why law 20 is so specific about what you can ask. Now the existence of CCs means that you sometimes will be able to do this, but IMO it is the fact that you sometimes can, not that you sometimes can't, that is the problem.

In this situation, of course, opponents may wish to vary the meaning of double based on what sort of hands you will use Stayman on, and that is a question they have an absolute right to ask by the time they have the opportunity to double.

[Sjoerds]

lamford, on 2013-September-16, 11:53, said:

The TD was indeed called, but SB persuaded the TD that he did not have to answer, and the TD gave in.

The TD was wrong. West has to answer their partnerships agreements.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-September-18, 02:05, said:

The principal reason for CCs is that you may need to discuss a defence to opponents' methods. They are not there to allow you to vary your own methods based on prior knowledge of opponents' defences. That is not something you are in general intended to be able to do, which is why law 20 is so specific about what you can ask.

I would agree that you should not be able to vary your methods depending on the opponents' defence to it, but that is not the issue in cases such as this. A pair cannot play weak jump overcalls if a double would be takeout, but strong jump overcalls if a double is penalties, and I think there is some case law on this. However, having agreed to play weak jump overcalls, they are surely entitled to then know the opponents' methods over them, and, indeed, almost all CCs require that to be indicated. They will then judge the risks of making a weak jump overcall with full information. The downside of your approach is that the opponents will have to ask endless questions at the start about methods which will have no relevance in the majority of hands, and the round will never get under way.

Also, I presume you believe that any question (whether or not it has to be answered) by an opponent is AI to the pair not asking the question. If so, under which Law?

[pran]

lamford, on 2013-September-18, 03:44, said:

I would agree that you should not be able to vary your methods depending on the opponents' defence to it, but that is not the issue in cases such as this. A pair cannot play weak jump overcalls if a double would be takeout, but strong jump overcalls if a double is penalties, and I think there is some case law on this. However, having agreed to play weak jump overcalls, they are surely entitled to then know the opponents' methods over them, and, indeed, almost all CCs require that to be indicated. They will then judge the risks of making a weak jump overcall with full information. The downside of your approach is that the opponents will have to ask endless questions at the start about methods which will have no relevance in the majority of hands, and the round will never get under way.

Also, I presume you believe that any question (whether or not it has to be answered) by an opponent is AI to the pair not asking the question. If so, under which Law?

There was a case many years ago. I don't remember the details but the essentials were:

A pair played weak 3-level openings against opponents using takeout doubles and strong 3-level openings against opponents using doubles for penalty.

Their opponents used penalty doubles against weak 3-level openings and takeout doubles against strong 3-level openings.

The answer (ruling) was (and is) that you must decide the characteristics on your call before opponents decide their defence against that call, and you may not change the characteristics on Your call after learning opponents' defence.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-September-18, 03:44, said:

I would agree that you should not be able to vary your methods depending on the opponents' defence to it, but that is not the issue in cases such as this. A pair cannot play weak jump overcalls if a double would be takeout, but strong jump overcalls if a double is penalties, and I think there is some case law on this. However, having agreed to play weak jump overcalls, they are surely entitled to then know the opponents' methods over them, and, indeed, almost all CCs require that to be indicated. They will then judge the risks of making a weak jump overcall with full information. The downside of your approach is that the opponents will have to ask endless questions at the start about methods which will have no relevance in the majority of hands, and the round will never get under way.

If you accept that you cannot play weak jump overcalls if double would be takeout, but strong jump overcalls otherwise, I do not see why you think that you can play undisciplined weak jump overcalls if double would be takeout but disciplined weak jump overcalls otherwise, which is essentially what this comes down to.

Quote

Also, I presume you believe that any question (whether or not it has to be answered) by an opponent is AI to the pair not asking the question. If so, under which Law?

I have never really thought about it. A legal question is presumably AI by 16A1c: it arises from the legal procedures, and when we see B1 that law does not indicate that it is unauthorised. An illegal question perhaps more obviously should be AI, but it is less clear under what law.

[gnasher]

campboy, on 2013-September-18, 07:02, said:

If you accept that you cannot play weak jump overcalls if double would be takeout, but strong jump overcalls otherwise, I do not see why you think that you can play undisciplined weak jump overcalls if double would be takeout but disciplined weak jump overcalls otherwise, which is essentially what this comes down to.

But you can play undisciplined weak jump overcalls against pairs who play takeout doubles of undisciplined weak jump overcalls, and disciplined weak jumps overcalls otherwise. And for that you need to know what their methods are against undisciplined weak jump overcalls.

[c_corgi]

gnasher, on 2013-September-18, 08:22, said:

But you can play undisciplined weak jump overcalls against pairs who play takeout doubles of undisciplined weak jump overcalls, and disciplined weak jumps overcalls otherwise. And for that you need to know what their methods are against undisciplined weak jump overcalls.

Can't they vary the meaning of their double based on the style of your WJOs?

[gnasher]

c_corgi, on 2013-September-18, 08:28, said:

Can't they vary the meaning of their double based on the style of your WJOs?

Yes, of course they can.

This is legitimate :
Before the start of the auction period, I ask them what they play against different styles of WJO. They say they play "Penalty if undisciplined, takeout if disciplined". We agree to play disciplied WJOs against this pair.

So is this:
We agree to play undisciplined WJOs unless double would be penalties. During the auction, I look at their convention card and see that they play "Penalty if undisciplined, takeout if disciplined". Therefore I know that we play disciplined WJOs and I bid accordingly.

But currently this is not:
We agree to play undisciplined WJOs unless double would be penalties. During the auction, I ask them what they play against different styles of WJO.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-September-18, 03:44, said:

Also, I presume you believe that any question (whether or not it has to be answered) by an opponent is AI to the pair not asking the question. If so, under which Law?

16A1c.

If the other side were obliged to ask the question because of an inadequately completed convention card, it seems obvious to treat the question as AI but apply Law 23 if necessary. Instead, I suppose that you could argue that the information from the question doesn't "arise from the legal procedures" and is therefore UI. In fact that might lead to a different ruling, so I'd be interested to know what TDs do in this situation.