BBO Discussion Forums: Deviation from system - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 8 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Deviation from system

#41 User is offline   MrAce 

  • VIP Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,447
  • Joined: 2009-November-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 2012-March-18, 18:55

It is also an interesting to be accused of " act of deliberate cheating " When someone is honestly posting his opinions, whether you agree with him or not. How can someone disagree with you if you hold the "Cheater Stamp" in your hand and ready to stick it to other person ? after all someone should argue that writing on cc a wide range while you actually rarely use this range is also wrong (whether u agree or not is another story)

I didnt even play much of a live game in last 7 years, letalone " deliberately cheating by writing incorrect cc " . I was merely posting what i think is right. I was telling that just because me and my pds agreed to 5-10 doesnt really mean that i will never open out of that range. And thats called "Deviation from system" You could have a point had i written "I like to open ususally with QJTxxx x xxx xxx " in 1st seat etc etc. Instead i mentioned that it is very rare and that it is my personal action, not pdship's agreement. Did i also write that we do not have any protection if things go wrong ? Oh yes i did, didnt i ?

I am writing on CC whatever my pd is expecting me to have. How is this improper disclosure ?

And how are you so sure about the intentions of people who write 5-10 ? How can you publicly accuse them of "deliberately cheating" ? At the end you may be right that it is proper to fill the CC as 3-9 hcp, but how can you prove your accusation about their intention ? How can u be so sure this guy actually was intending to protect his opponents by not writing a range that will mislead them % 99 of the time while your suggestion is trying to protect them %1 of the time and letting them be misled the rest of % 99 or whatever the % you assign to it ?
"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity is boundless"
"Gosh given your bbf manner would love to see your teaching LOL if i was a novice i'd be running a million miles from you" - Eagles123
Disclaimer: this post is not intended to offend anyone who spews constant drivel. --PhilKing





0

#42 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,033
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-March-18, 19:19

If you've made your rare openings often enough that your partner isn't surprised by them, you have an implicit partnership agreement which must be disclosed. But that's only part of the issue. The rest is that an agreement to open on a wider range that seven points precludes you from using any conventions afterwards, and if you have agreed to use conventions after that wide a weak two, you're using an illegal agreement. Pre-alerting does not get you off that hook.

If your partner is as much surprised by your sub-minimum opening as your opponents are, you haven't established an implicit agreement yet.
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#43 User is offline   MrAce 

  • VIP Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,447
  • Joined: 2009-November-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 2012-March-18, 19:58

View Postblackshoe, on 2012-March-18, 19:19, said:


If your partner is as much surprised by your sub-minimum opening as your opponents are, you haven't established an implicit agreement yet.


I thought this was clear in what i wrote that this is the case ?

I mean i used words in my first post that says;

-I personally ....

-I have no protection ...

-I take RISK ....

Also, i see you are one of the admins of this forum, i request you to take an action for the post Cascade made.

If you read my post and his reply, which starts with quoting me and continues with serious accusations, you will see that none of the things he claims exists in my post. So you should take action.

View PostCascade, on 2012-March-18, 17:54, said:


Yes QJT9xx x xxx xxx is low frequency but low frequency is not something to hide behind in your obligations to proper disclosure.

Frankly it sickens me that there are players with this attitude that it is proper to hide information from the opponents in the hope of inducing an advantage to their own side.


If you look at this quote, it is extremely offensive and very serious accusation. He is making an ASSUMPTION about the intention of people and myself that he doesnt even know, and accusing of "hiding information in the hope of inducing an advantage" And he is doing this publicly. You should take an action as admin.

Even if we all sit here and agree, that it is proper to disclose as the way he suggests, it still doesnt cover his accusations about the INTENTIONS of those who disclosed differently. Yes, there maybe people who can do that, i am sure there are some people out there doing that, but thats not what he said. He quoted me and said it sickens him, and assigned serious blame from his ASSUMPTIONS.

