ACBL psyche ruling

[pretender]

Essentially, after partner opened in 3rd seat, I psyched a XX with 1HCP. Playing in an ACBL speedball on BBO, I don't know the quality of the directors. They cited the ACBL GCC:

 

"Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional

responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less

than 2NT, to natural openings."

 

1. Unless I'm misunderstanding the wording, the XX was not in response to a conventional opening bid, so shouldn't count.

 

2. I don't consider XX in itself to be a conventional call.

 

There was no appeal, but I expect to ask a couple of the top top directors about this when I'm in Reno.

[lamford]

Surprisingly I could not find a definition of conventional in the Laws, nor in the Orange Book or White Book - two EBU publications. I presume it therefore gets its most appropriate dictionary meaning. There is usually space on the convention card for the bid, and the convention with a pick-up partner is that it shows something like 10+ without a fit, so it would seem to be conventional in my eyes. It is clearly not artificial, however, but the RA seem to have banned psyches of all conventional openings and responses. I would think that both a strong and weak NT are conventional, which I would regard as "covered by an agreement which could appear on the convention card". So, under the GCC, the RA seem to have also banned psyching 1NT, whatever the range.

 

40B(1)b does specify that a convention is included <snip> among the agreements <snip>that constitute special partnership understanding, but that is not a great help.

[iviehoff]

In the index to the 2007 Laws, at least the edition I have, for "convention" it says "see partnership understanding". In essence, any bid which is the subject of a partnership understanding, explicit or implicit, is a conventional bid. 5-card majors is a convention. 2/1 is a convention. 15-17 NT is a convention. Limit raises is a convention. If you look in the dictionary for help, it will tell much the same: "conventional" means no more than "in accordance with a convention, ie, an agreement". It will also tell you it means "normal", what people usually do, ie, in accordance with the usual societal implicit "agreements". Agreements don't have to be to do something different, unusual, they can be agreements to do the usual thing.

 

So if ACBL say you aren't allowed to psyche "conventional" bids with that meaning, then I think they have inadvertently banned psyching entirely. A psyche is a departure from an agreement. But if you have an agreement, any agreement, explicit or implicit, it is conventional, so according to the ACBL you can't psyche it.

 

Really I think they probably meant to ban psyching bids with an agreed artificial meaning, not any agreed meaning.

 

If we look at the definition of artificial in the laws, we see it refers to bids containing information "not being taken for granted by players generally". So I think the practically universal interpretation of XX in this situation cannot be described as an artificial meaning.

[blackshoe]

Redouble is not a bid. Nor is it a suit response. (It is a response to a suit bid, but that's not what the regulation is talking about, IMO).

[bluejak]

The word convention is not defined in the Laws because the WBFLC has decided that Laws should not be based on the term convention so it is unnecessary. It is not defined on the Orange or White books because the EBU tries not to use the term: it was deliberately taken out of the alerting and permitted agreement regulations some years ago, though it is possible it still appears by accident. Now even the term convention card is being replaced by system card.

 

Since this is a question about ACBL regulations, it is unclear to me why anyone would look in the Orange or White books. Looking in the Law book is fine, but since it is not there, perhaps better would be to look in ACBL regulations.

 

In the index to the 2007 Laws, at least the edition I have, for "convention" it says "see partnership understanding". In essence, any bid which is the subject of a partnership understanding, explicit or implicit, is a conventional bid.

It does not take an expert in logic to see the fallacy in this. There is no suggestion whatever that every partnership understanding is a convention, and that is not normal usage either. Of course a natural 1NT showing a particular range is not a convention.

 

If, instead of looking at total irrelevancies, you just consider the regulation and the sequence, surely it will be easier?

 

"Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional

responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less

than 2NT, to natural openings."

Was it a conventional opening? No, it was natural [ok, it does not say so, but it is implicit in the OP].

 

Was it an artificial opening? No, it was natural [ok, it does not say so, but it is implicit in the OP].

 

Was it a conventional suit response, less than 2NT? No, it was natural.

 

Thus the apparent ruling was wrong.

[lamford]

There is no suggestion whatever that every partnership understanding is a convention, and that is not normal usage either.  Of course a natural 1NT showing a particular range is not a convention.

I agree here that the ruling was wrong, because the redouble was not a suit response, but I do not agree with your interpretation of the meaning of "conventional". The dictionary meaning of the word is not much help, but the use of the term "convention card" is clear. I think you are confusing "conventional" and "artificial".

 

It is irrelevant whether "every partnership understanding is a convention". 40B1( b ) tells us:

A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning.

