Deviations from permitted agreements

[WellSpyder]

Recent posts on the rule of 18 (EBU) and opening 1N with a singleton (ACBL?) have highlighted what I regard as a real problem with how certain permitted agreements are regulated, summed up in the view that you can exercise your judgement to open certain hands in a certain way that falls outside the permitted agreement, but only if your partner would not expect you to do it with the hand you hold (since that would then suggest an implicit agreement that was not legal).

 

My own recent exposure to this occurred with a two-way 1♣ opening. I play this with my regular partner as either a Precision-style strong club or 11-13 balanced with at least one 4-card major. The strong variety is defined as 16+ unbalanced, or 17+ balanced, but we also have at least an implicit agreement that some hands with less than 16 HCPs may still be worth a strong club opening. We have never agreed the exact conditions for upgrading such hands, but they obviously include the normal things that any real bridge player would take into account in valuing a bridge hand, including suit quality (honour distribution and intermediates) and shape.

 

So far, so good. However, the EBU regulations on permitted agreements insist that the strong version of a two-way club must by agreement satisfy the "extended rule of 25" - essentially in this context any hand without 16 HCPs must have a total of at least 25 when you add the HCPs to the length of the 2 longest suits (it is also OK if you have 8 "sure tricks", but that is less likely in this context).

 

As it happened, my partner chose recently to upgrade a 15-count with 5440 shape, reasonably enough considering this was a significantly stronger hand than a 5422 shape with the same honours would have been - although both would only meet a rule of 24. (I am not sure I would have made the same judgement with his hand, but that is his perogative.) The opponents argued that this implied we were using an illegal agreement and sought an artificial score on the board. The director agreed (though an appeal committee did not).

 

The particular merits of this case are less important to me than the implications for the future. I don't think I have upgraded a 15-count for several hundred boards with this partner, but sod's law intervened and only a few boards latter I picked up ♠Q10x♥AKQ10xx♦Ax♣xx - only a 15-count, but an excellent hand, surely, and worth more than the majority of 16-point hands. Imagine my horror, then, when I realised it did not satisfy the rule of 25. In theory I could still open 1♣ and argue that we had no particular agreement to upgrade such a hand, but what if my partner's judgment agreed with mine that this hand was indeed worth 1♣? In the end I took the coward's way out and opened 1♥ instead since I did not fancy another artificial score against us.

 

But I feel there must be something wrong with a system of regulation that effectively denies a partnership the use of judgment if they happen to broadly agree on how to exercise that judgment! As a further example of the contortions this form of regulation imposes on players who are only trying to play a decent game of bridge by exercising some judgment I might add that I would not have dared post this if I thought my partner took part in this forum since this might be taken as creating an implicit agreement. What a mess!

 

Anyone got any ideas of a better way of handling this aspect of regulation?

[helene_t]

I really don't know how literal the extended rule of 25 is to be taken.

 

But I can imagine that those who wrote the regulations had Polish Club in mind, in which the strong variant is 18 points. Since a 4333 18-point satisfies the rule, you could still make rather aggressive upgrades.

 

Say the agreement is to generally use the rule of 26 for shapy hands. Or 27 maybe. Then you could still use you judgement with some rule-of-25 hands.

 

If your formal agreement goes to the limit of the what the regulations allow, you are likely to develop an implicit agreement to open some hands that cross the border.

[RMB1]

Recent posts on the rule of 18 (EBU) and opening 1N with a singleton (ACBL?) have highlighted what I regard as a real problem with how certain permitted agreements are regulated, summed up in the view that you can exercise your judgement to open certain hands in a certain way that falls outside the permitted agreement, but only if your partner would not expect you to do it with the hand you hold (since that would then suggest an implicit agreement that was not legal).

I am glad to see this post. I was the TD and I was struck by the relevance of the earlier posts to the problem of ruling on this hand.