I saw your earlier post that says "Chip Martel should not be treated differently" which i agree if what he did was systemic. Same goes here, just because Cascade has yellow uniform of BBO or he may even be an admin in forums, doesnt give him immunity from the "Zero Tolerance" rule which is being applied in other forums for much less than this. Thats why i think you should take an action.
"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity is boundless"
"Gosh given your bbf manner would love to see your teaching LOL if i was a novice i'd be running a million miles from you" - Eagles123
Disclaimer: this post is not intended to offend anyone who spews constant drivel. --PhilKing





0

#44 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 13,033
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2012-March-18, 20:00

Well, in seven hours I have to get up to drive two hours for some minor surgery, so whatever action I might take it isn't going to happen before probably Tuesday. So what action would you like me to take?
--------------------
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
Factor in Alzheimers, and I can not recall a bad result from aggessive action in this situation. -- Aguahombre
When I look through the hand records after a club evening, the boards I didn't play are always the ones where I would have done great. -- Cherdano
0

#45 User is offline   Cascade 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Yellows
  • Posts: 6,543
  • Joined: 2003-July-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Juggling, Unicycling

Posted 2012-March-18, 20:11

View PostCascade, on 2012-March-18, 17:54, said:

If one opens QJT9xx x xxx xxx by partnership agreement, explicit or implicit, while disclosing that the range is 5-10 hcp with the hope of some gain from the opponents misguessing a finesse then to me that is a deliberate act of cheating. I believe this position is plainly backed up by the laws and regulations.

Yes QJT9xx x xxx xxx is low frequency but low frequency is not something to hide behind in your obligations to proper disclosure.

Frankly it sickens me that there are players with this attitude that it is proper to hide information from the opponents in the hope of inducing an advantage to their own side.



View PostMrAce, on 2012-March-18, 19:58, said:

Also, i see you are one of the admins of this forum, i request you to take an action for the post Cascade made.

If you read my post and his reply, which starts with quoting me and continues with serious accusations, you will see that none of the things he claims exists in my post. So you should take action.


View PostCascade, on 2012-March-18, 17:54, said:

Yes QJT9xx x xxx xxx is low frequency but low frequency is not something to hide behind in your obligations to proper disclosure.

Frankly it sickens me that there are players with this attitude that it is proper to hide information from the opponents in the hope of inducing an advantage to their own side.


If you look at this quote, it is extremely offensive and very serious accusation. He is making an ASSUMPTION about the intention of people and myself that he doesnt even know, and accusing of "hiding information in the hope of inducing an advantage" And he is doing this publicly. You should take an action as admin.

Even if we all sit here and agree, that it is proper to disclose as the way he suggests, it still doesnt cover his accusations about the INTENTIONS of those who disclosed differently. Yes, there maybe people who can do that, i am sure there are some people out there doing that, but thats not what he said. He quoted me and said it sickens him, and assigned serious blame from his ASSUMPTIONS.

I saw your earlier post that says "Chip Martel should not be treated differently" which i agree if what he did was systemic. Same goes here, just because Cascade has yellow uniform of BBO or he may even be an admin in forums, doesnt give him immunity from the "Zero Tolerance" rule which is being applied in other forums for much less than this. Thats why i think you should take an action.


Perhaps you should take your own advice and read what I wrote.

I carefully began my post with "If" that necessarily means that it does not apply if the condition that I wrote immediately after "If" does not apply.

You conveniently left out this first word and paragraph in your quote.

I made no personal attack against you but you have responded with a personal attack against me.
Wayne Burrows

I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog

#46 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 5,700
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2012-March-18, 20:34

View Postblackshoe, on 2012-March-18, 19:19, said:

If your partner is as much surprised by your sub-minimum opening as your opponents are, you haven't established an implicit agreement yet.


"Yet" is the sticking point here. How are the opponents or the directors to know whether this is the 1st, 3rd or 100th time you have done this?
London, England
0

#47 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,521
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2012-March-19, 03:03

View PostMrAce, on 2012-March-18, 16:31, said:

Deviation from system, of course :P

But anyway, i disagree with you. Of course the frequency matters but people who say they open with 2-3 hcp preempts, do it very rarely. Imo it is not fair to write to cc 3-9 when actually 2-4 hcp preempts are made VERY rarely and will mislead opponents more often than vice versa. If someone wants to gain advantage, writing the wider range on cc is the way to go. Not the opposite.

