[fromageGB]

mikeh, on Mar 26 2010, 03:21 PM, said:

Let's face it: who can possibly take pride in beating weak opps by using this device?

Ths comment ( and other similar ones) do not make sense to me. Do you have a rule - call it a gentlemen''s agreement - that against weaker opponents you do not open or overcall on ANY hand with less than 12 HCP, and that you do not bid at all once both the opponents have bid, because the weaker opponents may not know how to cope effectively?

To me, the rules of the game apply to everyone. This is a legal bid, and Ken correctly explains it.

If you do adopt a more restricted set of methods against weaker players, then how do you know whether opps are weaker or not, unless you have played against them for years? Some LOLs are good and highly experienced players.

(EBU level 2 means that you can play it at the knitting circle's bridge evening. All bridge clubs that I know allow level 3 or 4.)

[aguahombre]

I am predjudiced against the use of methods, the main purpose of which are destructive and provide no information to anyone else (except maybe partner who is used to the situations where they are employed).

No one can convince me that a bid with a zero-to-ten range with almost any distribution has any other purpose but to prey on the weak. And against stronger opposition, if used, the bid probably has more restrictions than would be disclosed.

However, the lawyer types could probably find something in the rules of any jurisdiction to support their right to do this, like calling 3-3-3-4 a three-suited hand when the 4-card suit is the one opened in front of it.

[fromageGB]

mikeh, on Mar 27 2010, 12:28 AM, said:

Only a half-truth teller would seriously contend that this hand was a 3-suited takeout.

I can't really understand this comment, either.
(1) The RUNT 1NT is not intended to be left to play. Partner is supposed to bid something. It is therefore a takeout.
(2) You are quite prepared to play in any of the other 3 suits. It is therefore a 3 suited takeout.

Destructive? It is partially destructive, but so is a mini NT, or a weak 2, or a weak 3. And it is also constructive. You will be bidding to the correct level of the LAW. Partner may have a 5 card suit, so an 8 card fit at the 2 level is good, and even if he does not, a 4 card suit puts you into the right level if it is a lower ranking suit than theirs.

And face it - a RUNT does not guarantee 4 cards in opener's suit. You are allowed to make this bid with 4 cards in the takeout suits.

[awm]

I think the informal rule is that when playing in a "non-serious" game against much weaker opposition, it is rude to take actions (or play methods) which one knows to be unsound and which one would not use against decent players. It is true that certain such things will more effectively "take advantage" of weak players who have trouble dealing with unfamiliar situations, but doing things solely to take such advantage is deemed impolite (although not illegal and perfectly acceptable if weak players show up for a "serious" event).

So if you think RUNT is a good method, more power to you. But if you wouldn't play it against your peers and just whip it out at the club because LOLs (and LOM) have accidents against it, then you should reconsider your priorities.

[ggwhiz]

In the spirit of full disclosure, if your pard passes an opening suit bid, should you not alert that it denies 0-10 with 3+ cards in the unbid suits?

You would have to include "because we think you are really bad players" if those are the only ones you trot this thing out against.

Edit: I'm not sure it's legal to play this "some of the time" as opposed to "all of the time" which should land you in committee every time you fail to trot it out.

[aguahombre]

ggwhiz, on Mar 27 2010, 01:35 PM, said:

In the spirit of full disclosure, if your pard passes an opening suit bid, should you not alert that it denies 0-10 with 3+ cards in the unbid suits?

You would have to include "because we think you are really bad players" if those are the only ones you trot this thing out against.

Yes, but if you accidentally forgot to discuss the prowess of this pair in advance, there could be MI and UI problems, as well.

[Bbradley62]

Assuming that we're talking about a matchpoints game, I'm puzzled that everyone seems to agree that it's more profitable (leaving aside rules, ethics or sportsmanship) to do something strange against a weaker pair than against a stronger pair. When my college friends and I played in club games and tournaments, we were way more likely to do strange things against stronger pairs. Our logic was that we expected to get most of the matchpoints against weaker pairs by simply playing good bridge; we didn't want to jeopardize our expected 9 of 12 matchpoints to try to gain another 2 or 3. If we only expected 3 against the club sharks, we were willing to put those 3 at risk to hope to gain another 6.

[CSGibson]

Bbradley62, on Mar 27 2010, 02:56 PM, said:

Assuming that we're talking about a matchpoints game, I'm puzzled that everyone seems to agree that it's more profitable (leaving aside rules, ethics or sportsmanship) to do something strange against a weaker pair than against a stronger pair.  When my college friends and I played in club games and tournaments, we were way more likely to do strange things against stronger pairs.  Our logic was that we expected to get most of the matchpoints against weaker pairs by simply playing good bridge; we didn't want to jeopardize our expected 9 of 12 matchpoints to try to gain another 2 or 3.  If we only expected 3 against the club sharks, we were willing to put those 3 at risk to hope to gain another 6.

exactly the opposite is true. Bad players may be bad in situations they are familiar with, but they are horrible in pressure situations, and by creating those pressure situations, you enhance your ability to get tops against the bad pairs instead of maybe getting an average +.