 

The AC found that WellSpyder and partner did not have an agreement/understanding to open this 5440 15 count. Some players (I think, including the AC) thought that the regulation should permit an agreement to open this hand as "strong", as part of a strong club or Either/Or club system.

 

Robin

[awm]

A while ago I suggested that:

 

A minor deviation from agreements occurs when a hand is off by one point or one card of length from the stated range, and the bidder can justify the decision to upgrade (or downgrade) based on the hand. Minor deviations from agreements are okay, even if they are fairly frequent or somewhat predictable (i.e. adding half points for tens).

 

A psych is a deviation from agreements which is more significant than one point or one card of length, or for which no coherent explanation is given. Psychs are usually allowed (although some NBO's do restrict psyching of artificial methods) but should be recorded and watched carefully for "fielding." Frequent psychs which are somewhat predictable in nature (i.e. partner could have knowledge of the psychic tendency) are not allowed.

 

This view would set a restriction where it's okay to be a point light for whatever the agreement is provided some justification can be given, but being more than a point light becomes substantially more problematic. So in the cases mentioned, it's okay to have an agreement of "rule of 25" and then open a 5440 15-count on the basis that this is a much more powerful shape than 5422, or to have an agreement of "rule of 25" and open the given hand with a six-card heart suit because of "concentrated values and two key tens." However, violating the agreement by yet another point would be viewed as a psychic bid.

 

If an NBO were to adopt such a policy, they might want to consider also raising the point limits for certain actions by a point, on the understanding that if you "need 8 hcp for an opening by agreement" then people will occasionally upgrade nice 7-counts without penalty.

[blackshoe]

Another side of the coin here is the ACBL's position on "strong". The GCC says that an artificial and forcing "strong" 2♣ opening is legal - but it doesn't define what "strong" means. In practice, the ACBL says "if the player making the bid believes his hand is 'strong', then it is". This results in AKQJxxxx and out being ruled as a legal "strong" 2♣ opening. The table director said that this "wasn't quite" a psych, but was unable to say what change to the hand would make it one. :)

[mjj29]

This results in AKQJxxxx and out being ruled as a legal "strong" 2♣ opening. The table director said that this "wasn't quite" a psych, but was unable to say what change to the hand would make it one. :ph34r:

Whereas the EBU have a (fairly) clear rule on this, and that would probably be allowed (it has 8 clear-cut tricks). Describing it as an acol 2C would, however, be MI, not to mention bad bridge..

 

Matt

[nige1]

I feel that system-restrictions handicap ordinary players who try to comply with them. I used to think it was normally illegal to

• To pass the multi, with values for game opposite a strong option, in the EBU.
  
• To open at the one-level, with rule of 18 hands of less than 8 HCP in the EBU.
  
• To open a strong ♣, with less than 16 HCP and flouting extended rule of 25 in the EBU.
  
• To open a natural 1N, with a singleton in America.
  

In the last three cases, I was under the misapprehension that the director would assume an implicit understanding if he felt that the action you took was one that you would probably take if there were no inhibiting regulation.

 

Hence, I thought Bluejak was hanging himself out to dry when he wrote that he would open 1♠ on ♠ Axxxxxx ♥ - ♦ Kxxxxx ♣ x. Now I learn that insiders judge such actions to be OK. You are free to use your judgement in these matters. It's only agreements to perform such actions that are illegal. And directors will often give you the benefit of the doubt. Of course, you must be careful not to discuss your habits with partner. Luckily, most of of the appropriate hand-types are rare enough for you to avoid a pattern. Anyway, you can occasionally vary your action, when reasonable alternatives are available (for example, sometimes pre-empt on hand-types like the example). To ensure that you comply with the laws, it pays partners, independently, to study reputable legal advice in fora like this :ph34r: If you compared notes with partner you might be surprised to find that you're both on the same general wavelength. So, to be safe you can take care not to discuss what you learn.

