Is this two different systems?

[aguahombre]

club game:

 

West opens 1c, and East announces ---"could be short" (known that they dont play some elaborate 1C either/or system, just assumed that with 4 4 3 2 they would choose 1C).

 

Next hand, East opens 1D...West doesn't announce, and East has 4 4 3 2.

 

When questioned, after the hand is over, East states that his partner always shows 4D if she opens 1D, but He doesn't.

 

Am I a moron, or is this an illegal partnership agreement, where two different systems are being played? Be kind and only answer the second part.

[jillybean]

Yes but, it is up to the sponsoring organization to prescribe the convention card rules 40E1

 

Under ACBL:

TWO IDENTICAL COPIES: Each player is required to have a Convention Card legibly filled out and on the table throughout the session. Both cards of a partnership must be identical.

[barmar]

I agree with you.

 

Do they actually have their convention cards filled out differently?

[aguahombre]

Yes but, it is up to the sponsoring organization to prescribe the convention card 40E1

40E1????...maybe I am a moron

[aguahombre]

ok, so if they fill out two different convention cards they can play two different systems?? I didn't see the relevance of the convention card situation, since they both knew what each other does with 4 4 3 2, and it was different.

[jillybean]

No, they must play the same system, as listed on the CC!.

Did you call the director?

[aguahombre]

didnt call the director because, even though partner would have led a diamond ---maybe on the second auction. against 1N, we would just have scored a different 6 tricks for the same result. Decided at the club level to just maintain peace (right or wrong). Was more interested in whether it was legal.

[jillybean]

Mmmmmooooooorrrre people should call the TD B)

[jeremy69]

In England they must play the same system. If they have stylistic differences (and the openings quoted would not be an example of this) such as one of them opening lighter than the other in 3rd seat then this should be disclosed on the convention card.

[awm]

While this does seem like different systems, there's often a range and it can hard to determine what's just different styles.

 

Suppose their CC says that 1♦ is 3+ and 1♣ is 2+, and that 4432 hands can open in either minor. If one player really "always" opens 1♦ and the other "always" 1♣ on this shape it seems like different systems, but suppose the rule is that a "really good" 3-card diamond suit gets opened and a "really bad" one does not. Now the players use their judgment and this judgment might differ... say one player opens 1♣ with 4432 unless his diamonds are KQJ or better, and the other player opens 1♦ with 4432 unless his diamonds are xxx... different system or just style? It can be a pretty tough call.

 

We played against a pro-client pair recently whose 1NT opening was "13-17" but the client never opens it with 13-14 and the pro frequently does. They had been warned by directors that they need to disclose this (too many instances of pro opening 1NT "15-17" on uninteresting 13-14 counts to try to right side the hands) but now it really seems like they play different systems. Or is it just different styles?

[ochinko]

Thank you, Adam, for bringing back some sanity into the thread. Different judgement does not necessarily mean different systems.

 

Playing 15-17 NT I routinely upgrade 14 HCP 5332 hands to 1NT. Should I be barred from playing with partners who would never do that? There are countless other examples.

[jillybean]

While this does seem like different systems, there's often a range and it can hard to determine what's just different styles.

 

Call me a moron but it seems clear this particular pair arent using judgement, they have a different system.

 

club game:

 

When questioned, after the hand is over, East states that his partner always shows 4D if she opens 1D, but He doesn't. 

 

[ochinko]

Jillybean, there are people who *always* open 1NT with a 5CM, and other who would *never* do that. Are you saying they can't be partners? After all if they say they sometimes do it, that would be the truth, right? B)

 

I know I have my idiosyncrasies, and most of the people I know have their own. If you insist on full compatibility, the game is doomed.

[blackshoe]

There is no Law 40E1, and there are no Sponsoring Organizations. The relevant laws are 40A1{b} and 40B2{a}, which latter says in part "[the Regulating Authority (which is the ACBL for ACBL sanctioned games)] may vary the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made". The regulation goes on to say "Such a regulation must not restrict style and judgment, only method". The ACBL has elected that "Both members of a partnership must employ the same system that appears on the convention card."

 

In the instant case, if one member of the pair always opens 4=4=3=2 with 1♣ and the other never does, then they have an illegal agreement, as the ACBL has not elected the option given in the laws to allow a change to the "general requirement" mentioned above. It is possible though, as Adam points out, that for this partnership, it is a matter of style and judgement (doesn't sound like it though). If that is the case, then they have failed to announce "could be short" on the second auction. Even if there was not such a failure, this seems a good case for the ACBL's recommendation that the declaring side, before the opening lead is chosen, offer the defenders a full explanation of their auction. Including, in this case, the style of each player.

 

40B2{a} also says "[the Regulating Authority] may prescribe a system card with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnership’s understandings and regulate its use".

 

The ACBL elections in the laws allude to convention cards, but do not state specifically a requirement to have them. That I found in the General Conditions of Contest (item 5 under "Conventions and Convention Cards," which says in part "Each member of a partnership MUST have a completely filled out convention card available for the opponents" and "a. Both cards of a partnership must be identical and include the first and last names of each member of the partnership".

[jillybean]

Jillybean, there are people who *always* open 1NT with a 5CM, and other who would *never* do that. Are you saying they can't be partners? After all if they say they sometimes do it, that would be the truth, right? B)

 

I know I have my idiosyncrasies, and most of the people I know have their own. If you insist on full compatibility, the game is doomed.

AKQJT,xx,xx, AKxx 1nt?

 

Ok, Im gradualy learning which rules must be followed and which can be ignored.

[jillybean]

40E1

The sponsoring organization may prescribe a convention card on which partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method).

