EBU -- Rule of 18

[Vampyr]

Recently a friend asked me about a hand:

 

♠Axxxxxx, ♥-- ♦Kxxxx ♣x

 

In a match, at both tables his opponents opened 1♠ (it was teams of 8). These pairs got to slam. At both of my friend's tables the opening was 3♠, because they thought that they weren't permitted to open 1. These pairs did not get to slam.

 

According to the Orange Book:

 

The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 18. However a partnership may not agree to open with 7 HCP or fewer even if the hand is at least Rule of 18.

 

So, my friend's team were correct in that it is not permitted to have an agreement to open such a hand at the one level. But I am wondering how the regulation applies to a specific occurrence. Suppose, for example, you and your partner have not made any agreements about opening 7-5 hands. Are you then permitted to open this hand? If so, are you deemed to have an agreement the next time it comes up? If partner does not cater for a 7HCP hand are you permitted to open the hand as often as it comes up? Can you upgrade to 7 1/2 or 8 because the points are not in queens and jacks? Can you upgrade if you have intermediates?

[aguahombre]

presumably the partners of the people who opened the hand with the one-bid did not cater to a 7 point hand. they catered to an opening bid. I am not EBU, so I don't know if their rules are meant to apply to hands which are judged to be opening bids --rather than agreements to open super light.

 

If these same people do this again, and next time the opponents are the ones who have a slam, I guess they had better remember and be able to point to the result on this hand when the opponents cry foul.

 

Too bad this hand wasn't just a blind poll to see how many would open it 1S, without having some wonderful gadget to describe just this hand. But, too late now --the EBU law problem is already introduced.

[Pig Trader]

Hi, Stefanie! Good questions:

 

Are you then permitted to open this hand?

 

Yes, as you suggest.

 

If so, are you deemed to have an agreement the next time it comes up?

 

Generally no, but I would consider each occasion to constitute a Deviation from agreed methods because it cannot be an agreed method. Therefore the stuff in OB Chapter 6 applies

 

If partner does not cater for a 7HCP hand are you permitted to open the hand as often as it comes up?

 

See my reply to the previous question.

 

Can you upgrade to 7 1/2 or 8 because the points are not in queens and jacks?

 

I don't think so. The Regulation relates to the Milton Work Count method and you can't change the method of counting.

 

Can you upgrade if you have intermediates?

 

This, though, is a good question and I would like to say Yes, but I wonder if that would mean a contradiction with my reply to the previous question!

 

Thanks for your posting as I'll now find out if my lines of thinking are incorrect!

 

Barrie :rolleyes:

[bluejak]

I find it not very likely that players who agree the level of strength required to open consider total freaks. As for the idea that you have an agreement "when this hand occurs again" rules are not based on this sort of idea, ie one that is not really going to happen.

 

The correct thing to do is to decide whether they are playing an illegal agreement, using this hand as part of the evidence. My guess is that they are not going to be found in breach of the rules if there is no other real evidence.

[Vampyr]

The correct thing to do is to decide whether they are playing an illegal agreement, using this hand as part of the evidence.  My guess is that they are not going to be found in breach of the rules if there is no other real evidence.

The real question here, as far as I am concerned, is from the player's point of view. Go ahead and open it?

[bluejak]

I would.

[Vampyr]

Thanks. Is there any official L&E guidance on the matter?

[bluejak]

Not for a very very long time. It was discussed after Kambites put an article in English Bridge which included a hand he said should have been opened, but it was Rule of 18 - so long ago that the rule was Rule of 19 in those days. Whether the minutes are available I doubt.

 

But it really does not seem a matter worth discussing. "Everyone" knows that some things are not allowed by agreement as a matter of rule: when one turns up there are always some people who treat one case as proving something, and those who do not. It is like the number of posts I have seen over the years on RGB [become fewer over time, I am pleased to see] saying that after a single psyche a pair has a disclosable agreement.

 

It is difficult to know what you expect the L&EC to say that this forum has not. There is a rule saying "You may not agree ...". There will always be come people who assume that means "You will not ..." even though it does not say so.

[StevenG]

According to the Orange Book:

 

The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 18. However a partnership may not agree to open with 7 HCP or fewer even if the hand is at least Rule of 18.

My problem is with the phrase "even if the hand is at least Rule of 18". Presumably this was inserted into the regulation for a reason.

 

Any hand of 7 HCP or less which is Rule of 18 is essentially a freak about which one is unlikely to have an explicit agreement. If this sort of hand comes up occasionally, do you develop an implicit agreement?

