[hrothgar]

TimG, on Jul 1 2010, 06:59 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 1 2010, 10:45 AM, said:

A second seat opening is a defense against the first seat pass.

Does that mean system regulations should be rewritten to include "defenses of first seat passes" rather than "second seat openings".

It strikes me as a semantic distinction

[JoAnneM]

If you have 5-10 written on your cc and you open with 13 in 3rd seat, on a frequent basis with your regular partner, it seems to me that the opponents have a right to know that, since your partner already knows it. I believe it is called a partnership agreement.

[FrancesHinden]

helene_t, on Jul 1 2010, 04:45 PM, said:

What you can't do is vary your methods depending on what defense opps are playing against them. A second seat opening is a defense against the first seat pass. So you can't vary your first seat pass depending on the meaning of opps' 2nd seat openings.

Yes you can.

The interpretation that many people are referring to is the resolution of the recursive problem. If I say "I play take-out doubles if you play sound pre-empts and penalty doubles if you play random preempts" and you say "I play sound pre-empts if and only if you play penalty doubles" then you are stuck in an infinite loop.

The standard resolution of that loop is that the side going first has to declare its methods first.

This is different to deciding on your system in first seat if the opponents have already defined their 2nd seat openings.

[bill1157]

JoAnneM, on Jul 1 2010, 11:18 AM, said:

If you have 5-10 written on your cc and you open with 13 in 3rd seat, on a frequent basis with your regular partner, it seems to me that the opponents have a right to know that, since your partner already knows it. I believe it is called a partnership agreement.

Some of this, though, might just be common sense. If partner is a passed hand, it makes sense that there would be alot of leeway in my openings, preempts (passes) etc since pd is limited to 11 hcp.
This isn't a question of ethics and in the past would have been regarded as a legitimate bridge tactic.

Bill.

[hrothgar]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 1 2010, 10:49 PM, said:

The standard resolution of that loop is that the side going first has to declare its methods first.

This is different to deciding on your system in first seat if the opponents have already defined their 2nd seat openings.

In what way, shape, or form can the side that bids second be construed as "going first"?

[helene_t]

FrancesHinden, on Jul 1 2010, 08:49 PM, said:

The standard resolution of that loop is that the side going first has to declare its methods first.

This is different to deciding on your system in first seat if the opponents have already defined their 2nd seat openings.

I don't understand this.

N is dealer. NS specify the meaning of a 1st seat pass. Now EW can define their 2nd seat opening scheme based on this.

Suppose you encounter a pair that plays Lorenzo, i.e. 1st seat pass is 8-11 points (fwiw this is not a HUM so will be allowed in most places, though not in EBU-land I think). You normally play standard methods but you agree with p that when this pair is dealer and passes in first seat, you will play strong club instead.

Now they say: "Oh you play strong club in second seat? Then we don't play Lorenzo in first seat against you".

It seems to me an example of the "loop".

[cherdanno]

I think Richard and Helene have spent too much time thinking about problems that don't exist in the real world.
In the real world, your second seat opponents tell you, if you ask them, "we play strong club" or "we play 2/1" or "we play ACOL", they don't tell you "we play strong club if you play SEF and 2/1 if you play Polish club". In that case, you can decide to play MisIry against ACOL, polish club against strong club and SEF against 2/1.
But I guess, that case is so remote in a BBF discussion that Frances' point got completely lost.

[helene_t]

So in the real world, it is the second-seat pair that has to specify their methods first, and then the first-seat pair has the privilege to decide which system to play afterwards?

I find that very strange.

Or is it that in the real world, you can always alter your method depending on opps' methods because the chance that they will then subsequently alter their methods is nil?

But OK of course in the real real world, nobody plays different systems depending on which system opps play so of course it doesn't matter.

[TimG]

helene_t, on Jul 2 2010, 07:02 AM, said:

But OK of course in the real real world, nobody plays different systems depending on which system opps play so of course it doesn't matter.

That may be the case the vast majority of the time, but I can imagine a situation (in a place far, far away from ACBL) where a pair wants to play a different system against a forcing pass pair in a serious event, especially if the forcing pass opponents are considered favorites and there is ample time to prepare ahead of time.