 

This specifically tells us that conventions are treated the same way as any other special partnership understanding, and the ACBL regulation could equally be written:

 

"Psyching of openng bids which are the subject of any special partnership understanding <snip> [is prohibited]"

"Psyching of any suit responses which are less than 2NT which are the subject of any special partnership understanding <snip> [is prohibited]"

 

So, one is prohibited, I think, from psyching anything the RA had designated a "special partnership understanding", but I do not know where to look for that list!

[helene_t]

Sounds to me as if those who wrote the definition of "convention" had some other regulations in mind and didn't realize that the word "convention" is in some regulations, such as the one discussed here, used in the meaning of "artificial" (or maybe something like "not quite natural", for example it could be that Muiderberg is a non-artificial convention, if there is such a thing. While a standard weak 2 is a non-convention, and a multi 2♦ is an artificial bid).

[blackshoe]

So, one is prohibited, I think, from psyching anything the RA had designated a "special partnership understanding", but I do not know where to look for that list!

Where the ACBL is concerned, AFAIK, you can look wherever you like, but you will not find it. It doesn't exist.

[mycroft]

Lamford, you're looking at the GCC, which hasn't been updated since July of 2008. The New Laws were brought into play in the ACBL in September of 2008. The old Laws defined convention (badly). Given the ACBL's resistance to change and "if it works, don't mess with it", expect a change to the GCC in about 2013, where DISALLOWED, 7 is rewritten to remove the no-longer-needed Endicott Fudge. If we're lucky, references to convention will disappear, too, but don't count on it.

 

Having said that, the OP should send this one to acbl @ bridgebase. Include the section the TD quoted. Because if the TD had read the section he quoted, he would have realized that the bit he thought applied (psyching a conventional response to a natural opening) doesn't quite read the way he thought; and that XX isn't a suit response.

[lamford]

Lamford, you're looking at the GCC, which hasn't been updated since July of 2008.

I just read the OP, which told me what they were, rightly or wrongly. Er, no, I did not check them .... The impression I gain of the ACBL is of an organisation which tends to disallow anything which might upset an ageing membership; if that is unfair I apologise, but it is the impression I have gained from many posts.

 

And I am not offering an opinion on whether that is a good or bad thing ...

[bluejak]

There is no suggestion whatever that every partnership understanding is a convention, and that is not normal usage either.  Of course a natural 1NT showing a particular range is not a convention.

I agree here that the ruling was wrong, because the redouble was not a suit response, but I do not agree with your interpretation of the meaning of "conventional". The dictionary meaning of the word is not much help, but the use of the term "convention card" is clear. I think you are confusing "conventional" and "artificial".

 

It is irrelevant whether "every partnership understanding is a convention". 40B1( b ) tells us:

A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning.

 

This specifically tells us that conventions are treated the same way as any other special partnership understanding, and the ACBL regulation could equally be written:

 

"Psyching of openng bids which are the subject of any special partnership understanding <snip> [is prohibited]"

"Psyching of any suit responses which are less than 2NT which are the subject of any special partnership understanding <snip> [is prohibited]"

 

So, one is prohibited, I think, from psyching anything the RA had designated a "special partnership understanding", but I do not know where to look for that list!

You just cannot invent definitions to please yourself. A convention is basically an artificial agreement, and everyone has known that for forty plus years, but because the Law book used to use it people got all stupid about the actual definition. But that does not mean it is a special partnership understanding. It is included in special partnership understanding.

 

Halmic is included in special partnership understandings. Therefore every special partnership understanding is Halmic. Sorry, Paul, that is ridiculous. Of course there are special partnership understandings that are not conventions.

 

Just assume that a conventional call is an artificial one, and you will be pretty close. If you really want to go into the difference in detail, there is a very nice place called BLML that will be charmed to discuss it for ever.

 

You are allowed to psyche anything that is natural whether a special partnership understanding or not.

[lamford]

A convention is basically an artificial agreement, and everyone has known that for forty plus years <big snip>

Rubbish. There are artificial bids, and there are conventions. They are two sets which may overlap. The wording of:

 

"A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning."

 

indicates that they are different (at least in the eyes of the Law Book, which is the only relevant consideration here).

[bluejak]

Rubbish. You know perfectly well they are basically the same, and the wording there proves nothing except that there is one single call somewhere in someone's agreements which is different.

 

This is not the right forum for trying to persuade people to deliberately rule wrong based on some pedantic flim-flam. The meaning of convention is well-known, and the suggestion that this Law changes that definition is ludicrous.

[atlantajon]

Well. As this is an ACBL question, the ruling needs to be based on the ACBL laws and definitions.

 

Firstly, we need to understand what is allowed and disallowed in the ACBL when it comes to psychs.

