Is this two different systems?

[nigel_k]

This is not something that can be decided by the letter of the laws alone because there's always going to be a gray area between 'system' and 'style'.

 

There are two principles of interpretation I would apply:

 

1) There should be a presumption of legality, not illegality. Therefore the word 'system' should be interpreted narrowly and the words 'style and judgment' should be interpreted broadly.

 

2) When there is ambiguity, the purpose of the law should be a major deciding factor. The purpose of this law is to prevent situations such as playing transfers when the pro opens 1NT but not when the client opens 1NT.

 

In the present situation, it is perfectly possible to play that 1♦ is usually 4+, 1♣ is usually 3+ and Westmagic hands make a judgment call. This partnership can be viewed as having a difference of opinion in exercising that judgment, even if one player judges that 1♣ on a two card suit will always work out better than 1♦ on a three card suit, and the other player judges the opposite.

 

Furthermore, I don't see that the purpose of the law can be furthered in any way whatsoever by applying it to this situation.

 

So I would rule there is no infraction here.

[bluejak]

Please please please please please can opening posters state which jurisdiction the query comes from. Despite some people posting that each partner has to play the same method that is only true if th RA says it is, so it depends which RA.

 

Ok, there is a lot of evidence to suggest this was an ACBL query. But please tell us explicitly.

 

The Law is clear: each member of a partnership must play the same method unless the RA decrees otherwise. The ACBL and EBU, or example, have not decreed otherwise. But partners do not need to play the same style.

 

So which is it, style or method? The answer is that it is often a matter of bridge judgement, like whether you rule back a call after a BIT, or whether a player has been damaged by MI.

 

I think some of the examples in the thread are quite on point. If one player tends to open 1NT with 5-card majors but his partner does not, that is usually considered a matter of style. If one player upgrades good 14 counts to a 15-17 but his partner does not, it is a matter of style. One partner overcalls 4-card suits but partner never does? Borderline: I would like to hear what they consider the actual agreement is. But if one player always opens a 4=4=3=2 hand 1♦ but his partner opens 1♣, that is method, and illegal as an agreement in the ACBL and EBU: if they do not disclose [and know what they are doing] it it is cheating. Even things which are a matter of style are disclosable.

[lamford]

Presumably an agreeement, for example, that either player requires 20-22 for a 1NT opener as dealer where the board number is divisible by 4 and 12-14 where it is not would be regarded as "both sides not playing the same system" because its effect would be that East gets to open a weak NT as dealer but West does not. In which case, I had better change my agreements with Harold Hapless with whom I play once a month.

[nigel_k]

If one player tends to open 1NT with 5-card majors but his partner does not, that is usually considered a matter of style. If one player upgrades good 14 counts to a 15-17 but his partner does not, it is a matter of style. One partner overcalls 4-card suits but partner never does? Borderline: I would like to hear what they consider the actual agreement is. But if one player always opens a 4=4=3=2 hand 1♦ but his partner opens 1♣, that is method, and illegal as an agreement in the ACBL and EBU

Sorry, I'm not following this. I think there is a strong case for treating it as style and judgment, not system.

 

I disagree that suit length changes from a style issue to a system issue, depending on whether you are opening 1NT, making a suit overcall, or opening one of a suit. Are you suggesting there is some principle that entails this conclusion, or are you just saying the distinction is arbitrary and this is where you are choosing to draw the line?

 

I would tentatively suggest the following test instead:

 

If it is possible to bid sensibly without any agreement on the matter, then it is style and judgment. That doesn't change if you have discussed it and agreed to differ on the best approach.

 

As I mentioned earlier, in doubtful cases I would also look at whether the purpose of the rule is advanced by applying it to the present case. Here it is not.

[NickRW]

...I disagree that suit length changes from a style issue to a system issue, depending on whether you are opening 1NT, making a suit overcall, or opening one of a suit. Are you suggesting there is some principle that entails this conclusion, or are you just saying the distinction is arbitrary and this is where you are choosing to draw the line?...

I certainly see where you're coming from. Possibly those that have posted that opening 4=4=3=2 with 1♣ versus 1♦ is a matter of system on the grounds that 1♣ on a 2 card suit is considered to be artificial, whereas a 3 card suit is "natural" (or at least that is so in EBU land these days - probably in a lot of other places).

 

It is all rather arbitrary (oops, sorry, I mean a matter of judgement) - a fan of 4 card majors might, with some justification, think that opening on 3 cards is artificial.