If the style is to open only a small proportion of the hands in the 2-4 range, you write "5-10 (occasionally as weak as 2)" or "2-10 (usually 5-10)".

Quote

But i dont see Phil saying that this is their pdship agreement. I dont see him saying "i agreed with pd that we can open these hands" As long as his pd acts as if he opened 5-10, and as long as they dont have an agreement how to be careful at these colors, i dont see why what he wrote on cc would be systemic or unsatisfacory disclosure ?

If Phil would sometimes open Q109xxx x xxxx xx first at favourable, and his partner knows he would sometimes do that, it's a partnership agreement. How his partner acts in response is irrelevant - what matters is what his partner knows or expects.
If future responses could be on topic, i.e. comparing the two suggested systems, rather than some alternative nutjob method, that'd be appreciated, thanks. - MickyB
0

#48 User is offline   MrAce 

  • VIP Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 4,447
  • Joined: 2009-November-14
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

Posted 2012-March-19, 03:11

View PostCascade, on 2012-March-18, 20:11, said:

Perhaps you should take your own advice and read what I wrote.

I carefully began my post with "If" that necessarily means that it does not apply if the condition that I wrote immediately after "If" does not apply.

You conveniently left out this first word and paragraph in your quote.

I made no personal attack against you but you have responded with a personal attack against me.


With all due respect, sir, you are back pedalling and you know it ;)

If you intended to make a general statement about explicit and implicit agreements and what you think about them when they are disclosed differently in CC, then how will you explain starting this statement with a quote of me ?

And WHY would you still duck the questions that i asked ? Which part of my post made you write a general statement about agreements which ended up with serious accusations (since you used my quote i think i have the right to know that). Which part of my post did u connect to explicit or implicit agreements that are disclosed differently ? Which part of my post made you say "It sickens me to see people with this attitude who tries to gain advantage etc etc " If i am not directed in this sentence, then who is ? Why is it written by quoting me ?

It is beyond funny that you think the word "IF" rescues you. Because you did not say "This is violation of the rules" You said "this is act of DELIBERATE CHEATING" Thats where you cross the line, because you are making an assumption of why they did this. It is BEYOND your power to know their real intentions. They may indeed trying to gain advantage, they may be doing it for totally opposite intentions as well whether they are right or wrong, they maybe ignorant of the bridge laws or regulations. Or they may simply be not a CC friendly player (there are a lot of them) who just sits and plays with a pd and a cc that is filled by pd.

You accused all this type of players for deliberately cheating. It is ironic that you talk about RULES, because as far as i know BBO and BBF rules are simpler than bridge rules, and i know damn well that you are not supposed to accuse anyone of cheating based on your assumptions. And yet you are one of those who is supposed to enforce this rule of BBF and BBO. Good luck with that !

No sir, i repeat again, you are back pedalling and you know it :)


View Postblackshoe, on 2012-March-18, 20:00, said:

Well, in seven hours I have to get up to drive two hours for some minor surgery, so whatever action I might take it isn't going to happen before probably Tuesday. So what action would you like me to take?


Nevermind my request, i believe editting, moving, deleting or whatever u guys do to make a post look better will be doing a favour to him. I think his post remaining there open to public is the worst consequence for him.
"Genius has its own limitations, however stupidity is boundless"
"Gosh given your bbf manner would love to see your teaching LOL if i was a novice i'd be running a million miles from you" - Eagles123
Disclaimer: this post is not intended to offend anyone who spews constant drivel. --PhilKing





0

#49 User is offline   phil_20686 

  • Scotland
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,562
  • Joined: 2008-August-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

Posted 2012-March-19, 06:29

There has always been a problem with ranges. It also occurs with NT ranges. If I open say 40% of 14 counts 15-17, is my range really 14-17? I say no, because I believe negative inferences are just as important as positive ones. I think the range should be the range in which you open basically all hands that conform fo balanced+HCP range.

If you write 6-10, 6 cards, the meaning should be that you open "basically all" hands with a six card suit, with the understanding for preempts that many people have minimum suit quality. If you open some 4, or 5 counts, that is fine. It should be basic bridge knowledge that some extreme hands are best represented with a weak two, even out side the "range", but, imo thats fine.

