[Bende]

This is a question I haven't been able to get a satisfactory answer to in other bridge forums. If users on this forum have some insight I would be very interested to hear.

In major tournaments, pairs have to send in their systems beforehand. However, what is required seems only to be a filled in convention card, not the entire system. Why is that? At the table, you are allowed to know all details that the opponents are aware of through their agreements but apparently it is not required that you document these agreement and allow your opponents to prepare before the tournament.

Even stranger is that, as I understand it, some pairs send in their full system notes to the organizers before the tournament in case there will be some director call where it may be advantageous for them to have their agreements documented. Why are these notes not made available to other pairs (and for that matter to the public) and how does this fit with the idea of full disclosure?

[Free]

Basically the most relevant situations are the first few rounds of bidding. What's the point of knowing beforehand what 1♣-1♥-2♦-2♥-2♠-3♦ means for example? It may even never come up. So it seems acceptable that only the most relevant situations are made public beforehand because there's a big chance they'll come up, as well as special cases (certain conventions, special openings like BSC's,...). Note that for example BSC's, usually require public and full disclosure of the method beforehand and maybe even suggested defenses. This is relevant because usually these methods are pretty common and actually require a special defense.

Another point is that many pairs aren't happy with sharing their entire system notes. This is definitely understandable, they put hours, days, even months of work in it, and all of a sudden they would have to share it with the entire world. A pair may have worked out a method to gain an advantage when a certain situation comes up, but when they would have to share this up front, the advantage would be neutralized.

EDIT: just to make things clear, I'm not advocating people shouldn't disclose their methods when they come up, I'm not approving hidden agreements. Full disclosure is always required. I'm just advocating that they shouldn't give away every advantage they may have prepared up front. Compare it with chess: teams analyze games and prepare alternative lines to gain a bigger advantage than the player got in the original game. While a chess board and it's pieces never hide any information (similar to full disclosure), the team's preparation is only known by the player sitting at the table. If the situation occurs, the opposition will suddenly have a hard time.

[aguahombre]

Free, on 2011-June-27, 08:38, said:

A pair may have worked out a method to gain an advantage when a certain situation comes up, but when they would have to share this up front, the advantage would be neutralized.

It is unclear to me whether you are advocating this failure to disclose or merely pointing out why the pair would not want to.

If you are referring to a method to nail opponents for frivolous interference or use their interference to advantage, for example, I would not want to pre-disclose that either, and don't think I should have to.

[ArtK78]

Free, on 2011-June-27, 08:38, said:

Another point is that many pairs aren't happy with sharing their entire system notes. This is definitely understandable, they put hours, days, even months of work in it, and all of a sudden they would have to share it with the entire world. A pair may have worked out a method to gain an advantage when a certain situation comes up, but when they would have to share this up front, the advantage would be neutralized.

If what you are saying is that this pair has discussed a particular situation in advance and has worked out a method for handling it, but they don't want to disclose their agreement as it would eliminate their advantage, then this is just wrong.

Perhaps you are saying something else, but I don't know what it is.

[aguahombre]

ArtK78, on 2011-June-27, 08:53, said:

If what you are saying is that this pair has discussed a particular situation in advance and has worked out a method for handling it, but they don't want to disclose their agreement as it would eliminate their advantage, then this is just wrong.

Perhaps you are saying something else, but I don't know what it is.

The thread is about submitting information in advance of an event. I am sure no one is suggesting failure to disclose at the table.

[Bende]

Free, on 2011-June-27, 08:38, said:

Another point is that many pairs aren't happy with sharing their entire system notes. This is definitely understandable, they put hours, days, even months of work in it, and all of a sudden they would have to share it with the entire world. A pair may have worked out a method to gain an advantage when a certain situation comes up, but when they would have to share this up front, the advantage would be neutralized.

Your last paragraph is exactly my point . I understand full well that pairs do not wish to share their system notes. There is no advantage whatsoever for them in doing so. Still, knowing the weakness in their system could be useful in a match, for example to decide when they are at most vulnerable to a preempt or a weakish overcall.

The line is obviously drawn somewhere, as pairs are required to submit some but not all of their system notes. It is just not clear to me where that line is and why it is there in the first place. Why should my opponents have the right to know what my 4C opening means but not my methods of dealing with a two level overcall of a nebulous opening or whether I can make a penalty double when they interfere with my relays for example (I have no idea what is required in these cases; these were just examples to illustrate a point).

[hrothgar]

ArtK78, on 2011-June-27, 08:53, said:

If what you are saying is that this pair has discussed a particular situation in advance and has worked out a method for handling it, but they don't want to disclose their agreement as it would eliminate their advantage, then this is just wrong.

Perhaps you are saying something else, but I don't know what it is.

Perhaps it would be useful to provide a practical example

My team of numnuts decides that we are going to enter the Spingold.
We are assigned the very worst seed possible.
We get matched versus Mechwell in the first round.
There are (potentially) apocryphal stories that Meckwell's system notes extend to 1,000+ pages.

Should my partner and I be able to force Meckwell to provide us with their system notes?

I don't know what the right answer is to this question, however, I think that Free is dead on when he states that Meckwell is unlikely to share their systems notes in advance.

