From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge
Subject: Re: A curious question.
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:39:37 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Dr. Weird <maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw> writes:
>> [...] if you ban all bids with meaning based on the opponents'
>> subsequent agreements, then virtually everyone in the ACBL is
>> cheating.
>> [...] I can't believe that most players don't take into account their
>> opponents' ability to penalize them when they decide whether and how
>> high to preempt.

> I think that is irrelevant.  For one, I don't, personally, but the
> important point is that partner EXPLAINS your call correctly,
> including any hidden stylistic inferences (e.g. We think you two are
> complete idiots so we won't bother preempting at all against you.....
> :-) and that the opponents are correctly appraised of the situation.

I agree on the need for disclosure, but I don't see why it is
sufficient.  Doesn't the decision to bid in a certain way, based on the
opponents' expressed system in the subsequent auction, violate the Rule
of Causality?  Perhaps it would be sufficient to prealert it, in order
to give the opponents a chance to change their system.  It certainly is
not sufficient to explain it at the time of the bid, because the
opponents don't have a chance to adjust their bidding system at that
point, in the manner which you correctly point out that the Rule of
Causality is designed to allow.

> Currently you are allowed to change the STYLE of your bids (stupid to
> make such a distinction, IMNSHO, but I don't count on the ACBL for any
> sense) so you are fine AS LONG AS THE OPPONENTS' KNOW before they need
> to take any commital action depending on your explanations.

Well, a distinction between changing the "style" and changing the
"meaning" is completely ridiculous.  I'm sure we both agree on that.

> E.g. if you normally never have less than 5-5 in a CRASH bid over 1C*,
> but you will only promise seven cards between the two suits against
> RELAY players, of which I am one (say) then you MUST disclose such an
> agreement when asked ("I expect him to have 4-4 most of the time and
> even 4-3...") so that I can unleash a special set of penalty-oriented
> methods used against really aggressive CRASHers only by agreement.

But it is my contention that, under the "Rule of Causality," such an
agreement is or would be *illegal* in the first place, and presumably
subject to procedural penalties.  Obviously the form of the statement,
"Shows 5-5 in two suits, except if when I had passed the opponents'
subsequent bids would have been relays, in which case it only promises
seven cards," directly violates that Rule.  Why would anyone be allowed
to play this way, in your interpretation?

If I were to play in a pair event, and play the 5-5 interpretation
against a standard Precision pair, and the 4-3 interpretation against a
relay pair, either I would have violated the rule against changing my
system during the session, or I would have violated the rule of
causality.  No?

Actually, on reflection, I don't think that this is necessarily so bad.
But I'm sure that it is not enforced and that players aren't aware of
it.  IMO any rule which exists but is not enforced, or is selectively
enforced, is a bad rule.

>> [...] I believe that the major reason that [Neg.X's over 1N] works is
>> that the opponents know that you cannot be too destructive, because
>> most pairs play penalty doubles, and you would get smashed too often.

> No, the reason that it works IN THEORY is that you can agree to play
> penalty against "too destructive" (defined by partnership) overcalls
> only so if you switch to that style they CAN "smack" you anyway.

Certainly, though, if negative doubles were really wise, and the
substantial majority of players were to start playing them, then it
would become worthwhile to preempt more aggressively over 1NT.  And
then, there would come to be an advantage to the few pairs who played
penalty doubles.

However, I think you are right in theory, and you have a good point.
In theory the process should converge to a point where the
destructiveness of overcalls is at the break-even point between penalty
and negative doubles.

                                        David desJardins
Xref: sparky rec.games.bridge:5325 sci.math.stat:1823