[gombo121]

Recently I've get interested in the problem of the Loop (a clash between condional agreements of two pairs which creates an infinite cycle like "we play penalty double against weak NT, conventional otherwise" - "we play strong NT if opponents use penalty doubles, weak NT otherwise").

After reading fascinating archives of this forum I am left with two questions:
1) What was the official decision (if any) in Fred Gitelman's case four years ago? http://www.bridgebas...k-legal-opinion

2) In the course of the discussion several peoples stated that the Loop is resolved (at least in some jurisdictions) by requiring opening side to state its agreements first; I'm interested in reference to the appropriate rules - can anyone help?

Thank you in advance and sorry for beating old dead horse - it is not that old for some of us

[campboy]

(1NT*) dbl is one auction, (1NT**) dbl is a completely different auction, so there is no reason why doubling should have the same meaning, any more than it should have the same meaning as (1♠) dbl. 1NT is the same auction as 1NT, so there should be a defined meaning.

*weak **strong

[gombo121]

It is defined - just tell me what defense are you playing

What you are probably trying to say is that it should be defined independently of opposing methods. And that is exactly my second question - which regulation says so?

[campboy]

Law 40A2, essentially. This tells you what you're allowed to base the meaning of calls on, and it includes the prior auction. So when you get to the point that opponents have opened 1NT you are allowed to determine your defence based on its range. But when you get to the point of wanting to open 1NT you can't determine the range based on something that hasn't happened yet.

If you happen to know that your current opponents' defence does not depend on the strength of 1NT, you are permitted* to use that information to determine which range you will play, but they are under no obligation to use the same defence to both, and if they don't you are stuck.

*that is, it is not forbidden by the laws; your RA may have a regulation requiring you to play the same range against all opponents.

[mjj29]

IOW: you can have a system you play against people who penalty double 1NT, a system you play against people who don't penalty double 1NT, but you also need a system you play against people who penalty double a weak NT but not a strong NT.

[gombo121]

Nope, Law 40A2 won't work - you can look into their CC or just ask before start of the round and information you get is authorized.

 campboy, on 2013-February-17, 05:32, said:

If you happen to know that your current opponents' defence does not depend on the strength of 1NT, you are permitted* to use that information to determine which range you will play, but they are under no obligation to use the same defence to both, and if they don't you are stuck.

Yes, you are stuck and so are they (if you asked first) and it is the Loop.

I'm pretty sure that main body of the Laws does not resolve it. I'm interested in regulations by different RA that do and how they handle it.

[campboy]

 gombo121, on 2013-February-17, 06:13, said:

Nope, Law 40A2 won't work - you can look into their CC or just ask before start of the round and information you get is authorized.

Their CC will just say "penalty vs weak NT and [conventional meaning] vs strong NT". That is a satisfactory explanation of their agreements. No law entitles you to ask questions before the round starts so if you try that they won't answer. (Well, they're reasonable people so if you want to ask "does 14-16 count as strong" they will tell you but if you ask "does our 1NT count as strong" all you will get is "that depends what range it is".)

There is nothing in the laws or any regulation I have ever heard of which requires them to say unconditionally what defence they are using until after you open 1NT and they hear what range it is. You, on the other hand, need to know what range you're playing before you open 1NT.

[pran]

A similar question came up many (25?) years ago in Norway:
A partnership decides to use weak, preemptive suit openings on the three level when opponents will double three-level openings for takeout and strong three level openings when opponents will double three level openings for penalty. (Or was it the other way round?)

The instructions given to us at a TD seminar was that you cannot vary your opening bids depending on opponents' response structures, and opponents need not make any response agreements until they know what they are defending against.

[LH2650]

This is covered by Law 40B2(a). In the ACBL version of the Laws, under Elections by the ACBL Board of Directors (at the back of the book), it requires that both sides present a system. The only changes allowed thereafter are defenses to opponents' "special understandings and preemptive bids".

[aguahombre]

 pran, on 2013-February-17, 09:23, said:

A similar question came up many (25?) years ago in Norway:
A partnership decides to use weak, preemptive suit openings on the three level when opponents will double three-level openings for takeout and strong three level openings when opponents will double three level openings for penalty. (Or was it the other way round?)

I know you are joking about the "other way round". Good one.

[bluejak]

Personally I have always believed that the Loop is an imaginary problem. If I agree to defend weak pre-empts with penalty doubles and strong pre-empts with takeout doubles that is my defence. They can play what they like. If they say "How do you defend to our pre-empts?" I just tell them that.

[iviehoff]

Surely the relevant law here is 40A1b which requires you to give the opponents your methods at the start of the round. A definition like "weak if your defence is take-out, strong if it's penalty" fails to define your methods, since you can write your defence in the terms that Bluejak writes.