Those people who claim that because you might open a weak two with QJT98x you should write 3-10 are wrong imo, because if you write 3-10 you mislead with the negative inference. If I see 3-10 and find out that a defender has x K7xxxx in the majors, should I not use the 3-10 to infer with >50% accurace that he does not have a minor queen? In practice you are advocating writing 3-10 and massing with x Kxxxxx Qxx xxx and similar, which is equally misleading.

The accepted way to get around this pragmatically in NT ranges is to write something like (14)15-17, where the brackets are the lowest number where you open a reasonable fraction. Perhaps we should all be wrting something like (3)5-10, but in practice this is what is understood anyway in the ranges for preempts.
The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
1

#50 User is offline   mjj29 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 576
  • Joined: 2009-July-11

Posted 2012-March-19, 06:50

View Postphil_20686, on 2012-March-19, 06:29, said:

The accepted way to get around this pragmatically in NT ranges is to write something like (14)15-17, where the brackets are the lowest number where you open a reasonable fraction. Perhaps we should all be writing something like (3)5-10, but in practice this is what is understood anyway in the ranges for preempts.


Indeed, I think that writing "6-10" if you ever open outside that range _can_ be misleading and "3-10" if you don't always open with hands in that range can _also_ be misleading. Something like (3)5-10, or (as I have on my cards) 5-9 and "weak bids may be wider ranging in 3rd" or "at favorable vulnerability" is better, but fundamentally most people expect the numbers on preempts to be at least somewhat nominal and expect some amount of up/down grades or deviations. If they aren't rare I'd expect at least something like "frequent upgrades" or "occasional deviations" written on the card.

OTOH, I'm working in a region (the EBU) where any range is permissible if properly disclosed. Where the RA has a hard range limit (a-la the ACBL's 7-point one), then I think you should stick to that as a hard limit (I also don't upgrade 'good' 15 counts into our strong opening, since the lower limit is 16 here, even if it's a better hand than some which I would open there).

In this case it means, if you open 10 counts in your weak 2s you can't ever open anything less than 4. I would not object if the 4s are infrequent from writing 5-10 still though.
2

#51 User is offline   TMorris 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 2008-May-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

Posted 2012-March-19, 06:54

View Postphil_20686, on 2012-March-19, 06:29, said:

Perhaps we should all be wrting something like (3)5-10, but in practice this is what is understood anyway in the ranges for preempts.


It is only understood in practice once you have been playing at the level where this occurs for a while. It is not understood in practice when you initially step up in level thus significantly disadvantaging such people.

A good player recently opened a weak two in third position with an 11 count and a good 6-card suit (playing I think 5-9). I was told afterwards by a more experienced teammate that this is "standard". Well until then it wasn't standard to me. I know about "may be weaker in third" but hadn't heard of "may be stronger in third".

I just played a match where one of the opponents had 5-13 in third for their weak twos. It's the first time I have ever seen this. That is what I call full disclosure. Otherwise I am at a clear disadvantage.
0

#52 User is offline   phil_20686 

  • Scotland
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,562
  • Joined: 2008-August-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

Posted 2012-March-19, 07:14

View PostTMorris, on 2012-March-19, 06:54, said:

I just played a match where one of the opponents had 5-13 in third for their weak twos. It's the first time I have ever seen this. That is what I call full disclosure. Otherwise I am at a clear disadvantage.


Unfortunately, I guarantee there are plenty of 12-13 counts with a six card suit they do not open as a preempt so its not really any better disclosure is it?
The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
0

#53 User is offline   TMorris 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 2008-May-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

Posted 2012-March-19, 07:53

It is of course better.

There are balanced 12 counts that I don't open with a weak NT. I still say my 1NT opening is 12-14. There are 9 counts that I open at the one level I still say my weak 2s are 5-9.
0

#54 User is offline   phil_20686 

  • Scotland
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,562
  • Joined: 2008-August-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

Posted 2012-March-19, 08:24

View PostTMorris, on 2012-March-19, 07:53, said:

There are balanced 12 counts that I don't open with a weak NT. I still say my 1NT opening is 12-14. There are 9 counts that I open at the one level I still say my weak 2s are 5-9.