Edit: One caveat to this - you have to be aware of the possibility of duplication of values. It's possible that partner has already taken opponents badness into account with his bidding...

[aguahombre]

CSGibson, on Mar 27 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

Bbradley62, on Mar 27 2010, 02:56 PM, said:

Assuming that we're talking about a matchpoints game, I'm puzzled that everyone seems to agree that it's more profitable (leaving aside rules, ethics or sportsmanship) to do something strange against a weaker pair than against a stronger pair.  When my college friends and I played in club games and tournaments, we were way more likely to do strange things against stronger pairs.  Our logic was that we expected to get most of the matchpoints against weaker pairs by simply playing good bridge; we didn't want to jeopardize our expected 9 of 12 matchpoints to try to gain another 2 or 3.  If we only expected 3 against the club sharks, we were willing to put those 3 at risk to hope to gain another 6.

exactly the opposite is true. Bad players may be bad in situations they are familiar with, but they are horrible in pressure situations, and by creating those pressure situations, you enhance your ability to get tops against the bad pairs instead of maybe getting an average +.

Edit: One caveat to this - you have to be aware of the possibility of duplication of values. It's possible that partner has already taken opponents badness into account with his bidding...

Does that mean you approve of playing different systems against different levels of players --from table to table? We already know your position that the 1NT bid with random 0-10 is legal.

You might assume this is a loaded question, but it is a simple one (honest). I agree with your last post, that the strategy of using it against weaker players is likely to result in a better overall score, as opposed to Bbradley's opposite view.

[CSGibson]

aguahombre, on Mar 27 2010, 03:36 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Mar 27 2010, 04:01 PM, said:

Bbradley62, on Mar 27 2010, 02:56 PM, said:

...

Does that mean you approve of playing different systems against different levels of players --from table to table? We already know your position that the 1NT bid with random 0-10 is legal.

You might assume this is a loaded question, but it is a simple one (honest). I agree with your last post, that the strategy of using it against weaker players is likely to result in a better overall score, as opposed to Bbradley's opposite view.

I have no position on whether it is legal - I don't know the laws, and have never used the bid. I do not approve of different systems at different tables. Even if it were legal, I don't think it would be conducive to a good score, as we would lose significant memory points. On the other hand, I do think it is legal - and advisable - to use your judgment when making calls, and part of that judgment is the quality of the opposition.

To put it another way, you may play michaels, but you don't have to bid michaels just because you are 5-5 in the majors, even if it meets your agreed range for the bid. You can use your judgment to decide what to do.

I think the same would occur with RUNT (again, having no experience with it). You certainly have it on your card, but there's nothing that makes you use the bid just because you have it available when you think the bid will be ineffective. And it isn't wrong just to trot the bid out vs weak opponents, as long as you don't have a different meaning for the bid vs strong opponents

edit: This is not intended as a judgment in any way of the ethics of using a bid to confuse weaker players.

[campboy]

aguahombre, on Mar 27 2010, 07:47 PM, said:

However, the lawyer types could probably find something in the rules of any jurisdiction to support their right to do this, like calling 3-3-3-4 a three-suited hand when the 4-card suit is the one opened in front of it.

This is nonsense of course. The ACBL rules clearly say that the only restriction is that it shows 3+ in all the other suits; they could easily have a more restrictive definition if they wanted to, such as "3+ in all other suits, with at least two being 4+", which used to be the EBU regulations for 3-suited opening bids at the 2-level (paraphrased).

The reason "the lawyer types" are able to say this is permitted under the GCC is either because the writers of the GCC wanted 4333 (with 4 in the bid suit) to be permitted, or because the regulation is badly written.

[mikeh]

I spoke with a National Director yesterday.

His reaction: he doesn't know if it is legal, It seems to comply with the definition of 3 suited takeout, but is also seemed to be a destructive method. However, the ACBL has been telling its directors (so he said) that the definition of destructive methods was to be narrowly construed...so he'd want to run this by head office.

His reaction was "if this came up to me, I would rule it illegal and make the player jump through the hoops to get the office to rule it legal before I would allow it'. But he felt there was at least some chance that the ACBL would rule it legal.

So the outcome of this consultation was that there is no definitive answer as to whether this method is acbl-legal....at least based on a very limited sample of one high-ranked director.