[ochinko]

Jillybean, there are people who *always* open 1NT with a 5CM, and other who would *never* do that. Are you saying they can't be partners? After all if they say they sometimes do it, that would be the truth, right? B)

 

I know I have my idiosyncrasies, and most of the people I know have their own. If you insist on full compatibility, the game is doomed.

AKQJT,xx,xx, KQxx 1nt?

 

Ok, Im gradualy learning which rules must be followed and which can be ignored.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I only meant 5332 distributions with 5CM.

 

AKQJT-xx-xxx-KQx would be more like it, although, as I said, I would open 1NT with

AKQJT-xx-xxx-KJx as well.

 

But let's say that you agree to play better minor, and in the course of the event you discover that you and your partner understand it differently and with ♦T873 ♣AKJ one of you always open 1♣, and the other one 1♦. Do you go to the authorities with a request to be disqualified because of your irresolvable differences?

[blackshoe]

40E1

The sponsoring organization may prescribe a convention card on which partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method).

You're quoting an obsolete law book. If you look closely, you'll find on the cover or title page that it's the 1997 law book, not the current, 2008 law book.

[jillybean]

40E1

The sponsoring organization may prescribe a convention card on which partners are to list their conventions and other agreements and may establish regulations for its use, including a requirement that both members of a partnership employ the same system (such a regulation must not restrict style and judgement, only method).

You're quoting an obsolete law book. If you look closely, you'll find on the cover or title page that it's the 1997 law book, not the current, 2008 law book.

Youre quite correct, I stand corrected.

[TimG]

In the instant case, if one member of the pair always opens 4=4=3=2 with 1♣ and the other never does, then they have an illegal agreement, as the ACBL has not elected the option given in the laws to allow a change to the "general requirement" mentioned above.

I don't think this is quite correct. Playing a 5-card Major system, I will sometimes open (in 1st or 2nd seat) 1M with only a 4-card suit. Some partners would not even dream of doing this. Similar considerations apply to 4-card overcalls.

 

If the auction starts (1C)-1S, are partner and I playing different systems if he will always have 5 spades while I might have 4?

 

I think the choice of opening 1C or 1D with a 4=4=3=2 hand can well be a "style" thing.

 

Tim

[blackshoe]

You have misunderstood me. If it's a matter of style and judgment, that's fine. But when they sit down to discuss it, and one player adamantly insists on opening 1♣ on 4=4=3=2 hands, regardless of the texture of the minor suits, and the other is equally adamant that he will always open 1♦ on such hands, it is no longer a matter of style and judgement, it's a matter of explicit partnership agreement, and in the ACBL (and other places) by law and regulation they must arrive at the same agreement - they are not permitted to "agree to disagree".

 

Now we will have the problem that a pair will indicate "could be short" on their card, and will accordingly announce "could be short" whenever either partner opens 1♣ even though both players know that one of them will never open 1♣ with 4=4=3=2. When the TD is called, they'll claim "it's just a matter of judgement". That, to put it bluntly, is cheating.

[matmat]

Thank you, Adam, for bringing back some sanity into the thread. Different judgement does not necessarily mean different systems.

 

Playing 15-17 NT I routinely upgrade 14 HCP 5332 hands to 1NT. Should I be barred from playing with partners who would never do that? There are countless other examples.

i think you're not quite right...

 

they are not playing different systems on paper, whilst in reality they are -- and they are not disclosing it properly. that seems wrong somehow.

[awm]

It is possible though, as Adam points out, that for this partnership, it is a matter of style and judgement (doesn't sound like it though). If that is the case, then they have failed to announce "could be short" on the second auction.

Not sure which laws are in force here, but in ACBL it is not required to announce "could be short" for a minor suit opening which might be three. In the original post:

 

Auction one, 1♣ is opened, announced "could be short" because of 4432

 

Auction two, 1♦ is opened, and it always shows 3+ (although sometimes 4432) no announce

 

There hasn't been any failure to announce. It is clearly legal to play "better minor" or to play that 1♣ is 2+ and 1♦ is 3+. Of course some disclosure about how/when 4432 hands are opened with each call would be nice, but this is more of an "if opponents ask, you must disclose" than anything requiring an alert.

 

I agree that if it's really "one partner always one way, the other partner always the other way" then it seems like different systems. But there are an awful lot of degrees of this, and I think Ochinko's "1NT with 5M-332" example is quite apt.

[aguahombre]

What Adam brings up is valid about alerts and announcements. there is no question that the second auction involved opening a 3+ suit, which is common and not alertable. The problem is in the assumptions from the first hand --namely that a 1D opening on the second hand is very likely to be 4+.

 

It is hard to know that one should question the second auction, when the first one seemed to establish the partnership's agreements. The sidetrack situation where one partner frequently opens 1NT with 5M and the other does not, is probably more of a style thing. But if one partner then uses puppet or another checkback method whenever holding 3-card support, while the other never bothers to do that ---the two issues converge into one.

[TimG]

You have misunderstood me. If it's a matter of style and judgment, that's fine. But when they sit down to discuss it, and one player adamantly insists on opening 1♣ on 4=4=3=2 hands, regardless of the texture of the minor suits, and the other is equally adamant that he will always open 1♦ on such hands, it is no longer a matter of style and judgement, it's a matter of explicit partnership agreement, and in the ACBL (and other places) by law and regulation they must arrive at the same agreement - they are not permitted to "agree to disagree".

Does the same apply to one partner making some 4-card overcalls and the other never making 4-card overcalls?

 

Can't partnerships have explicit partnership agreements about style and judgment? It seems to me that you are arguing that they may not.