And if an opponent misguesses a Queen based on that fact that you "can't" have 12 HCP. That is entirely equivalent to the OP, who when wrong because the wk two "must have" 6 points.
The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
0

#55 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,521
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2012-March-19, 08:26

View Postphil_20686, on 2012-March-19, 06:29, said:

The accepted way to get around this pragmatically in NT ranges is to write something like (14)15-17, where the brackets are the lowest number where you open a reasonable fraction. Perhaps we should all be wrting something like (3)5-10, but in practice this is what is understood anyway in the ranges for preempts.

It's not understood by me. If I see "5-10", I infer that the opening bid shows a hand that the bidder considers worth 5-10. That may well include upgraded 4-counts, but I see no reason why I should expect it to be an upgraded 2-count.

I really don't understand the problem. If your real range is 5-10, you write "5-10". If your real range is something else, you say so. There are lots of ways you can do this: "all 5-9 counts, most 4-counts, some 3-counts, a few 2-counts, and some 10-counts", "typically 5-9, but can be as weak as 2 with good shape", or even just "weak, wide range".

If you have an imprecise agreement, why would you state a range which is both precise and inaccurate?
If future responses could be on topic, i.e. comparing the two suggested systems, rather than some alternative nutjob method, that'd be appreciated, thanks. - MickyB
1

#56 User is offline   TMorris 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: 2008-May-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, England

Posted 2012-March-19, 08:32

View Postphil_20686, on 2012-March-19, 08:24, said:

And if an opponent misguesses a Queen based on that fact that you "can't" have 12 HCP. That is entirely equivalent to the OP, who when wrong because the wk two "must have" 6 points.


Well they might have read the part on my cc which says " we may not open poor 12 counts". But anyway it is not the same. If I open a weak NT my agreement is 12-14. If I have 12-14 I do not have an agreement to always open.
0

#57 User is offline   phil_20686 

  • Scotland
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,562
  • Joined: 2008-August-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

Posted 2012-March-19, 08:50

View Postgnasher, on 2012-March-19, 08:26, said:

It's not understood by me. If I see "5-10", I infer that the opening bid shows a hand that the bidder considers worth 5-10. That may well include upgraded 4-counts, but I see no reason why I should expect it to be an upgraded 2-count.

I really don't understand the problem. If your real range is 5-10, you write "5-10". If your real range is something else, you say so. There are lots of ways you can do this: "all 5-9 counts, most 4-counts, some 3-counts, a few 2-counts, and some 10-counts", "typically 5-9, but can be as weak as 2 with good shape", or even just "weak, wide range".

If you have an imprecise agreement, why would you state a range which is both precise and inaccurate?


I don't think its a question of an "imprecise agreement", so much as "an agreement that cannot be precisely stated in a few words". the 5-10 is the hands that I would "basically always" open, subject to suit quality. I would open them in any seat at an vulnerability, but how far you are prepared to stretch definitely depends on all of: (1) vulnerability, (2) Position, (3) how good you think your opposition are, (4) suit texture, (5) Side suit distribution, none of which is captured in a HCP scale.

I mean (3)5-10 means that I might open x Kxxxxx xxxxx x in third seat at favourable, but would not imagine opening 32 K65432 432 32 at first at red. I do not understand what is imprecise about that. Any explanation that attempts to fit the complex interplay between all five of those factors into a small box on the front of a convention is doomed to failure. Characterising preempts by HCP is basically not very sensible. I mean I imagine third in at favorable most experts would open some kind of preempt with - T987xxx T987xx - does that mean i need to write zero- 10 on my card?

(3)5-10 is a pragmatic attempt to indicate your agreement to your opposition quickly. If they want more detailed answers they have to ask. It should be read "Open most 5-10 hands with a six card suit a weak two", depending on other factors open a significant number of 3-4 counts , but by no means any 3 count with a six card suit.





The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
0

#58 User is offline   phil_20686 

  • Scotland
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,562
  • Joined: 2008-August-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

Posted 2012-March-19, 09:04

View PostTMorris, on 2012-March-19, 08:32, said:

If I open a weak NT my agreement is 12-14. If I have 12-14 I do not have an agreement to always open.


