[Manastorm]

This stems from Bridgewinners again. Let's say a pair uses an agreement, but we know for a fact that it is not what they actually do. Maybe their 1NT range is too much off the target to the weak side, perhaps their 1♦ opening is not quite as natural as they claim. The pair is unaware that we know, and leave open the question, if they know what they are doing on purpose or by accident. We device our method, so that we do one thing against their disclosed method and another against their true method. In essence we hide our methods under the discrepancy between their real methods and what they disclose. What are the legal repercussions? Another issue is misinformation. Are we really misinformed, if we know what is going on. Say we don't act to the discrepancy at all, but wait for a favourable opportunity to toss the law book at the pair. Would we have a chance no matter, if the pair did it knowingly or not?

[pescetom]

It's not clear to me why or how you propose to hide your methods behind their discrepancy, can you give an example or name the BW article in question?


As for misinformation, for me you are misinformed unless you obtain the correct explanation. But you have a duty to inform the TD if you retain you were misinformed, so it's hard to see how this situation can persist, one way or another.

[Cyberyeti]

A pair play strong NT, you don't have a penalty dopuble against this, but you know they've opened a strong NT on 13 3 times against you. 1N-X "what's that ?","penalties", "you don't play a pen X against a strong NT", "YOU don't play a strong NT"

[Manastorm]

 Cyberyeti, on 2024-May-12, 08:34, said:

A pair play strong NT, you don't have a penalty dopuble against this, but you know they've opened a strong NT on 13 3 times against you. 1N-X "what's that ?","penalties", "you don't play a pen X against a strong NT", "YOU don't play a strong NT"

That was the thread I read also. It seems that in high level bridge balanced 13 is often opened with strong NT and noone is surprised. There was another thread earlier where Woolsey opened a real dog 10hcp balanced hand, which is worth 7.5 points in some sense. He was not amused to answer questions about hand evaluation. The same story noone was surprised by the bid on the level he plays, they all seem to know their habits well.

[Manastorm]

 pescetom, on 2024-May-12, 07:16, said:

It's not clear to me why or how you propose to hide your methods behind their discrepancy, can you give an example or name the BW article in question?

It is a recent small survey on what hands strong NT is opened in a high level tournament. Basicly a pair opened common 13s in 15-17bal range and noone was surprised. It made me think that it might be possible to use a variable defence depending on a discrepancy between a disclosed and a real range. If opponents tell false information and we know it, then they get our methods wrong. If they decide to tell the truth and believe we know the truth also, then no harm done.

[Manastorm]

Another example would be 1♦ opening. A pair might disclose it as 3+♦ most of the time. However we might know that it is not true based on hand evidence. Our 2♦ overcall could be either both majors , if 1♦ is 3+♦ most of the time and natural ♦ suit, if that is not true. Now opponents are in trouble, if they give false information.

[jillybean]

 Manastorm, on 2024-May-12, 09:18, said:

It is a recent small survey on what hands strong NT is opened in a high level tournament. Basicly a pair opened common 13s in 15-17bal range and noone was surprised. It made me think that it might be possible to use a variable defence depending on a discrepancy between a disclosed and a real range. If opponents tell false information and we know it, then they get our methods wrong. If they decide to tell the truth and believe we know the truth also, then no harm done.

Why don't we clean up and enforce the requirement to fully disclose your agreements?

[axman]

 Manastorm, on 2024-May-12, 05:33, said:

This stems from Bridgewinners again. Let's say a pair uses an agreement, but we know for a fact that it is not what they actually do. Maybe their 1NT range is too much off the target to the weak side, perhaps their 1♦ opening is not quite as natural as they claim. The pair is unaware that we know, and leave open the question, if they know what they are doing on purpose or by accident. We device our method, so that we do one thing against their disclosed method and another against their true method. In essence we hide our methods under the discrepancy between their real methods and what they disclose. What are the legal repercussions? Another issue is misinformation. Are we really misinformed, if we know what is going on. Say we don't act to the discrepancy at all, but wait for a favourable opportunity to toss the law book at the pair. Would we have a chance no matter, if the pair did it knowingly or not?

My experience with jumping from one rolling log to another much depends upon being on the same page with a partner that is defective when it comes to turning the page.