You could try harder with your conditional definition, but I think it can always be negated, for rather similar reasons that if you could travel back in time you could kill your father before you were born. For example, if I put something in my defence something like "but something else if they use conditional methods", I've probably just made your attempt at conditionality incomplete or paradoxical.

So I think I would always reject conditional methods, ie conditional upon the defence selected, as being impossible to define properly.

Basically I think people who try to have methods conditional upon defences are relying on their opponents not having the time/effort fully to specify their defences to make that nugatory.

[Zelandakh]

How about: "Our 1NT is 12-14, unless the opps play a double of that as penalty; in which case we play 15-17, unless the opps play a double of that as something other than penalty; in which case it is 14-16."

[helene_t]

 Zelandakh, on 2013-February-18, 09:32, said:

How about: "Our 1NT is 12-14, unless the opps play a double of that as penalty; in which case we play 15-17, unless the opps play a double of that as something other than penalty; in which case it is 14-16."

No you can't play that.

But what about this one:

NS: our 1♣ opening is natural and forcing, 13+ (Fantunes style).
EW: ok, we play strong pass against that, with 1♥ as a fert overcall.
NS: ok, in that case our 1♣ opening is obviously nonforcing.
EW: too late! You are invoking the loop!

Here NS could argue that the description of their 1♣ opening as 13+ natural is enough. That it is forcing is something that falls under the description of responses (i.e. the description of the response "pass" is "nonexistent"), but they can vary that on the basis of what the intervening pass means. A response is a defense against opener's LHO's pass, and you can play different defenses against that pass depending on what it means.

So I would go with NS here.

[Zelandakh]

 helene_t, on 2013-February-18, 09:41, said:

No you can't play that.

Why not? It is a complete description of methods given receipt of a complete set of opps' methods and never results in a loop.

[gombo121]

 iviehoff, on 2013-February-18, 09:23, said:

Surely the relevant law here is 40A1b which requires you to give the opponents your methods at the start of the round. A definition like "weak if your defence is take-out, strong if it's penalty" fails to define your methods, since you can write your defence in the terms that Bluejak writes.

(playing devil's advocate)
Why do you think it fails to define our methods? It's our complete agreement, we have nothing else. There is no requirement for our agreements to be good, or complete, or anything like that. There only requirement is full disclosure - we disclosed agreemnets completely, now take any conclusion you can. If you can't - too bad, nothing can be done about that.

You may think it is impasse equivalent to "no agreements-no agreements" and both sides are equally disadvantaged - think again! As opener I still can open 1NT and thoguh partner would not know my range we are unlikely to get to some completely ridiculuos contract. On the other hand, penalty double and conventional double are very different and opponents are bound to get lost if they venture into the bidding.

[gombo121]

 bluejak, on 2013-February-18, 06:15, said:

Personally I have always believed that the Loop is an imaginary problem. If I agree to defend weak pre-empts with penalty doubles and strong pre-empts with takeout doubles that is my defence. They can play what they like. If they say "How do you defend to our pre-empts?" I just tell the that.

Аs I just mention above, they preempt and when you ask what kind of preemts they are playing they tell you "we agreed to use strong if opposition plays penalty double and weak if they use take-out". Are you feeling comfortable?

[mjj29]

 gombo121, on 2013-February-18, 11:45, said:

Аs I just mention above, they preempt and when you ask what kind of preemts they are playing they tell you "we agreed to use strong if opposition plays penalty double and weak if they use take-out". Are you feeling comfortable?

I don't "use takeout" or "use penalty" - I use both in different situations.

What do kind of preempts do you play against someone who doubles weak 2s for penalty and strong 2s for takeout?

I don't play the same defence against intermediate-weak natural 2s, multi 2D or acol artifical 2C. Why should you assume I play the same defence to strong and weak natural twos?

[gombo121]

 mjj29, on 2013-February-18, 11:53, said:

What do kind of preempts do you play against someone who doubles weak 2s for penalty and strong 2s for takeout?

(still playing devil's advocate)
No agreement (undiscussed). Yes, kinda foolish on our part but there is nothing we can do about that at the moment.

[mjj29]

 gombo121, on 2013-February-18, 12:11, said:

(still playing devil's advocate)
No agreement (undiscussed). Yes, kinda foolish on our part but there is nothing we can do about that at the moment.

Well, we'll have asked you this at the start, so we'll make you discuss it before the hand starts. Alternatively, I think the director will be sympathetic at making you leave the table and have your partner tell us what his bid means. I don't think you'll get away with 'undiscussed' here.