 

If directors interpret the regulations this way, I feel that it is important that ordinary Bridge-Players are made aware of it. For practical play it matters less "what do the regulations mean?" than "how do directors enforce them?" :)

[WellSpyder]

...to be safe you can  take care not to discuss what you learn.

 

If directors interpret the regulations this way, I feel that it is important that ordinary Bridge-Players are made aware of it. ...

I do not envy anyone tasked with explaining to ordinary players that they should not discuss their choice of bids in these areas with their partners! :rolleyes:

[helene_t]

So, to be safe you can take care not to discuss what you learn.

Sorry but that's ridiculous.

 

Say you have learned that partner opens 1NT with a singleton under certain circumstances. Now you have an implicit agreement which may or may not be legal. Making it explicit doesn't make it less legal. On the contrary, explicit agreements are much less prone to misexplanation so from an ethical point of view they are to be preferred.

 

The solution is to play a system that doesn't make it attractive to open 1NT with a singleton. If you can't think of such a system, avoid events where you can't systematically open 1NT with a singleton.

[nige1]

So, to be safe you can take care not to discuss what you learn.

Sorry but that's ridiculous.

I agree Helene_T. I was trying to show how ridiculous it is.

 

IMO, if you open 1N with a singleton, the director should assume you have an implicit agreement to do so, if you would probably make the same bid in the absence of an inhibiting regulation. (or in ignorance of such a regulation).

 

But if I interpret expert advice correctly, on some hands with a singleton, they tell us it is OK to flout your normal agreements, opening 1N if you judge that to be the best bid.

 

Unfortunately, even if there is no implicit agreement, the result is still the same. Obviously, partner doesn't need to know because his actions are unaffected. Only opponents suffer.

 

In fact opponents suffer more than if the action were by agreement because they are not informed that opener may have a singleton.

[nige1]

... Say you have learned that partner opens 1NT with a singleton under certain circumstances. Now you have an implicit agreement which may or may not be legal. Making it explicit doesn't make it less legal. On the contrary, explicit agreements are much less prone to misexplanation so from an ethical point of view they are to be preferred.

The solution is to play a system that doesn't make it attractive to open 1NT with a singleton. If you can't think of such a system, avoid events where you can't systematically open 1NT with a singleton.

Partner won't open 1N with a singleton, on all the hands that he could. Also, when partner opens 1N, you can employ transfers to minimise the danger of an implicit agreement: when you are dummy (almost all the time), you can take no notice of the play: with luck, you can stay blissfully unaware of whether or not he habitually opens with singletons ;)

[nigel_k]

I think there will always be an absurdity somewhere if the regulation is worded in a way that eliminates the use of judgment.

 

If they want to use rule of 25, they should say something like 'the strong option must have either 16+ HCP or at least as much playing strength as an average rule of 25 hand'.

 

The downside of this would be that the appeals committee might not agree with your assessment of the hand's playing strength, but at least you could make the normal bid if prepared to defend your valuation.

 

But given the actual regulation I think you just cannot upgrade the example hands if you play with that partner often enough that it becomes an implicit agreement. IMO you were a bit lucky the AC ruled as they did.

[nige1]

...to be safe you can  take care not to discuss what you learn. If directors interpret the regulations this way, I feel that it is important that ordinary Bridge-Players are made aware of it. ...

I do not envy anyone tasked with explaining to ordinary players that they should not discuss their choice of bids in these areas with their partners! ;)

You made a similar point yourself, wellspyder, in the context of your partner reading this thread ;)

[nige1]

I think there will always be an absurdity somewhere if the regulation is worded in a way that eliminates the use of judgment.

I think that excessive scope for judgement, by players and directors, when interpreting the rules, is responsible for many legal problems.

[jallerton]

As a further example of the contortions this form of regulation imposes on players who are only trying to play a decent game of bridge by exercising some judgment I might add that I would not have dared post this if I thought my partner took part in this forum since this might be taken as creating an implicit agreement. 

Why? You have admitted earlier in your post that your partnership already has an implicit agreement to upgrade "good" 15-counts.

