[gordontd]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-02, 18:45, said:

Right, and since there is no rectification available if I do this (apart from L23, which is a little far-fetched) I would rather not randomise my result. Naturally it will be randomised anyway, but if my opponents have to guess, it might not be too bad for me.

And if I have teammates, I am under an obligation to them to try to maximise my score on every hand. They will not be impressed if I refuse to take the penalty available because I am "a nice guy". But I play in games where calling the director and receiving rulings, including accepting advantages that they may involve, is not considered less nice than simply letting things go.

Nobody suggested you should do anything to be considered a nice guy. Indeed, nobody suggested you do anything. I pointed out that there are some players who are inclined to accept such calls because they believe they are more likely to get a real bridge auction that way than through the randomness of making their opponents guess at their first call.

[gnasher]

GordonTD said:

Accepting the call out of turn ensures a normal bridge auction, although not the same auction as would otherwise have taken place.

Vampyr said:

Right, and since there is no rectification available if I do this (apart from L23, which is a little far-fetched) I would rather not randomise my result. Naturally it will be randomised anyway, but if my opponents have to guess, it might not be too bad for me.

It's a shame that the laws don't allow us to have a normal auction starting with the player who would normally open the bidding, but with suitable protection for the non-offenders. (Sorry if that was a bit Nigel-like.)

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2013-April-03, 01:26, said:

Nobody suggested you should do anything to be considered a nice guy. Indeed, nobody suggested you do anything. I pointed out that there are some players who are inclined to accept such calls because they believe they are more likely to get a real bridge auction that way than through the randomness of making their opponents guess at their first call.

I think such players are not following the chief object which is to obtain a higher score than the opponent(s). You are never going to get a real bridge auction, because somebody has opened out of turn. Indeed I could not enter the actual auction using BBO software. There are some players who waive a revoke, who tell people to pick up penalty cards and allow misbids to be corrected. It is nothing to do with a real bridge auction. They are just being magnanimous.

I think that the correct action is to have an agreement regarding the 1NT bid out of turn. Best, I think, is to allow it with 0-7 points, and to disallow it with 8+. If it is corrected to 3NT, you should double with 12+ and pass with 8-11. That way when the Kingites bid 3NT after it is not accepted, they will usually be doubled when it is going off. I think that the Pass is alertable, but the refusal to accept the bid out of turn is not. I think that some RAs do not allow agreements over the opponents' infractions, but perhaps some one here will clarify that.

I would be disappointed if any teammate accepted a bid out of turn, just to get "a real bridge auction".

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 04:37, said:

I think such players are not following the chief object which is to obtain a higher score than the opponent(s).

Then I think you are wilfully misunderstanding what I said.

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 04:37, said:

You are never going to get a real bridge auction, because somebody has opened out of turn. Indeed I could not enter the actual auction using BBO software.

This is now the measure of a real bridge auction?

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 04:37, said:

There are some players who waive a revoke, who tell people to pick up penalty cards and allow misbids to be corrected. It is nothing to do with a real bridge auction. They are just being magnanimous.

They are not the people I am talking about, and that is not a strategy I ever advise.

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 04:37, said:

I think that the correct action is to have an agreement regarding the 1NT bid out of turn. Best, I think, is to allow it with 0-7 points, and to disallow it with 8+. If it is corrected to 3NT, you should double with 12+ and pass with 8-11. That way when the Kingites bid 3NT after it is not accepted, they will usually be doubled when it is going off. I think that the Pass is alertable, but the refusal to accept the bid out of turn is not. I think that some RAs do not allow agreements over the opponents' infractions, but perhaps some one here will clarify that.

The Orange Book says:

Quote

Under Law 40B3 (d) a pair is allowed to vary, by prior agreement, its
understandings during the auction and play consequent on an irregularity by
either side, except that following its own insufficient bid a partnership may not
change by prior agreement the meaning of a replacement call so that it is brought
within the criteria of Law 27B1 (b).

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 04:37, said:

I would be disappointed if any teammate accepted a bid out of turn, just to get "a real bridge auction".

You'd be glad if they did it and you got the normal 4S-1 contract rather than the abnormal 3NT=.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 04:37, said:

I think such players are not following the chief object which is to obtain a higher score than the opponent(s).

That might be your chief objective, but that doesn't mean it's everybody's chief objective. Many people play bridge primarily for enjoyment.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2013-April-02, 16:35, said:

When you have a strong NT, it is significantly odds against that you will have a game, perhaps 30%.

If we have 16 points, partner's expected strength is 8 points (24/3) and our expected total is 24. Does that make you want to reconsider your 30% figure?

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2013-April-03, 05:03, said:

Then I think you are wilfully misunderstanding what I said.

No, I was fully aware that you did not advocate their approach. I think you are the one misunderstanding. I thought "I think such players" would have been the giveaway.

gordontd, on 2013-April-03, 05:03, said:

You'd be glad if they did it and you got the normal 4S-1 contract rather than the abnormal 3NT=.

On this hand, yes. But on far more hands it will be an advantage to be given a second bite at the cherry. But then you knew that.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-03, 05:04, said:

That might be your chief objective, but that doesn't mean it's everybody's chief objective. Many people play bridge primarily for enjoyment.

I think one can play for enjoyment as well, but the chief objective under 72A is to do better than the opponent. Surely this forum must assume that aim.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-03, 05:20, said:

If we have 16 points, partner's expected strength is 8 points (24/3) and our expected total is 24. Does that make you want to reconsider your 30% figure?

I have done a simulation and get 41.2% for the chance of 3NT making. One thing that shocked me was how bad a bid 3NT really is. Assuming the opponents will double you when they have 17 points between their hands, bidding 3NT had an EV of -66.21 and bidding 1NT had an EV of +87.62. I am pretty sure that the right bid is 1NT, not Pass or 3NT. I would imagine a conversion to IMPs would be even worse for the 3NT bidder.