As a lawyer, btw, I resent the arguments about 'lawyer-types'. Lawyers, as with others, are not always about trying to bend the rules in their favour...my main objection to this method is based on what we lawyers call equity, and others call fairness. Since I cannot see any valid argument that this is anything other than destructive, as played by Ken, and as I see no indication that Ken would ever think of playing this against good players, I find it offends both fairness and at least this lawyer's view of the GCC statements....altho apparently the ACBL itslef is moving away from enforcement of their own rules.

[blackshoe]

mikeh, on Mar 28 2010, 04:19 AM, said:

As a lawyer, btw, I resent the arguments about 'lawyer-types'. Lawyers, as with others, are not always about trying to bend the rules in their favour...my main objection to this method is based on what we lawyers call equity, and others call fairness. Since I cannot see any valid argument that this is anything other than destructive, as played by Ken, and as I see no indication that Ken would ever think of playing this against good players, I find it offends both fairness and at least this lawyer's view of the GCC statements....altho apparently the ACBL itslef is moving away from enforcement of their own rules.

Lawyers, as a group, are unfortunately easy to pick on — and we've been doing it at least since Shakespeare's time. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it's not.

<obligatory jab> No, lawyers aren't always about bending the rules in their favor — they're about bending the rules in their clients' favor.</obligatory jab>

I agree with Mike — this seems a destructive method under ACBL regulations. I also agree with his National TD, in that as a destructive method it should be disallowed under those regulations.

Quote

apparently the ACBL itself is moving away from enforcement of their own rules.

Nothing new there. Personally, I think the ACBL can do better than "let's ignore our own rules" and "nobody's enforcing the rules we have, so let's make another rule telling them they have no choice". Oh, and then ignoring the new rule (if anyone hasn't guessed, I'm referring to the "zero tolerance" regulation).

[helene_t]

Maybe it's a correct assessment that this is a destructive methods so it is not gcc legal.

FWIW I don't think it's good idea to ban destructive methods per se. Not because I have much sympathy for people who use destructive methods (other than underdogs who use them when they think they need swings against stronger opposition, maybe) but it's just impossible to enforce in a way that is guaranteed to be unbiased.

It shouldn't be too difficult to achieve the same aim by specifying in a more technical way what can and can't be played. Something like putting a limit on how weak and how balanced an artificial and/or two-suited opening or overcall can be.

[campboy]

There is nothing in the regulations prohibiting destructive methods, so whether it is destructive or not seems irrelevant.

What is prohibited is

Quote

Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods.

Now, I don't see how this convention destroys opponents' methods, as they can play more-or-less what they would over a takeout double. Even if you think it does, one can certainly argue that its primary purpose is to find a playable spot at the 2-level on hands which might otherwise not be able to compete.

[aguahombre]

campboy, on Mar 28 2010, 08:12 AM, said:

There is nothing in the regulations prohibiting destructive methods, so whether it is destructive or not seems irrelevant.

What is prohibited is

Quote

Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the difference. Both passages contain a form of "destroy". So, the focus must be on "opponents' methods".

Am I wrong that HUM's are verbotten (the opponents haven't started their methods in the auction, yet and thus, no methods are being interfered with.

Yet, screw-around bids versus forcing club (like the random 1S overcall) have been tolerated for decades; these seem to be specifically attempts to destroy the opponents' methods.

As usual, I am confused.

(edit) "Primary purpose" aint it, either. CRASH over 1NT, or other bids with unknown suits above 2C --though destructive, are not the primary purpose for the convention. Yet we can't use them.

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on Mar 28 2010, 11:50 AM, said:

(edit) "Primary purpose" aint it, either. CRASH over 1NT, or other bids with unknown suits above 2C --though destructive, are not the primary purpose for the convention. Yet we can't use them.

Careful, there, Aqua. The prohibition against destructive methods applies at all levels. Crash is legal at MidChart, if I'm not mistaken.

[aguahombre]

Yeh, you are right about that. I shouldn't have caused that diversion from what I was trying to say.

[Phil]

LOL @ playing a treatment against club players you wouldn't play against top competition.

[campboy]

aguahombre, on Mar 28 2010, 04:50 PM, said:

"Primary purpose" aint it, either. CRASH over 1NT, or other bids with unknown suits above 2C --though destructive, are not the primary purpose for the convention. Yet we can't use them.

While you can't use CRASH et al over 1NT, that is because they are explicitly prohibited.

Quote

DEFENSE TO:
[...]
natural notrump opening bids and overcalls, except that direct calls,
other than double and two clubs must have at least one known suit.

So whether or not CRASH's primary purpose is to destroy opponents methods is irrelevant; there is a different rule which prohibits it. On the other hand, RUNT is explicitly permitted unless you judge that it falls foul of the clause I quoted in my previous post.