 

Anyone got any ideas of a better way of handling this aspect of regulation?

 

If the EBU is to regulate the minimum strength of permitted agreements at all then it needs to use certain yardsticks, preferably ones which are capable of being easily understood.

 

The EBU chooses to use HCP and "Rule of X".

 

Let's take the "Rule of X" in the context of 1-level opening bids. Most traditional opening bids will comply with the "Rule of 20" - a 4/4 12-count, a 5/4 11-count or a 6/4 10-count. Maybe some "Rule of 19" hands will be considered opening bids, for example a 4333 12-count or a 6322 10-count.

 

But what if you have a hand with good intermediates or honour structure that you feel is worth a point or two more? No problem, because the EBU has set the agreed minimum strength at Level 4 (in 1st/2nd positions) to be "Rule of 18".

 

I suspect that the bar is set there to allow partnerships to agree to open 1♠ on hands such as:

 

♠AJ1098 ♥A1098 ♦973 ♣4

 

rather than the average "Rule of 18" hand (though clearly a side effect of the regulations is that one may agree to open a hand such as ♠Q6543 ♥J7542 ♦QJ ♣Q).

 

So I agree with Helene. With the regulations as they are, the best strategy is to agree to set your mininum strength slightly higher than the permitted floor. Then if you or your partner chooses to upgrade a hand, the upgraded hand still meets the minimum criteria.

 

If you really wish to be able to open "Rule of 24", 15HCP hands, then I suggest that you write to the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee to ask them to relax the requirements for the strong version of 1♣. Mind you, you'd need to come up with some persuasive arguments, as this has been considered on previous occasions:

 

The L&E accepted a recommendation that the minimum strength for the strong option of an “eitheror”

1♣ opening should be brought in line with that for a strong 1♣ opening, namely 16 HCP.

(Note – see 3.1 C for explanation of “either-or” 1♣ openings).

The L&E considered a suggestion that it was inconsistent to regulate the minimum strength of strong artificial openings at the one level in terms of HCP when most other opening bids are regulated in terms of “Rule of X”. It concluded that it was undesirable to permit players to open supposedly strong artificial openings on distributionally strong hands with a low point count, and accordingly the distinction should be retained. 

 

The L&E considered correspondence critical of the decision to regulate strong 1♣ openings and the strong options of “either-or” 1♣ openings by reference to point count alone. The correspondents argued that to prevent players agreeing to upgrade hands with a lower point count but excellent playing strength was unwarranted. The L&E agreed that the present position was not sustainable, and decided that the minimum strength should be Rule of 25, or 16 HCP.

 

Since then, we have had a slight relaxation with the "extended rule of 25", but the Committee has clearly been aware of hands such as:

 

♠Q106 ♥AKQ1054 ♦A8 ♣84 and

 

♠KQ65 ♥ none ♦AJ754 ♣AJ43

 

when it came up with the current boundaries.

[mjj29]

If the EBU is to regulate the minimum strength of permitted agreements at all then it needs to use certain yardsticks, preferably ones which are capable of being easily understood.

 

The EBU chooses to use HCP and "Rule of X".

 

Let's take the "Rule of X" in the context of 1-level opening bids. Most traditional opening bids will comply with the "Rule of 20" - a 4/4 12-count, a 5/4 11-count or a 6/4 10-count. Maybe some "Rule of 19" hands will be considered opening bids, for example a 4333 12-count or a 6322 10-count.

 

But what if you have a hand with good intermediates or honour structure that you feel is worth a point or two more? No problem, because the EBU has set the agreed minimum strength at Level 4 (in 1st/2nd positions) to be "Rule of 18".

 

I suspect that the bar is set there to allow partnerships to agree to open 1♠ on hands such as:

 

♠AJ1098 ♥A1098 ♦973 ♣4

 

rather than the average "Rule of 18" hand (though clearly a side effect of the regulations is that one may agree to open a hand such as ♠Q6543 ♥J7542 ♦QJ ♣Q).