 

But seriously, if opening on possibly 2 cards is to be considered alertable and 3 cards is not, then that seems to be a matter of system for practical purposes.

 

Nick

[bluejak]

Bridge TDs and ACs are expected to use judgement in their decisions, and that includes ruling against someone who has "got round" a regulation, even if it seems to be legal.

 

One player playing an artificial system, whereby 1♣ can be on a doubleton, while another player plays a natural system, whereby 1♣ cannot be on a doubleton, can hardly be two players playing the same system.

[jeremy69]

A bit off topic but there is a pair in England who play that 1C or 1D can be on 3. If you asked the question as to which it would be you got the answer that it depended(but you could not find out on what) or it was random but they didn't agree to be random in the same way! Eventually this was ruled not legal because of the failure to be able to explain the system(rather than they were playing two different systems). When I last played against them they were playing that they opened 1C if the spot cards in their minors added up to an even number and 1D if an odd number with an exception if they had two top honours in one suit not the other. You would have to be very dedicated to keep track of this. Some might feel it was not complying with the spirit of the regulations!

[helene_t]

The CC regulation is irrelevant since the CC can contain a note of different styles for the partners.

 

I think if one p never opens 1♣ on a doubleton and the other sometimes do, I would rule that it amounts to different systems if BSCs are not allowed. This is because it would mean that opps were permitted different defenses against the two kind of 1♣ openings, which is (I think) the main reason for not allowing partners to play different systems.

 

If BSCs are allowed I would call it a style thing, but in any case it is close.

[aguahombre]

As for the "pleases" of Blue, I am in ACBL land, but didn't really care to mention that. posters from all over gave their input based on their understanding of the laws. Some with understanding of laws in different places. It was all good. If the rules are different according to locale, that is good to know. Hopefully one day the rules everywhere will come closer together. Maybe forums like this (fori?) will help that to happen.

 

thanks to all.

[awm]

One player playing an artificial system, whereby 1♣ can be on a doubleton, while another player plays a natural system, whereby 1♣ cannot be on a doubleton, can hardly be two players playing the same system.

But their agreement is that 1♣ can always be bid on a doubleton. Presumably they announce all 1♣ openings from their side as "could be short" but when queried about this will say something like "Our agreement is that we use judgment on 4432 hands as to whether to open 1♣ or 1♦. He almost always opens 1♦ on those hands though."

 

I don't really see why this is a problem (especially since it's just one particular shape) whereas it's not a problem if one partner frequently overcalls on four-card suits and the other never does, or if one partner frequently opens 1NT on 5332 hands and the other never does. They're even kind enough to disclose the fact that one partner almost always bids a particular way.

[gwnn]

I feel a little sorry for them, really unlucky to get a 4-4-3-2 just like that after a 1♣ opening and by the other partner :)

[bluejak]

As for the "pleases" of Blue, I am in ACBL land, but didn't really care to mention that.  posters from all over gave their input based on their understanding of the laws.  Some with understanding of laws in different places.  It was all good.  If the rules are different according to locale, that is good to know.  Hopefully one day the rules everywhere will come closer together.  Maybe forums like this (fori?) will help that to happen.

I am not sure it is desirable. If you suggested to North America that everywhere should be the same the authorities would agree - but I am sure that is because they would expect Europe to follow the North American approach!

 

Bridge has grown up differently in different areas, and I can see no obvious way of reconciling the system protectionism of Great Britain and North America with the free thinking approach of Australia, for example.

 

As to the request that people do let us know where they are, and th reply that a more general answer is wanted, as I suggested a few days ago on another thread, questions without jurisdiction confuse people: I would much prefer someone who wants to know states their jurisdiction but then says something like "And how would this be ruled elsewhere?" or "How does this regulation compare with English alerting?" or something.

 

I think if one p never opens 1♣ on a doubleton and the other sometimes do, I would rule that it amounts to different systems if BSCs are not allowed. This is because it would mean that opps were permitted different defenses against the two kind of 1♣ openings, which is (I think) the main reason for not allowing partners to play different systems.

I do not really understand this. For a start, short clubs are not BSC, and are allowed pretty much everywhere. Second, why should this be the reason for not allowing two different methods by partners? I have always understood the reason was because of "mixed" partnerships, whether men/women or professional/client or teacher/novice. Not, mind you, that that seems much of an excuse for this rule anyway in my view.