No, I don't see it this way at all. You have agreements about how to bid particular classes of hands. Hands are the fundamental starting point.


If you write a bidding agreement like 1N=12-14, you are committing to opening 12-14 balanced hands 1N. If you do not open 1N I am fully entitled to assume that you do not have 12-14 balanced. If you routinely do not open balanced 1N 12 counts, but write 12-14 balanced. You are committing the same Mis-information as if you routinely open 11 counts 12-14 balanced.

I mean I admit there is some debate here: If I see 1N=12-14 balanced. I read that as "My system dictates that I open "basically all" 12-14 balanced hands 1N". This is certainly what my partner assumes if I say we are playing a wk nt, and I see any failure to conform to this, either by opening more hands or fewer, to be mis information. You are arguing that it should be read "If I open 1N I am showing 12-14 balanced, but I am completely free not to open as many 12-14 balanced hands as I please", and that is not mis information. Clearly at some point your statement becomes false. If you open fewer than 1% of 10 balanced ten counts, writing 10-14 for your nt range is false. You are misleading declarer into believing that the various HCP in that range are roughly equally likely (given the normal distribution of HCP making numbers closer to ten more likely anyway), and this will often affect his play. For this reason I think the first of these readings is the correct one, and is the one declarers should take.

Perhaps this is an interesting hand for a thread. Suppose I constructed a hand from a 24 board team match, where opponents wrote 10-14 for their 1N range, and on board one you played for an opponent not to have a 10 count because he would have opened in first and he did have a ten count. Then on four further occasions in the match your opponents had balanced ten counts that they failed to open 1N. Would you be entitled to redress? I think that you would. Were I a director I would certainly rule that on the evidence presented you do not in fact have the agreement of 1N-10-14, and would rule in declarers favour.
The physics is theoretical, but the fun is real. - Sheldon Cooper
0

#59 User is offline   Cascade 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Yellows
  • Posts: 6,543
  • Joined: 2003-July-22
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand
  • Interests:Juggling, Unicycling

Posted 2012-March-19, 09:06

View PostCascade, on 2012-March-18, 20:11, said:

Perhaps you should take your own advice and read what I wrote.

I carefully began my post with "If" that necessarily means that it does not apply if the condition that I wrote immediately after "If" does not apply.

You conveniently left out this first word and paragraph in your quote.

I made no personal attack against you but you have responded with a personal attack against me.



View PostMrAce, on 2012-March-19, 03:11, said:

With all due respect, sir, you are back pedalling and you know it ;)

If you intended to make a general statement about explicit and implicit agreements and what you think about them when they are disclosed differently in CC, then how will you explain starting this statement with a quote of me ?

And WHY would you still duck the questions that i asked ? Which part of my post made you write a general statement about agreements which ended up with serious accusations (since you used my quote i think i have the right to know that). Which part of my post did u connect to explicit or implicit agreements that are disclosed differently ? Which part of my post made you say "It sickens me to see people with this attitude who tries to gain advantage etc etc " If i am not directed in this sentence, then who is ? Why is it written by quoting me ?

It is beyond funny that you think the word "IF" rescues you. Because you did not say "This is violation of the rules" You said "this is act of DELIBERATE CHEATING" Thats where you cross the line, because you are making an assumption of why they did this. It is BEYOND your power to know their real intentions. They may indeed trying to gain advantage, they may be doing it for totally opposite intentions as well whether they are right or wrong, they maybe ignorant of the bridge laws or regulations. Or they may simply be not a CC friendly player (there are a lot of them) who just sits and plays with a pd and a cc that is filled by pd.

You accused all this type of players for deliberately cheating. It is ironic that you talk about RULES, because as far as i know BBO and BBF rules are simpler than bridge rules, and i know damn well that you are not supposed to accuse anyone of cheating based on your assumptions. And yet you are one of those who is supposed to enforce this rule of BBF and BBO. Good luck with that !

No sir, i repeat again, you are back pedalling and you know it :)


I am not back pedalling. I quoted what I wrote.

Quote

If one opens QJT9xx x xxx xxx by partnership agreement, explicit or implicit, while disclosing that the range is 5-10 hcp with the hope of some gain from the opponents misguessing a finesse then to me that is a deliberate act of cheating.


