use of written defenses (ACBL)
#1
Posted 2013-July-27, 15:08
#2
Posted 2013-July-27, 16:06
#3
Posted 2013-July-27, 16:18
An example that came up in actual play: the opps opened something like multi 2D. I had a good takeout of spades. I read through the recommended defense; I was supposed to pass and come back in with a takeout double after the opps correct to spades. Probably my interest in the defense tipped off LHO because he psyched a pass. Now my partner with a balanced 9-count was unsure whether he HAD to pass because my reading of the defense was UI which suggested reopening.
#4
Posted 2013-July-27, 16:40
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
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
#5
Posted 2013-July-28, 01:27
blackshoe, on 2013-July-27, 16:40, said:
For most people that's untrue. If quiddity would pass without reading the defence when he has a bad hand, then obviously reading the defence suggests a good hand.
chrism said:
This applies to lots of situations in bridge. It's more common in cases where you might want to know your opponents' methods, rather than here where you might want to know what your own methods are.
An alternative is to look only when you need to, and live with the UI. Or look when you need to and some of the time that you don't; and hope that this reduces the UI by enough.
#6
Posted 2013-July-28, 01:47
gnasher, on 2013-July-28, 01:27, said:
Does it? Does this depend on whether his partner knows his habits? IAC, perhaps I should have said a priori it doesn't meet the criteria of law 16.
How far shall we go with this? The way the law is written, anything might convey UI. Should we as players assume that partner has always given us UI somehow, and then try to figure out how to avoid taking advantage of whatever UI we might have been given? Worse yet, must we work out the LAs, and which ones could demonstrably have been suggested over which other ones? How long do we want a round to take?
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
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
#7
Posted 2013-July-28, 03:46
blackshoe, on 2013-July-28, 01:47, said:
If partner didn't know quiddity's habits, he could rely on his experience of bridge players. I think almost all players in quiddity's situation, holding a bad hand, would never even think of perusing the defence. What did you do the last time RHO opened a Multi and you had a balanced 9-count?
To avoid giving UI you should either memorise a defence, or follow a policy of reading the defence in this situation (if not always, then a lot of the time). To avoid making partner think he has UI, you should tell him in advance that you're going to do this. To avoid the appearance of UI, you should tell everyone else about the steps you take to avoid giving UI, for example by repeatedly mentioning it on an Internet discussion forum.
The alternative, as I said, is to give UI and live with the consequences.
Quote
No, but we should assume that partner has given us UI when he has, in fact, done so.
Quote
Yes, that's one of your obligations when you have received UI.
Quote
Well, I do find that I need longer for a round than most people. I don't think that UI or the avoidance of UI is the main reason, though.
#8
Posted 2013-July-28, 09:15
#9
Posted 2013-July-28, 15:35
#10
Posted 2013-July-28, 16:43
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
#11
Posted 2013-July-28, 19:27
awm, on 2013-July-28, 16:43, said:
Agreed -- and it is doubly shady to throw in a psych on that basis!
Incidentally, what does it even mean to "psych a pass" in the situation described? I think that when someone psychs, they are pretending to have the hand described by the call psyched. But there is no hand that would pass a multi-2D opening, surely? I suppose someone might think about passing with xx/x/Jxxxxxxx/xx, but isn't multi forcing?
#12
Posted 2013-July-28, 19:53
bixby, on 2013-July-28, 19:27, said:
- When your Multi has no strong option, not-vulnerable, it seems natural and sensible to pass on some weak hands.
- Even when you have a strong option, at matchpointed pairs, it is sometimes sensible to pass, on frequency grounds (e.g. if your strong option is 4441 18+ HCP)
- In a variety of circumstances, when RHO shows great interest in proceedings, you may tactically judge that silence is golden.
- The Orange-book used to state that you were expected to bid if game was possible opposite the strong option. In my experience, however, that rule was not enforced.
It's surprising that US players use the Multi, given the handicaps imposed on its use by the ACBL. Elsewhere, players seem to treat it with equanimity
#13
Posted 2013-July-28, 21:05
nige1, on 2013-July-28, 19:53, said:
Except like, the WBF? They allow written defenses that you can consult.
#14
Posted 2013-July-28, 21:15
![:rolleyes:](http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)
You still must review (or pretend to read) the stuff each time to be consistent, so mine is really a separate question.
#15
Posted 2013-July-28, 22:11
awm, on 2013-July-28, 16:43, said:
I don't see how this can be when the laws specifically allow a player to draw inferences from his opponents tempo.
Additionally there is no requirement to use a prepared defense. You can do so for your benefit at your choice but that does not mean that you will not also have costs with using the defense such as the opponent getting a read on you.
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
Bidding is an estimation of probabilities SJ Simon
#16
Posted 2013-July-28, 23:15
Cascade, on 2013-July-28, 22:11, said:
Additionally there is no requirement to use a prepared defense. You can do so for your benefit at your choice but that does not mean that you will not also have costs with using the defense such as the opponent getting a read on you.
Somehow this does not seem right. The written defences are there for the benefit of the defenders, since a decision was made that players are not required to learn defences to certain conventions. There should not be a cost associated with using them; I feel strongly about this, but have difficulty explaining why.
By the way, do they still give out the little booklet? If not, is there a way to access all of the ACBL approved defences?
#17
Posted 2013-July-28, 23:27
Vampyr, on 2013-July-28, 23:15, said:
I believe they do, but just in case: http://www.acbl.org/...sedatabase.html
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
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
#18
Posted 2013-July-29, 00:27
blackshoe, on 2013-July-28, 23:27, said:
Ta.
#19
Posted 2013-July-29, 13:18
As a player who frequently plays oddball systems/ systems with lots of alerts, I take it as one of my downsides that they will pass UI, they will use it, and there's nothing I can do about it except hope they'll be reasonably ethical. Having said that, 4 questions on an unAlerted WJS "because they play weird stuff all the time, and I just wanted to know" (oh, and I have a penalty double of the WJS) was a bit over the top.
#20
Posted 2013-July-30, 01:48
gnasher, on 2013-July-28, 03:46, said:
Well, an opening 2♦ is a stop bid. In the EBU, where I am, I'm required to pause, and I'm required not to show indifference when pausing. If I were to pause while obviously not looking at my hand, this would be showing indifference, and, if written defences to multi were permitted in the EBU and I was using one, I don't see why pausing without looking at the defence would be any better.