From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: A curious question.
Summary: More Merry-Go-Round
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: system, agreement, timing, ethics
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: You can stop playing bridge any time!
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 13:17:49 GMT

[David desJardins to our Asya about Merry-Go-Rounds:]
>> ... each team gets one chance to decide what they are playing. ...
>Is this by itself sufficient? ... clear that the meaning of a bid can
>depend on the meaning of the opponents' *previous* bids.
>....  Can the meaning of one's bids vary based on the meaning of
>the opponents' *subsequent* bids?

Exactly.  Also, can the meaning of one's bids vary based on the meaning of
the opponents' ability to judge competitive auctions, to defend, to play
stupid contracts, etc. etc. ....?

>... obvious problem with this.  Unless some order is defined in which the
>sides make their decisions, then circular situations can result.  It is
>not at all enough to say that each side only gets to decide once, because
>you haven't answered the question of who has to decide first.

Hence the Merry-Go-Round Rule.  It is like the Timing Rule in many games--
SOMEONE has to decide first.

>... if you ban all bids with meaning based on the opponents' subsequent
>agreements, then virtually everyone in the ACBL is cheating.

I simply fail to see this.

>... 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 certainly do, and I think that that is obvious bridge strategy.

Well, perhaps some part of that is "obvious bridge strategy" but some part
of that treads dangerously close to the line of unethical behaviour.  The
last refers to DISCLOSURE.  As long as your opponents GET to know about
these modifications in a timely fashion so that they may spring any
countermeasures, you are fine, else you have committed MISINFORMATION.

>(This is precisely what the reference to Bo-Yin is about; if taking such
>information into account is illegal, then one side could be penalized for
>failing to preempt when they normally would.)

No, as I explained in the other post, one side could be penalised for
failing to preempt when they normally would CONSISTENTLY against CERTAIN
OPPOSITION and WITHOUT DISCLOSING said fact.

>Many pairs have gone into matches against pairs with strong club relay
>systems with an explicit plan to interfere extremely frequently over 1C.
>If it is not permissible to play a system which conditions on the meaning
>of the opponents' subsequent bids, then such pairs would not be permitted
>to play that way if they do not do so against all strong club systems.

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.

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.


>[...] 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.

And if you switch to "too destructive" overcalls without telling them you
are unethical and subject to penalty.  [Me, I have ONE standard which I
stick to in my egoistic belief that this works against all counters.  ]

>They are gaining by playing a system which is unusual, and which I don't
>believe is technically superior, but which works because of the opponents'
>inability to adapt to it by choosing the best defense.

[heavy humour mode on] If you want to choose the best defense, such as the
Manfield Trap over doubles, the Parking Lot Redouble, the Fit-Showing Free
Bid, and the Scrambling No-Trump, you are perfectly welcome to....  What?
Your "best defence" involves making crazy overcalls that the opponents
can't double for penalties?  Nah, you can't do that! [hh mode off]

Seriously, you have to decide FIRST what overcalls you wish to play, and
then the opponents' agreement that explicitly depends on your answer can
take effect.  THAT is what the MGR timing rule is about.

>... the supposed reason that the ACBL bans conventions, is it not?)

The supposed reason does not matter.  Everyone KNOWS what the reason is.

>(Of course, the main reason that it works is not that the opponents
>refrain to adapt because of the rules, but because they fail to mark it on
>their cards.  One of my major peeves.)

As I said, you are PERFECTLY welcome to adapt AFTER their bid is invoked
and explained-- you can unleash ANY countermeasure you have at this point,
even if it is the Modified Arcturan Delayed Pseudo-Gerber.  You cannot
"adapt" by changing your style implicitly and without proper disclosure.  I
have standing agreements that fires up against negative doubles in general
which will protect me when they invoke a negative double, and I also have
standards that don't change implicitly because of my opponents.

I apologise for any truncated lines and any possible condescension in this
post-- I am still suffering from insomnia and am rather touchy.





Newsgroups: rec.games.bridge