 

So I agree with Helene. With the regulations as they are, the best strategy is to agree to set your mininum strength slightly higher than the permitted floor. Then if you or your partner chooses to upgrade a hand, the upgraded hand still meets the minimum criteria.

I'd just like to say I fully agree with this post

[WellSpyder]

As a further example of the contortions this form of regulation imposes on players who are only trying to play a decent game of bridge by exercising some judgment I might add that I would not have dared post this if I thought my partner took part in this forum since this might be taken as creating an implicit agreement. 

Why? You have admitted earlier in your post that your partnership already has an implicit agreement to upgrade "good" 15-counts.

Because we currently have no agreement about which "good 15 point hands" are worth upgrading!

 

I told the director and AC that we had an implicit agreement that some 15 point hands were worth upgrading because I believe in all my partnerships that there is an implicit agreement that point counts are a guide only for all bids, not a strict requirement, and it would have been unfair to the opponents to try to pretend that any upgrading was entirely unexpected.

 

It seems to me that under current regulations we should probably be a bit more explicit about this, eg perhaps our convention card should describe the strong component of 1♣ as "16+ unbalanced, 17+ balanced (shapely 15 counts or occasionally 14 counts may be upgraded if justified by playing strength and the hand meets the rule of 25)". Of course, it might then be argued that we have only written the agreement this way to get round the rules, but I would be happy to base our bidding on such an agreement, which in effect is what I think we have been playing anyway.

 

It remains the case, though, that there may be exceptional hands that I believe are worth upgrading that do not fit this agreement (and I think ♠Q106 ♥AKQ1054 ♦A8 ♣84 is probably a better example that the 4054 hand). Although I do not have it in front of me, I seem to recall that there is quite a bit of advice in one of the standard texts on Precision (Rigal's Precision in the 90s) on upgrading hands with less than 16 points and I am sure there are examples there that would get a Precision pair into trouble under a strict interpretation of the current regulations. It does strike me as unfortunate that such a widely-used book is apparently about an illegal system.

[mjj29]

eg perhaps our convention card should describe the strong component of 1♣ as "16+ unbalanced, 17+ balanced (shapely 15 counts or occasionally 14 counts may be upgraded if justified by playing strength and the hand meets the rule of 25)". Of course, it might then be argued that we have only written the agreement this way to get round the rules, but I would be happy to base our bidding on such an agreement, which in effect is what I think we have been playing anyway.

This is precisely the agreement that I have playing a strong diamond and it's not 'getting around the rules', since you are restricting upgrades to ones meeting the extended rule of 25, which is alloweed. However, as a result, I _won't_ upgrade hands that _don't_ meet the extended rule of 25.

 

I think, if you are going to agree to open the minimum legal, then you can't deviate/upgrade below that. If you normal agreements are above the minimum, then sure.

[gordontd]

I think, if you are going to agree to open the minimum legal, then you can't deviate/upgrade below that. If you normal agreements are above the minimum, then sure.

That's how it's always seemed to me (that's what the word "minimum" means), and I've been surprised that others have taken a different view.

[WellSpyder]

I think, if you are going to agree to open the minimum legal, then you can't deviate/upgrade below that. If you normal agreements are above the minimum, then sure.

That's how it's always seemed to me (that's what the word "minimum" means), and I've been surprised that others have taken a different view.

My problem (which I think the AC in this case accepted, too) is that you cannot define the strength of a hand purely in terms of HCPs and the length of the two longest suits. If you are going to deny any use of judgment, it would at least be helpful to define the minimum in terms that are a bit closer to describing the strength of the hand. Would you regard an Acol player as guilty of MI if they described the jump rebid as showing 16 or more points if partner opened 1♥ with ♠Q106 ♥AKQ1054 ♦A8 ♣84 and then rebid 3♥? I wouldn't, since I think the hand IS worth at least 16 points.

