hrothgar, on Dec 14 2008, 09:16 AM, said:
JanM, on Dec 14 2008, 10:15 AM, said:
hrothgar, on Dec 13 2008, 09:48 PM, said:
Jan claims (or at least suggests) that certain classes of methods should be banned because the people used them do not provide adequate disclosure.
No, actually what I said (or at least intended to say) was that there are some methods for which it is intrinsically very difficult to provide adequate disclosure, and that is one of the reasons that those methods (such as strong pass) are barred. Certainly a disclosure method which included specific hands for specific bids would help, but when the purpose of a bid is to cause confusion (such as the multi 2
♥) it's not at all surprising that the proponents actually haven't given a lot of thought to what hands will be opened - they're going to throw the ball up and see what happens.
Fine: You want to focus on methods that are difficult to disclose rather than pairs that practice poor disclosure.
So be it...
This doesn't change the crux of my argument. If the disclosure system is broken, fix the disclosure system, don't ban the methods.
I would love to see you introduce a constructive component to this discussion rather than just complaining about methods, pairs you've encountered, what have you.
You seem to like to focus on on this multi 2
♥ opening. (You bring this same example and this same pair up almost every time this topic gets discussed)
Can you describe what you would consider adequate disclosure for this opening?
What do you need?
A WBF convention card?
A written description?
A representative sample of hands?
An algorithm written for dealer or some other program that generates hands?
If you can't describe what you want, there's very little hope that you're going to get it...
Then again, maybe that's the point
You consistently misunderstand what I'm saying. My reason for thinking that multi 2
♥ should be banned is that I do not believe it is possible to develop an adequate defense to the bid, in part because I do not believe that the proponents can provide an adequate description. For instance, Dr. Todd (I think) suggested that responder to the 2
♥ bid should choose whether to pass or bid based on suit length - if it seems more likely that the partnership has more hearts than spades, responder passes, else responder bids 2
♠. So with equal length, or with 2 hearts and fewer than 5 spades (if I'm understanding his formula correctly) responder will pass. That means that opener will be happier to open marginal hands with hearts. It also probably means that opener will be happier to open marginal hands with at least 2 and preferably cards in the other Major than hands with shortness in the other Major. So if I'm trying to develop a defense, I should probably act in immediate position as if opener has hearts. Ah, but now it becomes more attractive for opener to open marginal hands with spades, since my defense won't work so well against that. Of course, people aren't allowed to change their methods based on the opponents' defense. But changing marginal calls? Perhaps it won't even be a conscious change, just a realization that the hands with spades seem to be more effective.
And then, as Fred pointed out, there's the question of what actions the opener will take after 2
♥-P-P-DBL. If the DBL is takeout of hearts and opener knows that responder would have bid 2
♠ with 4 more spades than hearts, maybe opener should pass even with spades. But maybe not. And maybe what opener will do in this auction affects when responder should pass. It all gets very complicated. And that complexity makes it more and more difficult to devise an adequate defense. Which makes it more and more likely that the method shouldn't be allowed.
You've been beating up on me for explaining why I find certain methods particularly unacceptable, and you have chosen to focus on disclosure because you think that can be fixed. I keep saying that it isn't disclosure that is the primary concern, it's the fact that these are the sort of bids where the proponents really don't want to decide exactly what they'll bid and how they'll continue, because the primary purpose of the bid is to spread confusion and from their point of view, it just isn't worth the work to figure out the complexities that make preparation of an adequate defense possible. That isn't a criticism of the pairs who like to play these things, it's a criticism of the methods. They are more likely to be effective if they're fuzzy. The choice of whether a fuzzy method that is difficult to deal with should be allowed is up to the regulators, not the players - if it's allowed, and it gives you an advantage, play it. If it turns out that you can't adequately describe it (because you have, sensibly, devoted your energies to defining sequences in your constructive bidding, not in primarily destructive bidding), then you shouldn't be allowed to play it even if it's "allowed." If it turns out that no-one is going to be able to adequately describe it than it makes more sense to bar it outright than to have to go through the whole debate over whether a particular pair has done an adequate job of defining things.
I tend to use multi 2
♥ as my example, because it is such a good one. It really is very disruptive and very hard to defend against and very hard to define. 2
♣ 0-7 and not mandatory is even worse, but that hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) been played by a serious pair in over 15 years.
Jan Martel, who should probably state that she is not speaking on behalf of the USBF, the ACBL, the WBF Systems Committee, or any member of any Systems Committee or Laws Commission.