BBO Discussion Forums: Another sort of contingency - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Another sort of contingency Chicken and egg problem.

#61 User is offline   Zelandakh 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,696
  • Joined: 2006-May-18
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 2014-February-26, 06:47

We have been through this before. There is no loop providing you completely describe your methods. In the classic case of strong/weak NT for example, the statement "strong if doubles are pentltay, weak if doubles are not penalty" is not full disclosure because it does not cover all cases. What this really states is "strong if you play a penalty double of a strong NT, weak if you play a non-penalty double of a weak NT" but that leaves a case unaccounted for. You therefore need an additional clause "otherwise 14-16" or whatever. This works for all cases. The fact that noone does this is neither here nor there. You do not need different phases or to think about methods, defenses and counters - just give complete disclousre on the original system definition and everything works just fine.
(-: Zel :-)
0

  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users