 

A bit off topic but there is a pair in England who play that 1C or 1D can be on 3. If you asked the question as to which it would be you got the answer that it depended(but you could not find out on what) or it was random but they didn't agree to be random in the same way! Eventually this was ruled not legal because of the failure to be able to explain the system(rather than they were playing two different systems). When I last played against them they were playing that they opened 1C if the spot cards in their minors added up to an even number and 1D if an odd number with an exception if they had two top honours in one suit not the other. You would have to be very dedicated to keep track of this. Some might feel it was not complying with the spirit of the regulations!

In what way?

[jeremy69]

In what way?

 

Because there is a suspicion that they do not do as they have said but merely invented an approach to satisfy the questioners which is tough to check and are actually playing a random club or diamond.

[gordontd]

Particularly since they do not easily divulge their agreement (if it's the same pair I've encountered), instead saying that they play them as random, and only when pressed do they reluctantly give away the algorithm.

[helene_t]

I think if one p never opens 1♣ on a doubleton and the other sometimes do, I would rule that it amounts to different systems if BSCs are not allowed. This is because it would mean that opps were permitted different defenses against the two kind of 1♣ openings, which is (I think) the main reason for not allowing partners to play different systems.

I do not really understand this.

I mean: whenever we encounter a pair playing some sort of short club, we discuss whether we treat it as natural and if not, what defense we play.

 

Now if 1♣ can be a doubleton, we can play anything against it. OTOH if BSCs are not allowed, we cannot play anything against the 3+ 1♣ because certain defenses are BSCs. Of course we do not have to play different defenses against the two different 1♣ openings, but we might prefer to play something funny against the 2+ variant.

[aguahombre]

I feel a little sorry for them, really unlucky to get a 4-4-3-2 just like that after a 1♣ opening and by the other partner :)

I aassume you mean it was unlucky that the hands occurred back to back, so someone would notice ---and this whole thread could have been avoided.

[lamford]

In what way?

 

Because there is a suspicion that they do not do as they have said but merely invented an approach to satisfy the questioners which is tough to check and are actually playing a random club or diamond.

Also because:

 

"Bridge TDs and ACs are expected to use judgement in their decisions, and that includes ruling against someone who has "got round" a regulation, even if it seems to be legal."

[bluejak]

In what way have they got round a regulation? Which regulation?

[gwnn]

I feel a little sorry for them, really unlucky to get a 4-4-3-2 just like that after a 1♣ opening and by the other partner :)

I aassume you mean it was unlucky that the hands occurred back to back, so someone would notice ---and this whole thread could have been avoided.

No of course it's good that the thread was created and I think they're sort of cheating, but you have to admit, the two hands occurring back to back, against astute enough opponents is really unlucky for them :)

[aguahombre]

By the way, I did not mean to imply that the first hand actually was opened 1C on a 2-bagger ---She actually had six of them. Only the second hand was 4 4 3 2.

 

The significance, to us was that, after being informed that 1C could be short, and knowing they did not play any sophisticated methods, there was an assumption when 1D was opened on the second hand that it was a 4-card suit. Or, maybe a very strong 3-bagger. Hence, no questioning seemed necessary. Opening leader held AQTXX in the diamond suit and chose to lead the heart ten from t9x.

 

Dummy: AK9X AXXX KXX TX.

 

If I had been really into it, I might have shifted to the Jack of diamonds from my doubleton. (T8XX KQX JX JXXX) Certainly this shift would have been harder (ethically) if partner had asked questions first. It would seem that asking would imply suspicion that they were playing two different methods.

 

Cheating is not involved. At least not consciously --they merely agreed to disagree, which we did not know, should not be expected to know, and could affect our defense.

[Finch]

Maybe forums like this (fori?) will help that to happen.

Fora

[nigel_k]

Maybe forums like this (fori?) will help that to happen.

Fora

Heh. I used to say indices instead of indexes but I had to stop because too many people laughed at me :D

[NickRW]

Languages morph over time. As a kid I remember BBC sports commentators used to say "stadia" - now they say "stadiums". Actually I couldn't believe it - because I looked up stadia all those years ago - then I had to check again in a more recent dictionary - indeed things apparently had changed without me noticing!

 

Nick

[blackshoe]

Nero Wolfe, a rather famous (albeit fictional) private detective, was once found in his office, burning his brand new Webster's Unabridged Dictionary page by page. When his sidekick Archie Goodwin asked him why he was doing that, Wolfe scowled and said "Contact is *not* a verb!" :D

[mjj29]

Maybe forums like this (fori?) will help that to happen.

Fora

forapodes