 

The GCC says: Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional

responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less

than 2NT, to natural openings. are not allowed.

 

So, we have to look at the auction....and determine if any of these are the case here.

 

The auction went: P,P,1C (alerted as could be as short as 2),X

XX,1S,P,P

P....

 

We need to determine if the 1C bid is conventional or artificial.

 

The ACBL Statement on Conventions:

 

The latest version of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge defines a convention as a call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there.

 

http://www.acbl.org/play/activeEthics.html#Conventions

 

Since the 1C bid was alerted as "could be as short as 2 cards"... it is a conventional opener. Since it is not a suggestion to play there...and does not show at least 3 cards in the suit.

 

If it showed 3+ cards, then it is natural...and not conventional....

 

As for the XX. The ACBL definition of convention speaks to that clearly.

 

http://www.acbl.org/play/alert.html

 

It artificially promises values in a suit other than the last named....so therefore conventional.

 

So, If the 1C bid is conventional...then a psych of a conventional XX is NOT allowed in response to it.

 

It reads pretty clearly for me.

 

Thanks,

 

Atlantajon (ACBL Director)

[barmar]

The ACBL Statement on Conventions:

 

The latest version of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge defines a convention as a call that, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning other than willingness to play in the denomination named (or in the last denomination named), or high-card strength or length (three cards or more) there.

 

http://www.acbl.org/play/activeEthics.html#Conventions

That paragraph seems to be confusing "convention" and "artificial" as well. It also needs to be updated, since the "latest version of the Laws" no longer defines a convention.

 

For instance, DONT overcalls over 1NT are conventional, but they show length in the suit named and willingness to play there. They ALSO show length in some other suit, which is what makes them conventional.

 

Artificial calls are conventional, but conventional calls are not necessarily artificial.

 

But regardless of this, the XX doesn't seem to fit any of the prohibited psyches.

[pretender]

Atlanta Jon,

I don't know where you got your info, but 1C was never alerted as 2+. We play standard convenient minor openings. In that regard then I think we'll both agree the ruling was incorrect.

 

Also, on the actual hand, the damage on the hand was completely subsequent and not consequent. By the time North showed up with 15HCP, declarer could still have made 9 tricks, and the XX did not cause any damage in terms of declarer's chosen line of play.

 

But to the more important law question at hand. How is opening 1C, even if it promises 2+, not "a willingness to play in the denomination named"? To force that to be defined as "conventional" just seems too nitpicky.

[blackshoe]

As for the XX. The ACBL definition of convention speaks to that clearly.

 

http://www.acbl.org/play/alert.html

 

It artificially promises values in a suit other than the last named....so therefore conventional.

We aren't told by the OP what XX means in his system. We are told that he doesn't consider it conventional. He may be right. Without knowing what it means in his system, we can't know whether it is conventional.

 

The 'natural' meaning of XX is "we should make this contract". If that implies values outside partner's suit, it surely doesn't do so "artificially".

[blackshoe]

But to the more important law question at hand. How is opening 1C, even if it promises 2+, not "a willingness to play in the denomination named"? To force that to be defined as "conventional" just seems too nitpicky.

We have three terms: "natural", "artificial", and "conventional". I think it's clear that all artificial calls are conventional. It also seems clear that all calls are either artificial or natural, but not both. That leaves natural, but also conventional calls. It seems there are some.

 

Because the ACBL defines as natural bids in a minor suit that show at least three cards in the suit, such a bid that may have less than three cards in the suit is not natural. It is therefore artificial, even though it may denote a willingness to play in that minor. Since it is artificial, it is conventional.

[bluejak]

I am sorry, but as I told lamford earlier in the thread, you do not make up your own rules. A 1♣ opening that shows 3+ cards is considered not artificial, and not conventional: a 1♣ opening that shows 2+ cards is considered artificial, and conventional. That is the way it is, and calling it nit-picking will not alter it. It also seems both sensible and obvious to me, but that's another matter.

 

But my posts on this thread, and presumably others until Atlanta Jon, were based on the presumption that it was a natural opening. While the OP did not say so, I presumed if it had been conventional the OP would have said so.

 

Now, as to whether redouble is conventional, I do not believe it is. The definition according to the ACBL is

 

Convention: A bid which, by partnership agreement, conveys a meaning not necessarily related to the denomination named or, in the case of a pass, double or redouble, the last denomination named. In addition, a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength, or artificially promises or denies values other than in the last suit named.

However, there are problems with this. First, the definition of Convention is for alerting and it does not say it is a general definition so it is an interesting question whether it applies to their permitted agreements regulations.

