BBO Discussion Forums: The Loop - BBO Discussion Forums

bluejak, on 2013-February-26, 10:44, said:

Unfortunately, looking at the provisional calendars, the SBU Winter Fours is almost certain to clash again with the EBU Swiss Teams Congress in 2014. The situation is compounded by the first weekend of the Camrose being a week later and the Lady Milne trials in England, Wales and Scotland all happening on the last weekend in January. Clearly it would be preferable if these two events did not clash.

barmar, on 2013-February-26, 09:34, said:

It's communication between partners, and it's not by means of call or plays. Hence it's illegal.

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-26, 09:36, said:

The fact that it occurred does not mean that it is permitted by the ACBL regulations.

bluejak, on 2013-February-26, 10:44, said:

What about this?

ACBL General Conditions of Contest said:

Having both played multi and played against multi in ACBL events, I completely agree with Andy - you can't wait for the opponents to open 2♦, then look at your hand and decide what defense you are using. In theory, you need to agree before the round what defense you are going to use (whether your own or one of the ACBL's). In practice, when multi was allowed in pair events, I always told the opponents they could wait until we opened multi to decide which defense to use. That saved a bunch of time and in my experience it didn't hurt us. Now that multi is limited to events with longer rounds, I think that it is normal for the opponents to decide in advance what defense they are using - I've even (once) had an opponent ask for my written defense instead of either ACBL one, and I gave it to them .

My least favorite experience playing multi was back in the booklet days when one opponent thought they were playing one defense and the other thought they were playing the other one (behind screens) and things got horribly tangled. As a result, I print the two defenses on different sheets of paper and give them only the one they say they want to play.

As for the "loop" issue, I remember this coming up in the Bermuda Bowl in Jamaica - that was a long time ago and I can't remember for certain what the opening bid was, but I have a vague recollection that it was either a strong pass or a fert, where the people using the method wanted to change the meaning depending on the defense. I know that eventually someone figured out that they couldn't do that, but I'm afraid that's as far as my memory goes!

The "act first, commit first" principle seems like a normal approach to resolving the loop situation, and has at least a penumbra of support in the Laws.

I read about another situation with a similar loop, in a minor-league baseball game, where a switch-hitting batter faced a pitcher who could throw with either hand. (For the non-Yanks, batting from one side of home plate has a slight advantage over the other depending on whether the pitcher is right- or left-handed. Some batters can hit from either side and thus choose according to which hand the pitcher throws with.)

Anyway, switch hitters are not uncommon in baseball but ambidextrous pitchers are rare, and in this case neither wanted to commit first. The umpire quite sensibly told the pitcher to choose.

GreenMan, on 2013-February-26, 16:50, said:

Now this ruling I disagree with vehemently. In baseball, the batter typically takes their position before the pitcher even gets the signal from the Catcher. I see no basis in the rules for the pitcher committing to a throw with a particular hand. If, after seeing which hand the pitcher is choosing, the batter wished to switch, they can ask the umpire for time, which the upmire is under no obligation to grant. Naturally, the pitcher can choose whichever hand they like once they get the signal again. If I as asked to choose as a pitcher I would say "I feel like pitching left-handed at this moment," then line up right-handed after the batsman took position. if questioned, "I changed my mind." It would have been interesting if the pitcher's coach had asked the umpire under which Law he was ruling, in the same way as players can ask a TD.

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-27, 05:45, said:

But while the pitcher is in his windup would you allow the batter to switch sides? He sort of can (although the timing and getting set to swing may be hard to carryoff). And the pitcher needs to put his back foot on the rubber, so the hitter could change based on that (or based on which hand the pitcher was wearing his six fingered glove). Making the pitcher choose first is best in baseball.

Mbodell, on 2013-February-27, 07:18, said:

Absolutely. He does not get to walk if he gets hit in the middle though!

If this baseball tangent goes on much longer, I think it will need to be split out to Water Cooler.

barmar, on 2013-February-27, 10:05, said:

Can we please first have a discussion about splitting the thread?

If I was as humorless as some people think I am, I would lock this thread now.

How about splitting off all the sub-threads first and then locking them all one by one?

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-27, 05:45, said:

It is rule 8.01(f). The pitcher has to declare to umpire in chief, base runners, and batter what hand he intends to pitch with, usually by wearing fielder's glove on the other hand. Once pitcher has done that he can not change hands during the current at bat.

If it is declared in the rules then there is no issue is there? Just as there is no issue in bridge if you declare a full set of agreements (including a default case for any conditionals that are incomplete).

DuaneC, on 2013-February-28, 07:17, said:

Thanks for this, I didn't know the situation was covered in the rulebook. (Maybe it wasn't at the time I read about the incident -- that was <cough> years ago.)

But don't most sponsoring authorities have a similar rule, namely, that you must declare a system, including NT range(s), at the start of a session (or match or segment in a team game) and not change it until the next? System can vary by seat and vulnerability but not by opponent? Wouldn't that break the Loop right at the start? Maybe I missed that discussion earlier in the thread ...

GreenMan, on 2013-February-28, 10:59, said:

In the EBU you can change your methods based on the opponents. I don't know about other jurisdictions.

GreenMan, on 2013-February-28, 10:59, said:

Even where varying by opponent is prohibited, that's not what is being suggested in the loop. You're varying based on the opponent's system, not the opponents themselves.

The point being made is that your NT defense is just as much a part of your "system" as your opening NT range. We clearly allow varying NT defense based on the opponent's system, so there's nothing that obviously prohibits varying the NT range based on the opponent's system. Things only become difficult when the dependencies of two opposing pairs are linked in a loop.

The Laws don't currently make a distinction between areas of agreements -- constructive bidding, defensive bidding, and carding -- so they're no help in solving this problem. I think NBOs and directors have simply taken it into their own hands -- they need a way to get the players out of the loop, so they've decided that it makes more sense to give constructive bidding methods precedence.

barmar, on 2013-February-28, 12:56, said:

What I meant was, you can't change your system just because you've changed table opponents. Or to put it another way, "opponents" meant "the people and their bidding agreements".

Quote

That's a useful summary. Thanks. In my thinking I treat defensive and constructive bidding differently, one is "system" and one is "reaction", but you make a good point that the Laws do not so we are where we are.

Zelandakh, on 2013-February-28, 07:53, said:

In bridge there would be no issue if the rules required a full set of agreements (which they do not) or, which is much more practical, if they would require opening side to provide unconditional agreement for its first bid (which they also do not at present, but about which apparently there is an implicit agreement between TDs).