[mycroft]

Well I see that what I think is the thread discussed in the OP (run up by one of our regulars), there was "adequate disclosure" (on the SSF, there was a specific line for "1N = 14+-17. [Player] might be light esp. nobody vul." And guess what? The 13s - at least the 13s that don't look like good 14s - were from [Player].

And I can see how "lack of time" during announcements, or lack of space on the CC[1] might consign those tendencies to "Special Submission Forms". Which might not be available, or looked at, in an event like the local Regional Open Pairs.

I have asked the C&C Committee, more than once, to provide guidance on how to "Announce" deviations like this so that we're all using the same terminology. I'm sure you've seen my comments here about "is 1 14 enough to be "good 14-17"? Is "15% of balanced 14s"? How about "14s that don't look like 13s" (or "17s that don't look like 18s", for the "14+ to 17-" people)? Does "12-14. Rare 11s, especially mycroft" (which is what it says in my system notes[2]) work, or too much, or ? No such guidance seems to exist yet.

[1]As a plug for my LaTeX-template convention card generator, I will note that one of my "additions" is "if you only have one NT range, the space for the second range is replaced with a textbox for 'Style', where you can put in things like 'frequently upgrade 14s'."
[2]Okay, it doesn't. I think we all can work out (or you can look up, it's online) what it does actually say.

[P_Marlowe]

 Manastorm, on 2024-May-12, 05:33, said:

<snip>
Are we really misinformed, if we know what is going on.

Until you dont know, what is going on.

 Manastorm, on 2024-May-12, 05:33, said:

Say we don't act to the discrepancy at all, but wait for a favourable opportunity to toss the law book at the pair. Would we have a chance no matter, if the pair did it knowingly or not?

If you suspect their action deviate from their disclosure, you can call the TD, if the facts matches your suspicion,
in a perfect world, the TD would note the discrepancy, and the next time he gets called, would be able to rule on
misinformation.
Does it mean you get a fav. ruling the first time? No. But it is possible.

[barmar]

Quote

we do one thing against their disclosed method and another against their true method

How would you know whether a particular bid conformed to their disclosed method or their true method? Do you mean that you use a different defense against a particular pair, because you know they're lying in their disclosure?

I could have sworn there's a law or ACBL regulation prohibiting varying your agreements based on the identity of the opponents, but I can't find it right now. So you can't agree "We play MeckWell over strong 1NT, except when playing against MillWack."

However, if you "know full well" what the opponents are playing, I think it would be hard to claim damage when they deviate from their announced agreements.

In high-level games, if a team is far behind in the last quarter, "everyone knows" that they're going to start bidding crazily to try to generate swings. No one ever calls the TD because they're psyching on almost every hand, as long as their partner doesn't field it.

[mycroft]

Anybody who has an issue with the situation at hand ("you don't play a strong NT, despite claiming it is 14-16") deserves the director going after them for failure to disclose "agreed deviations". It is true that you can not vary your agreements based on the opponents ("we play takeout doubles except against players we don't think can declare"); but "we play 13 min as 'weak', and you have shown that your '14s' can be 13 often enough that you meet the category", provided you do in fact follow that with others that match - is a valid explanation of your agreement.

"But this is our declared agreement, how dare you defend against what we actually play?" is just as bad as "Of course opening a balanced 19 count in our shortest suit is Natural, what else could you possibly think?"

I have been known to "vary my agreements based on the opponents". With permission, in the clubs, where we played something nuts (even for us) against A players, but offered "normal bridge" to newer players. Knowing it's not legal, but it's still better for the game (and frankly, the only way *I* would allow that kind of silliness in my game if it was a "half A, half C" game).

Well, there's also the "I know playing with mycroft not to make a DSI double against [-] until I know my opening lead. Because he will always decide that defending is intelligent" line. Which isn't wrong (for bridge values of "always", anyway).

Now, the other issue here is "you can't vary your agreements during a session" - but we consider each match/segment of a team game as "a session". Yes, pre-registration of CCs etc., but "given what we've seen of your partnership, we're treating your 1NT opener as weak. We play [xxx] against weak NTs, just like the card says" seems appropriate.

It could boil down to the "we play Fishbein against aggressive preempts, takeout doubles against disciplined ones" vs "we play disciplined against pairs that have a penalty double, and aggressive if they don't" situation. I don't know where the line is between that and "we aggressively upgrade hands into 1NT if the opponents can't double for penalty, and upgrade 'normally' if they can"; or if it's even detectable. Or even if I care :-).