 

Second, it is definitely ambiguous. I can see the argument that it shows values elsewhere than the suit named. I do not buy it myself, since the main meaning of a redouble here is 'I have enough strength to make this contract' with hopes to play it and make it, or to penalise a run-out - and that is not a conventional meaning.

[hrothgar]

I am sorry, but as I told lamford earlier in the thread, you do not make up your own rules. A 1♣ opening that shows 3+ cards is considered not artificial, and not conventional: a 1♣ opening that shows 2+ cards is considered artificial, and conventional. That is the way it is, and calling it nit-picking will not alter it. It also seems both sensible and obvious to me, but that's another matter.

You might want to sit down and have a chat with John Wignall, since the WBF established a very different precedent during a recent event...

[jdonn]

I am sorry, but as I told lamford earlier in the thread, you do not make up your own rules.  A 1♣ opening that shows 3+ cards is considered not artificial, and not conventional: a 1♣ opening that shows 2+ cards is considered artificial, and conventional.  That is the way it is, and calling it nit-picking will not alter it.  It also seems both sensible and obvious to me, but that's another matter.

What kind of debate is this? Any time someone disagrees with you do you just say they are wrong because.... well I can't see any reason why except because you insist it is so, and that's the way it is. Well what you call "pedantic flim-flam" I call "proof you are wrong", as anyone who has taken a math class knows it only takes one counter-example to disprove a theory. Not that it matters since in this case there are a number of counter examples, namely any 2 or 3 suited bid shown by bidding one of the suits.

 

How about this. A 2♥ overcall over 1NT showing hearts and a minor is conventional, that is obvious. It is natural because it shows hearts. QED? Or maybe not, because you say so...

[mycroft]

The GCC says:  Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto. Psyching conventional suit responses, which are less

than 2NT, to natural openings. are not allowed.

 

So, we have to look at the auction....and determine if any of these are the case here.

 

The auction went:  P,P,1C (alerted as could be as short as 2),X

                          XX,1S,P,P

                          P....

 

We need to determine if the 1C bid is conventional or artificial.

This was not provided to us all; and the OP claims the 2+ is not accurate. I don't see it Alerted in myhands, but then, I don't see any Alerted, but unexplained call highlighted in myhands, so that doesn't mean anything either. Ignoring what actually happened, however, let me talk about this auction, as presented:

 

We have been told that "as short as 2" minor openings, while not meeting the definition of natural in the GCC, do not fit the meaning of conventional for the purposes of COMPETITIVE, 7 of the GCC ([Allowed: Conventional] Defences to...conventional calls). I happen to, personally, disagree with that decision (because of issues like this one, and because of the fact that it isn't in writing for the punters), but there it is, and I rule, when I do rule, accordingly. So, if it's conventional for the purposes of DISALLOWED, 2, but not conventional for the purposes of COMPETITIVE, 7, that seems unfair, as well as even more arbitrary than it currently is.

 

I would agree with you on the rest of your logic (snipped) IF I was allowed to play holo-bolo over the "could be 2" 1C openings, or if I had to defend against crazy overcalls over my Precision 1D (2+) opener.

 

Having said all of that (and this is more aimed at the OP), subsequent/consequent is not really relevant to "use of illegal convention", at least as much as the offender's score is concerned; nor as far as the non-offender's score is concerned, unless the "subsequent" is a "serious error or wild and gambling action". Although as I said, I know the hand, I choose not to apply my judgement to that question.

[hrothgar]

We have been told that "as short as 2" minor openings, while not meeting the definition of natural in the GCC, do not fit the meaning of conventional for the purposes of COMPETITIVE, 7 of the GCC ([Allowed: Conventional] Defences to...conventional calls). I happen to, personally, disagree with that decision (because of issues like this one, and because of the fact that it isn't in writing for the punters), but there it is, and I rule, when I do rule, accordingly. So, if it's conventional for the purposes of DISALLOWED, 2, but not conventional for the purposes of COMPETITIVE, 7, that seems unfair, as well as even more arbitrary than it currently is.

 

I would agree with you on the rest of your logic (snipped) IF I was allowed to play holo-bolo over the "could be 2" 1C openings, or if I had to defend against crazy overcalls over my Precision 1D (2+) opener.

For the record, said regulations are enforced in a VERY slipshod fashion.

 

I've had no problems playing

 

2♥ = weak jump overcall in Hearts or Spades

 

over 2+ minor suit openings.

[hrothgar]

Duplicate post deleted

[blackshoe]

We have been told that "as short as 2" minor openings, while not meeting the definition of natural in the GCC, do not fit the meaning of conventional for the purposes of COMPETITIVE, 7 of the GCC ([Allowed: Conventional] Defences to...conventional calls).

Hang on a minute. Who is "we", and who told them?