From: Professor WHO?
Subject: Re: A curious question.
Summary: OOPS!  My mistake!
Originator: boyiny@kovalevskaya
Keywords: timing rule, system, agreements, preemption
Reply-To: maboyiny@ccvax.as.edu.tw (Dr. Weird)
Organization: Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons
X-Subliminal-Message: RELAYS ARE FUN!
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 00:14:00 GMT


[David desJardins to me:]

>>> [...] 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 [...]
>> I think that is irrelevant.  [...] the important point is that partner
>> EXPLAINS your call correctly, including any ... inferences ...
>... 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?

No, no, I apologise if I have been confusing again.  [I also apologise for
bad spelling and anything else that might happen in this post.]  As I MEANT
to say, the Merry-Go-Round Rule insists that whoever gets the call first
decide on his/her style/system/conventions, and release that information to
the opponents, whose system may include certain switches depending on said
meaning.  It has NOTHING to do with the ACBL rule that you can only play
one system per session [also wrong and stupid, IMHO].  

Note that the opp's countermeasures would have to be in place BEFORE the
convention/style/system was invoked.

>Perhaps it would be sufficient to prealert it, in order
>to give the opponents a chance to change their system.  

Certainly that is the case if your conventional meaning changes with the
opp's system and the markingon your convention card was wrong.  I have
always said that if you write CRASH you need to specify how bad it may be
just like weak two's and then you have to stick with it UNLESS you
explicitly tell everyone at the table.

>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.

No, no, the Rule of Causality (the MGR rule) is designed to allow the
opponents the POSSIBILITY of switching systems.  To use two different
systems depending on the meaning of the opp's previous bids you need to
have them BOTH ready to go.  You are SUPPOSED to prepare beforehand for
things that people are allowed to throw.

>> 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 ... then you MUST disclose such an 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.

See above.

>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.

As I said before, the Rule is not what you seem to think it is.  You are
perfectly welcome to do ANYTHING so long as your opp's KNOW what they mean,
and you decide first before they need to make any decisions.  When you
explain to this pair, you merely announce that you are supposed to have two
suits of the same rank but you do it on all 4-4's and some 4-3-3-3's.  They
can use whatever they have against this call.  IF you know these people and
also that they like to double and defend well, and decide not to overcall
without 5-5's after all, that is also fine, provided that your partner
explains your bid as 5-5.  Of course, now they may use a different defence
to THIS defence to maximise constructivity.....

>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?

No, see above.

>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 just told you the WBF rules, and that I agree with this rule.  That the
ACBL does not enforce it is anot the point.

>>> [...] I believe that the major reason that [Neg.X's over 1N] works is
>>> that the opponents know that you cannot be too destructive, ...
>> 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. [...]

How many times do I have to say this-- you can't do that without giving the
opp's a chance to switch back to 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.

Precisely my po