(Please note, I am choosing Meckwell as an example since they are well known for maintain volumious sets of notes and a reasonable chose for a first seed in the Spingold. I do not mean to imply that they are more or less likely to share their notes than any other top rated pair)

[awm]

Pairs differ wildly in the amount of detail and documentation in their notes. Requiring that all notes be disclosed prior to a match effectively puts pairs who have thorough notes at a disadvantage, since they would have to disclose more information than pairs with less extensive documentation (but possibly equally extensive, verbally discussed agreements). Then you have pairs where their notes are hand-written and maybe unreadable, or in another language, etc.

Of course, pairs are required to have a filled-out and readable convention card so asking them to disclose this doesn't create any of the above issues. And the convention card is (well, should be anyway) designed to include the early rounds of bidding and the most common things opponents will need to know.

[barmar]

The main purpose of submitting the system information in advance is so that opponents can make sure they have defenses prepared. This is generally only needed at the level of major system features, not all the little details. You don't need to know all their agreements about when a pass is forcing, or which auctions are Minorwood, etc. to prepare your defense.

[barmar]

Bende, on 2011-June-27, 09:00, said:

Your last paragraph is exactly my point . I understand full well that pairs do not wish to share their system notes. There is no advantage whatsoever for them in doing so. Still, knowing the weakness in their system could be useful in a match, for example to decide when they are at most vulnerable to a preempt or a weakish overcall.

What kind of information do you think would be in the detailed notes, but not the system card, that would be helpful for this? If they have different NT ranges in different vulnerabilities or seats, that should be on the card.

[MrAce]

Bende, on 2011-June-27, 08:23, said:

Even stranger is that, as I understand it, some pairs send in their full system notes to the organizers before the tournament in case there will be some director call where it may be advantageous for them to have their agreements documented. Why are these notes not made available to other pairs (and for that matter to the public) and how does this fit with the idea of full disclosure?

Do u know how much it will cost you to get the system notes of Meckwell or another top pair in world ? I dont know how much nowadays but a while ago it was a lot. (at least lot for me) You can't get very famous pair's full system documentation by simply registering to a major open event they play. As Free already said that would not be fair.

So answer to your question is the economical value of the system(s) perhaps.

[peachy]

Free, on 2011-June-27, 08:38, said:

A pair may have worked out a method to gain an advantage when a certain situation comes up, but when they would have to share this up front, the advantage would be neutralized.

This sort of thinking is what bothers me a lot. You seem to say that it is okay to gain an advantage from hidden agreements that opponents are not informed of. I sure hope I have misunderstood in some way.

[Mbodell]

peachy, on 2011-June-27, 23:13, said:

This sort of thinking is what bothers me a lot. You seem to say that it is okay to gain an advantage from hidden agreements that opponents are not informed of. I sure hope I have misunderstood in some way.

A lot of people have jumped on the original post, like peachy has here, but I don't think Free was implying that. I think it was more if you have a convention that you worked on a lot that you think is nifty, maybe you want to keep it to yourself so others don't adopt it. Of course you'll tell your opponents when it comes up, but you don't want your opponents to use it against you.

Say the world only knows about regular blackwood and you and your partner have just invented keycard blackwood. Free is saying it is ok if you don't want to teach the world keycard blackwood by publishing your keycard blackwood notes, but if you have a hand where you bid keycard you'll explain to your opponents what has happened. Continue for whatever invention you have [except limited to things that would be in notes, but wouldn't be covered in convention cards].

[Bende]

I understand that the reason a pairs entire system notes are not made available are because they do not want to share their nifty agreements. I don't really have an objection to this either. What I don't understand is where the line is drawn between what must be shared and what does not have to be shared.

For example, if I play some version of multi, I must inform my opponents before the tournament so they can prepare a defense. However, I don't have to inform them (I think) about which run-out schemes I use when they double my 1NT opening, even though that may very well be useful to know in advance.

What about defenses to nebulous openings? If over a nebulous 1m, I play a lot of either-or bids like 1♥ = ♥ or ♠ for example, do my opponents have the right to prepare their responses to this defense? Or is that like the RKCB analogy in that I don't have to tell my opponents of my invention and they have to find out when I explain the bid at the table?

[Free]

Since many people think I'm advocating hidden agreements, I edited my original post. Hidden agreements are no part of this game, it would be ridiculous to encourage them. We're discussing why people should or shouldn't publish their entire system.

What I meant to say was that, for example, a pair may have found a killer defense against multi. Other pairs who don't play multi shouldn't be aware of this (same for pairs they won't even encounter), otherwise all these other pairs may gain that the same advantage when they are playing against another pair playing multi.
Even a pair that plays multi themselves shouldn't be aware of this imo, but that's close to some border and I don't feel that strongly about that actually.

[blackshoe]

The laws say that the Regulating Authority specifies how disclosure is to be made. So whatever regulations have been put in place, that's what you do. If the regulations say you have to provide a completed system card two weeks in advance of the tournament, you do that. If the regulations say "you must provide a copy of your complete system notes", then you do that, or you don't play in the tournament. AFAIK, no RA requires the latter, so Meckwell and others are safe for the moment, at least.

Explanations at the table are different. There you must fully disclose all inferences available to you by partnership agreement or experience. So it may be appropriate to show opponents selected parts of your 800 pages of system notes when they are pertinent. OTOH, you will find many players don't want to read even a system card. As one player rather superciliously said to me once "I don't look at convention cards. I ask questions." As this was in response to my suggestion that the answer she was trying to beat out of my novice partner was clearly written on the card, I called the TD, but that's another issue altogether.