Who Is Fooling Whom
#1
Posted 2024-May-12, 05:33
#2
Posted 2024-May-12, 07:16
As for misinformation, for me you are misinformed unless you obtain the correct explanation. But you have a duty to inform the TD if you retain you were misinformed, so it's hard to see how this situation can persist, one way or another.
#3
Posted 2024-May-12, 08:34
#4
Posted 2024-May-12, 09:01
Cyberyeti, on 2024-May-12, 08:34, said:
That was the thread I read also. It seems that in high level bridge balanced 13 is often opened with strong NT and noone is surprised. There was another thread earlier where Woolsey opened a real dog 10hcp balanced hand, which is worth 7.5 points in some sense. He was not amused to answer questions about hand evaluation. The same story noone was surprised by the bid on the level he plays, they all seem to know their habits well.
#5
Posted 2024-May-12, 09:18
pescetom, on 2024-May-12, 07:16, said:
It is a recent small survey on what hands strong NT is opened in a high level tournament. Basicly a pair opened common 13s in 15-17bal range and noone was surprised. It made me think that it might be possible to use a variable defence depending on a discrepancy between a disclosed and a real range. If opponents tell false information and we know it, then they get our methods wrong. If they decide to tell the truth and believe we know the truth also, then no harm done.
#6
Posted 2024-May-12, 09:30
#7
Posted 2024-May-14, 10:20
Manastorm, on 2024-May-12, 09:18, said:
Why don't we clean up and enforce the requirement to fully disclose your agreements?
(still learning)
"At last: just calm down, this kind of disrupted boards happens every day in our bridge community. It will always be an inherent part of bridge until we move to a modern platform, and then will we have other hopefully less frequent issues." P Swennson
#8
Posted 2024-May-14, 12:07
Manastorm, on 2024-May-12, 05:33, said:
My experience with jumping from one rolling log to another much depends upon being on the same page with a partner that is defective when it comes to turning the page.
#9
Posted 2024-May-14, 12:19
And I can see how "lack of time" during announcements, or lack of space on the CC[1] might consign those tendencies to "Special Submission Forms". Which might not be available, or looked at, in an event like the local Regional Open Pairs.
I have asked the C&C Committee, more than once, to provide guidance on how to "Announce" deviations like this so that we're all using the same terminology. I'm sure you've seen my comments here about "is 1 14 enough to be "good 14-17"? Is "15% of balanced 14s"? How about "14s that don't look like 13s" (or "17s that don't look like 18s", for the "14+ to 17-" people)? Does "12-14. Rare 11s, especially mycroft" (which is what it says in my system notes[2]) work, or too much, or ? No such guidance seems to exist yet.
[1]As a plug for my LaTeX-template convention card generator, I will note that one of my "additions" is "if you only have one NT range, the space for the second range is replaced with a textbox for 'Style', where you can put in things like 'frequently upgrade 14s'."
[2]Okay, it doesn't. I think we all can work out (or you can look up, it's online) what it does actually say.
#10
Posted 2024-May-16, 05:03
Manastorm, on 2024-May-12, 05:33, said:
Are we really misinformed, if we know what is going on.
Until you dont know, what is going on.
Manastorm, on 2024-May-12, 05:33, said:
If you suspect their action deviate from their disclosure, you can call the TD, if the facts matches your suspicion,
in a perfect world, the TD would note the discrepancy, and the next time he gets called, would be able to rule on
misinformation.
Does it mean you get a fav. ruling the first time? No. But it is possible.
Uwe Gebhardt (P_Marlowe)
#11
Posted 2024-May-16, 17:19
Quote
How would you know whether a particular bid conformed to their disclosed method or their true method? Do you mean that you use a different defense against a particular pair, because you know they're lying in their disclosure?
I could have sworn there's a law or ACBL regulation prohibiting varying your agreements based on the identity of the opponents, but I can't find it right now. So you can't agree "We play MeckWell over strong 1NT, except when playing against MillWack."
However, if you "know full well" what the opponents are playing, I think it would be hard to claim damage when they deviate from their announced agreements.
In high-level games, if a team is far behind in the last quarter, "everyone knows" that they're going to start bidding crazily to try to generate swings. No one ever calls the TD because they're psyching on almost every hand, as long as their partner doesn't field it.
#12
Posted 2024-May-17, 14:01
"But this is our declared agreement, how dare you defend against what we actually play?" is just as bad as "Of course opening a balanced 19 count in our shortest suit is Natural, what else could you possibly think?"
I have been known to "vary my agreements based on the opponents". With permission, in the clubs, where we played something nuts (even for us) against A players, but offered "normal bridge" to newer players. Knowing it's not legal, but it's still better for the game (and frankly, the only way *I* would allow that kind of silliness in my game if it was a "half A, half C" game).
Well, there's also the "I know playing with mycroft not to make a DSI double against [-] until I know my opening lead. Because he will always decide that defending is intelligent" line. Which isn't wrong (for bridge values of "always", anyway).
Now, the other issue here is "you can't vary your agreements during a session" - but we consider each match/segment of a team game as "a session". Yes, pre-registration of CCs etc., but "given what we've seen of your partnership, we're treating your 1NT opener as weak. We play [xxx] against weak NTs, just like the card says" seems appropriate.
It could boil down to the "we play Fishbein against aggressive preempts, takeout doubles against disciplined ones" vs "we play disciplined against pairs that have a penalty double, and aggressive if they don't" situation. I don't know where the line is between that and "we aggressively upgrade hands into 1NT if the opponents can't double for penalty, and upgrade 'normally' if they can"; or if it's even detectable. Or even if I care :-).