And here the opponents were doubling when one or other had a 10 count. I think a "strategy" would do even better. And the opponents do not have to worry about a redouble.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2013-March-30, 17:21, said:

When partner opens a strong no trump out of turn, you know that he is going to correct it to 3NT exactly 100% of the time. If I had a balanced 3-count, I would be this annoyed - . With a balanced 13, on which I would have simply raised to 3NT, much less so .

Do you still think it is right to open 3NT 100% of the time? If so, we should have a challenge match where you open 3NT and I open 1NT all the time, on that North hand, with the other hands randomly dealt. Despite your superior skill, I would expect to be quids in.

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 05:46, said:

Do you still think it is right to open 3NT 100% of the time? If so, we should have a challenge match where you open 3NT and I open 1NT all the time, on that North hand, with the other hands randomly dealt. Despite your superior skill, I would expect to be quids in.

Really? I will try a sim.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-03, 06:09, said:

Really? I will try a sim.

If the opponents never double 3NT it is narrowly right to bid it, +105.54 against +87.62. But there were 12 -1400s in my sim, which was 1000 trials.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 05:31, said:

I think one can play for enjoyment as well, but the chief objective under 72A is to do better than the opponent. Surely this forum must assume that aim.

Sorry, I hadn't realised that "chief object" was a quote from the Laws.

Anyway, I don't see why it is relevant. Law 72A doesn't require a player to try to maximise his score in any particular set of circumstances.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-03, 06:33, said:

Sorry, I hadn't realised that "chief object" was a quote from the Laws.

Anyway, I don't see why it is relevant. Law 72A doesn't require a player to try to maximise his score in any particular set of circumstances.

It requires the player to bear in mind that this is the chief object. So, dumping is fine, but condoning a bid out of turn to get a "normal bridge auction" when it is not in the player's interests would seem to contravene the main aim of playing bridge. To win.

[gordontd]

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 06:51, said:

It requires the player to bear in mind that this is the chief object. So, dumping is fine, but condoning a bid out of turn to get a "normal bridge auction" when it is not in the player's interests would seem to contravene the main aim of playing bridge. To win.

Those who do this have made the assessment that they are more likely to win when they avoid the randomising effect of a barred opponent. You may disagree with this, but to suggest it's a breach of L72A is ridiculous.

[PhilKing]

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 06:24, said:

If the opponents never double 3NT it is narrowly right to bid it, +105.54 against +87.62. But there were 12 -1400s in my sim, which was 1000 trials.

I did a manual 32 board sim with a strategy of doubling with decent 10 counts (this worked rather well, the light double being a sort of freeroll when you know teammates are in 1NT and it produced three 800s and one 1100). Over 32 hands the 1NT strategy won a high-scoring match 115 to 113. Had the conditions been game all, the penalties would obviously be bigger, but 3NT would have nudged it. The KQ tight of hearts hurt us a few times. I would expect a good 16 to favour 3NT.

3NT was a winner at pairs (or at least less bad), 1NT being too narrow a target, and 3NT scored more genuine tops through making when thin or on the lead.

[lamford]

PhilKing, on 2013-April-03, 07:16, said:

I did a manual 32 board sim with a strategy of doubling with decent 10 counts (this worked rather well, the light double being a sort of freeroll when you know teammates are in 1NT and it produced three 800s and one 1100). Over 32 hands the 1NT strategy won a high-scoring match 115 to 113. Had the conditions been game all, the penalties would obviously be bigger, but 3NT would have nudged it. The KQ tight of hearts hurt us a few times. I would expect a good 16 to favour 3NT.

3NT was a winner at pairs (or at least less bad), 1NT being too narrow a target, and 3NT scored more genuine tops through making when thin or on the lead.

Interesting. Stefanie thought 3NT might win at pairs too. Given that the expectancy is 8.0 tricks, it might be better to double on even less, as there is no redouble. Always doubling it was hugely better than never doubling it, despite the 11 950s. The contracts that were three or more off hurt declarer a lot. One problem with my sim is that it is Deep Finesse for both sides, so there will be no 3NT making on the lead! Declarer makes some very thin 3NT to balance those out.

[lamford]

gordontd, on 2013-April-03, 06:59, said:

Those who do this have made the assessment that they are more likely to win when they avoid the randomising effect of a barred opponent. You may disagree with this, but to suggest it's a breach of L72A is ridiculous.

I have never encountered these people who think that they will do better by allowing the bid out of turn, unless they intend to bid something. When I meet one of them I will try this 1NT third in hand out of turn, as it must be an advantage to get the 1NT bid in first. (Yes I know that I should not infract deliberately).

And how do you know that they have made such an assessment? Did you ask them?

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-April-03, 06:51, said:

It requires the player to bear in mind that this is the chief object.

No it doesn't. It doesn't require a player to do or think anything. All it does is states one of the objects of the game.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2013-April-03, 01:49, said:

It's a shame that the laws don't allow us to have a normal auction starting with the player who would normally open the bidding, but with suitable protection for the non-offenders. (Sorry if that was a bit Nigel-like.)

But how "normal" is it if one of the players has to bend over backwards to avoid using UI, or if the result is likely to be adjusted if things don't work out normally? But I see your point: you'd like to have the opportunity to try. Similar to the rule when a pair inadvertently starts bidding a board at the wrong table -- when they get to the correct table to play that board, they're allowed to start the board, and it's only adjusted if the auction goes differently than the first time.

Once the infraction occurs, something is going to be abnormal. So it's just a matter of picking your poison.