[WellSpyder]

As I understand it, the current EBU regulations regarding the rule of 25 were devised in the context of the Benji 2♣opening, where there was concern that a bid described as strong was being made on hands that might have 8 playing tricks but were really pre-emptive hands, and that the misdescription as strong was unfairly deterring opponents from competing. The same restrictions have been placed on an artificial "strong" 1♣ opening.

 

I wonder whether anyone sees any merits in regulating strong 1♣ and 2♣ bids differently? I can tell you from experience that very few people are deterred from intervening over 1♣ as a result of it being described as strong! (Indeed, one of the reasons we play 1♣ as two-way, including a weakish balanced option, is to alter the potential costs and benefits of random intervention.)

[bluejak]

The Committee has moved the other way. Previously, a strong club required a minimum of 16 HCP. I think that the fact that the Committee now allows a strong 1♣ opening on

 

AKxxxxx

AKxxxx

--

--

 

which previously they did not, is a step forward ,not back. :)

[Blue Uriah]

I wonder whether anyone sees any merits in regulating strong 1♣ and 2♣ bids differently?

I think they should. An Acol 2♣ shows an excellent hand and if people go around bidding it on merely decent hands without telling the opponents about it then they have every right to be aggrieved. A Precision 1♣ claims only to show a good hand and if people go around bidding it on hands which are pretty good, maybe not quite good enough in terms of HCP or RO25 but plenty good enough when compared with other hands that do fit the definition then it's hard to see that anybody has really been damaged. Frankly, I'm amazed somebody even called the director.

 

The trouble is that the legally defined minimum for a strong 1♣ is exactly the same as the traditional minimum for a strong 1♣ - there's no room for manoevre at all. If every Precision pair played a 17+ club but decided to upgrade a few good-looking 16 counts then there wouldn't be a problem but people have been playing a 16+ club since the 50's.

[helene_t]

There are two issues which I think sometimes get confused. One is whether you can play a 2♣ (or 1♣, or whatever) opening as including some 13 points with 7 playing tricks. Another is if you can disclose such an agreement as merely "strong" (or "acol 2♣" or w/e).

 

The reason that there are restrictions on how aggressively you can upgrade is that if your 2♣ (or 1♣, or whatever) opening shows nothing about a shape and doesn't promise much of defensive strength either, then opps need a way to bid constructively against an opening that says nothing about shape. So it is restricted on the same grounds that you cannot play 2♣ as a preempt which may or may not have clubs.

 

I am not sure if I think there should be different rules for 1♣ openings and 2♣ openings. It is easier to come up with a defense that allows you to bid constructively as well as destructively against a 1♣ opening than against a 2♣. That is a case for allowing players to ugrade Bluejak's example 14-count to a strong 1♣ while not allowing for an upgrade of the same hand to a 2♣ opening. On the other hand, maybe the idea is that opponents will defend purely destructively, so a strong artificial opening should promise enough general strength to make it sensible for opps not to be able to show constructive values, and then it doens't matter whether it's a 1♣ or a 2♣ opening (or a pass or 1♦ or w/e).

[WellSpyder]

The trouble is that the legally defined minimum for a strong 1♣ is exactly the same as the traditional minimum for a strong 1♣ - there's no room for manoevre at all. If every Precision pair played a 17+ club but decided to upgrade a few good-looking 16 counts then there wouldn't be a problem but people have been playing a 16+ club since the 50's.

I think this hits the nail on the head. It does seem unfortunate that the effect of the regulation is almost to rule out any judgment in this particular area of a very common system, while most aspects of every other system are left open to judgment.

 

I've just learnt that at least one other strong club pair opened the same hand 1♣, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were others (though I don't know how many of the 16 or so pairs holding this hand will have been playing a strong club). These are not pairs who are constantly trying to push the boundaries of what is allowed, but simply ones trying to apply a bit of judgment to something that has been played for decades.