If you have a partnership agreement, in fact I should probably have used the term "partnership understanding" to open hands in a certain range but you tell the opponents that you have a different range and you hope to gain from that deception then you are breaking the rules. I suppose that there might be some that are ignorant of the rules and maybe I could have more carefully qualified that if you do this deliberately only then are you cheating. I did however make it clear that this was my opinion - "to me". I could have written unqualified "then that is a deliberate act of cheating" and that is what I would have written if I had been making an accusation. However I was offering an opinion in an internet forum not making an accusation. I qualified what I wrote as a personal opinion based on the assumptions that I wrote. I do not know you. I do not know how you play. I am not in a position to judge that. I know what you wrote. It is something that I am passionate about and I made a qualified personal response to what you had written.

The post I originally responded to said

Quote

For example myself, i play with pds who would never ever open a QJT9xx x xxx xxx in first seat in equal vulnerability. Thats a rare situation i myself open. Should i write on cc that my preempts are 3-9 ?


Later you explained this in a modified form

Quote

I specifically mentioned that my pds play it 5-10 and they think i open in this range. And that there are times i personally deviate from this agreement and open this hand, and that i do it rarely


To me these are different. In the first you gave a very specific hand. My simulations suggest that around 1 in 10000 hands with six spades are a three-count with the ten and nine spots. You comment "Thats a rare situation...". Indeed I agree it is rare. You go on to say immediately in the same sentence "i myself open". This is unqualified. Not "sometimes" or "occasionally" or "on a whim I might" but a direct statement that seems to imply that you open this hand.

To me if there is a hand that you would always open then that is part of your partnership understanding. That is there is no difference between always opening the around 18% of hands with six spades that have 9 hcp and the 0.0001% of the same hands that are QJT9xx and out with a specific shape. The fact that we see one more than another is neither here nor there in determining that your partnership understanding is to open those hands.

If I have accounted for all of the hcp in the hand except for a queen and I have a two-way finesse then I am entitled to know that an opponent would or would not open with a three count. I can only know this if you disclose it to me. To not disclose and claim that there are advantages in hiding this information from your opponents - "In return i may have gains too as you said someone may misguess a finesse or whatever." - is not close to what I consider fair play.

Claiming that something this low frequency is a "deviation" whilst simultaneously stating "i myself open" seems to me to be a convenient deception. Sure its "rare" but 'partnership understanding' is not qualified by frequency.

In the play example I gave a priori the probability 0.0001% for the low frequency hand could have grown to around 50% (plus or minus depending on what else I have discovered about the distribution) when I have to make my 'guess' for the missing queen. However if you tell me your range is 5-10 then I may (erroneously) diminish this ~50% to near 0% based on the deception.

Anyway I believe if one deliberately fails to disclose ones partnership understandings (including implicit understandings) in the hope of gaining an advantage then you are clearly not playing according to the rules. You can call it what you want.
Wayne Burrows

I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys - dburn
dunno how to play 4 card majors - JLOGIC
True but I know Standard American and what better reason could I have for playing Precision? - Hideous Hog

#60 User is offline   gnasher 

  • Andy Bowles
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,521
  • Joined: 2007-May-03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:London, UK

Posted 2012-March-19, 09:28

Quote

I mean I imagine third in at favorable most experts would open some kind of preempt with - T987xxx T987xx - does that mean i need to write zero- 10 on my card?

No, because it's generally understood that additional shape can be treated as making up for a deficiency in high cards.

Quote

(3)5-10 is a pragmatic attempt to indicate your agreement to your opposition quickly.

Yes, I agree, and I don't see anything misleading about that. When you said earlier "Perhaps we should all be wrting something like (3)5-10, but in practice this is what is understood anyway in the ranges for preempts", I thought that you meant that it was OK to write "5-10" when your real range is "(3)5-10". If you meant something else, fine.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-March-19, 09:34

If future responses could be on topic, i.e. comparing the two suggested systems, rather than some alternative nutjob method, that'd be appreciated, thanks. - MickyB
0

Share this topic:


  • 8 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users