 

If all hands of this type can always be opened, because they are freaks and there is no agreement, then what hands are barred by the phrase "even if the hand is at least Rule of 18"?

[Vampyr]

Yes. Everything that StevenG said is what I am having a problem with too.

[lamford]

Can you upgrade to 7 1/2 or 8 because the points are not in queens and jacks?

 

I don't think so. The Regulation relates to the Milton Work Count method and you can't change the method of counting.

Indeed so; the Orange Book states:

 

A partnership may define the strength of a hand by using any method of hand evaluation that will be understood easily by its opponents (eg High Card Points, Playing tricks, Losing Trick Count, etc). Regardless, your agreements must meet the permitted minimums defined in terms of HCP and Opening Points (as in 11 C 1 and 11 F 2, for example). This is a bit like saying you may price your eggs in any way you like, but you must also show the price in pence per centimetre of circumference.

 

So, even if you don't use HCP, or if you use a much better method of adding half a point for an ace, deducting one third of a point for a queen, and deducting one sixth of a point for a jack (from the normal 4-3-2-1 system), your agreement to open the hand quoted by vampyr at the beginning is illegal but agreeing to open Jxxxx QJ Qxxxx Q with One Spade would be fine!

 

HCP is defined as the 4,3,2,1 method in the appendix.

[bluejak]

This is a bit like saying you may price your eggs in any way you like, but you must also show the price in pence per centimetre of circumference.

No, it isn't.

 

You may price your eggs in any way you like, subject to a minimum of so many pence per centimetre of circumference.

 

There is a minimum permitted valuation or opening, to which you have to adhere for your agreements. For any other purpose you can value how you like.

 

No-one is stopping you playing a 2♥ opening as 26 to 28 Lamford points, if you wish. But certain rules must be adhered to.

[mjj29]

You may price your eggs in any way you like, subject to a minimum of so many pence per centimetre of circumference.

 

There is a minimum permitted valuation or opening, to which you have to adhere for your agreements. For any other purpose you can value how you like.

 

No-one is stopping you playing a 2♥ opening as 26 to 28 Lamford points, if you wish. But certain rules must be adhered to.

Indeed, although if you were to use some unusual valuation method I believe you are required to also translate it into a more well-known one. I'd expect a description along the lines of "it's 26-28 lamford points, in practice it will include anything from about a distributional 10 count up to a bad flat 16 or so"

[nige1]

IMO, ordinary players reading the Orange Book would interpret it as Paul Lamford and I do. Hence they handicap themselves unnecessarily against those aware of the more liberal insider interpretaion.

[gnasher]

I don't think I'm an insider, and whilst I'd like to be considered an extraordinary player I don't think I am one. It seems obvious to me, however, that the rule quoted by Lamford means what Bluejak says it does. I'd even go so far as to describe it as well-written and lucid.

[StevenG]

I don't understand at all - I'm obviously just some fool who expects the OB to mean what it says.

 

I repeat my previous question:-

'If all hands of this type can always be opened, because they are freaks and there is no agreement, then what hands are barred by the phrase "even if the hand is at least Rule of 18"? '

[nige1]

I don't understand at all - I'm obviously just some fool who expects the OB to mean what it says. I repeat my previous question:-

'If all hands of this type can always be opened, because they are freaks and there is no agreement, then what hands are barred by the phrase "even if the hand is at least Rule of 18"? '

I too am bewildered. I fear that advice given earlier may advocate breaking the rules. Even worse: if you state what action you will take on specific hands, it seems to me that you have an understanding about that kind of hand :)

[gnasher]

The restriction quoted by StevenG prevents your agreeing to open 6-5 7-count. Those hands are an order of magnitude more common than the one in the original post. It doesn't seem inconsistent to say that:

 

- You may not explicitly agree to open a 7-count or worse

- 6-5 7-counts occur sufficiently often that a partnership might form an implicit agreement to open them. That would be against the rules.

- 7-5 7-counts occur so rarely that it's unlikely that a partnership would form an implicit agreement to open them.

[nige1]

The restriction quoted by StevenG prevents your agreeing to open 6-5 7-count.  Those hands are an order of magnitude more common than the one in the original post.  It doesn't seem inconsistent to say that:

 

- You may not explicitly agree to open a 7-count or worse

- 6-5 7-counts occur sufficiently often that a partnership might form an implicit agreement to open them.  That would be against the rules.

- 7-5 7-counts occur so rarely that it's unlikely that a partnership would form an implicit agreement to open them.

Is frequency relevant? Playing Acol, a 4N opener asking for specific aces is rare but, whether or not we've discussed it, if I expect an experienced partner to recognize it, then I think we still have an understanding.

 

Similarly, it seems to me that if both partner and I would open 1♠ (say) when we hold 7-5 or 7-6 shape and 6-7 HCP then we seem to have an implicit agreement; or perhaps even an explicit agreement if we've discussed it in a forum like this.

 

In any case, if "frequency" or "judgement about frequency" really were relevant considerations, I feel that the Orange Book should have made that clear. As far as I can ascertain there is no hint that this simple rule hinges on such subjective considerations.

[gnasher]

Is frequency relevant?

Yes. The frequency of occurrence of a given hand-type is relevant in determining whether it is possible to form an implicit agreement about how to bid such a hand.

 

Playing Acol, a 4N opener asking for specific aces is rare but, whether or not we've discussed it, if I expect an experienced partner to recognize it, then I think it is still an understanding.

Your agreement to play "Acol" probably implies an agreement to play the Acol 4NT opening. If it doesn't, and you have no shared experience of the 4NT opening, you don't have an agreement about it.

 

Similarly, it seems to me that if both partner and I would open 1♠ (say) when we hold 7-5 or 7-6 shape and 6-7 HCP then we seem to have an implicit agreement; or perhaps even an explicit agreement if we've discussed it in a forum like this.

According to the Laws, an explicit agreement is reached "in discussion"; an implicit agreement is one reached through "mutual experience or awareness of the players".

 

If you would each independently decide that a particular class of hand merits a particular action, but have never actually taken that action, or have only taken only taken that action very rarely, you don't have an implicit agreement about it.

 

In any case, if "frequency" or "judgement about frequency" really were relevant considerations, I feel that the Orange Book should have made that clear. As far as I can ascertain there is no hint that this simple rule hinges on such subjective considerations.

The point is that a hand-type can be so rare that the an implict agreement cannot exist. If there is no explicit agreement, and it is impossible for there to be an implicit agreement, a rule that constrains agreements is irrelevant.

 

The Orange Book contains 179 instances of the word "agreement". Are you suggesting that after each one they should insert a definition of the word?

[nige1]

The point is that a hand-type can be so rare that the an implict agreement cannot exist.

I hold a different view about the hand under discussion ...

• 
   
  
• Players from one team opened 1♠ on ♠ Axxxxxx, ♥ -- ♦ Kxxxx ♣ x .. We don't know whether they were aware of the Orange Book regulation.
   
  
• The players in the other team would have opened this hand 1♠ (rather than 3♠) had they not tried to comply with the regulation.
   
  
• In the absence of the regulation, I would open it 1♠ too, because it seems to satisfy the normal requirements of a one-opener.
   
  
• The fact that none of us may have met this particular hand before seems irrelevant. IMO, in the absence of the regulation, all five of us would have an understanding to open 1♠ on such a hand.
   
  

The Orange Book contains 179 instances of the word "agreement".  Are you suggesting that after each one they should insert a definition of the word?

No :)

[gnasher]

in the absence of the regulation, all five of us would have an understanding to open 1♠ on such a hand.

By "understanding", I assume you mean "agreement". If so, how would you have formed that agreement?

[nige1]

in the absence of the regulation, all five of us would have an understanding to open 1♠ on such a hand.

By "understanding", I assume you mean "agreement".  If so, how would you have formed that agreement?

I think I've already anwered that ...

In the absence of the regulation, I would open it 1♠ too, because it seems to satisfy the normal requirements of a one-opener.

I think that would be the view of all five of us and that many players would have the same agreement (all assuming no contrary regulation). I've posted a poll to see what others think.

[gnasher]

I think I've already anwered that ...

Perhaps you have, but if so I have no idea when or where you did so.

[paulg]

I agree and disagree with both of you.

 

On nige1's comments about the 4NT opener, I would be confident to open this with any UK expert safe in the knowledge that he will show specific aces in response. I would regard this as an implicit agreement due to our (common) upbringing. I would be far less confident with a foreigner as I have no idea what is standard in their country, so I would regard it as a gamble and not an implicit agreement.

 

On the hand in question, I would expect an expert to recognise that some will open this hand 1♠. But, despite nige1's 5/5 match poll, I would not expect this to be universal and hence I would not regard it as an implicit agreement.

 

Paul