Psyche, Deviation or what?

[blackshoe]

I like Hrothgar's answer to Jeffrey's case [a]. :D If I were pressed for a Law, I suppose Law 40. It is interesting, though, that the ACBL took the opportunity to designate only one agreement as a "special partnership understanding", and this one ain't it. :) ;)

[peachy]

I just got an email from Rick Beye at ACBL HQ on the subject of opening on 9 HCP when your agreement is 10-12. He said "Our position has not change on 10-12 NT = NO deviations.  Once instance deserves a harsh procedural penalty." That only applies in the ACBL, of course.

With a new partner I agree to play 10-12 NT.

 

Case (a). On the first hand I pick up an excellent 9-count which I judge to be a better hand than the average 10-count. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

 

Case . On the first hand I pick up an average 7-count on which I decide to psyche a 1NT opener. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

I thought this was clear, but perhaps it is not?

a. ACBL regulation violated and in strictest sense L40B because that gives the ACBL the right to regulate it, and they have so regulated.

b. No law or regulation violated. This is a psych.

[dburn]

Look, if you want to play, as dburn seems to, against opps who religiously stick to 12-14 or whatever exact hcp range

I have no idea what has caused you to arrive at this conclusion, but it is not true. As I have remarked many times, I don't care what you play or how you count your points. You are entirely at liberty to open a "weak" no trump on ♠Qxxx ♥KQ ♦KQ ♣Axxxx if you wish - I happen to think it's pretty awful bridge, but there is no Law against your playing badly.

 

What you are not at liberty to do is open 1NT with that and have your partner announce "12-14", for there is a Law against your playing methods that you do not properly disclose.

[mjj29]

What you are not at liberty to do is open 1NT with that and have your partner announce "12-14", for there is a Law against your playing methods that you do not properly disclose.

So if someone were to play a hand evaluation methods where 1NT is mostly 12-14, sometimes a good 11 or bad 15 and once in a blue moon an excellent 10 or a really aweful 16 (bridge merits aside), do you really think that it should be announced "10 to 16" - I think that's far more misleading than saying "12-14", or at least "12-14ish" (disclosure on the convention card should be more verbose, of course).

[dburn]

What you are not at liberty to do is open 1NT with that and have your partner announce "12-14", for there is a Law against your playing methods that you do not properly disclose.

So if someone were to play a hand evaluation methods where 1NT is mostly 12-14, sometimes a good 11 or bad 15 and once in a blue moon an excellent 10 or a really awful 16 (bridge merits aside), do you really think that it should be announced "10 to 16"?

No.

 

If NickRW actually plays "reasonable 12 to bad 15", which is what he says he plays, then he should tell me that it is what he plays - that is, his partner's announcement should be in those terms.

 

But if every time he picks up (in some order) queen empty fourth, ace empty fifth and a couple of KQ doubletons he is going to open 1NT, then his disclosure should include the information. He argues that the hand is "in fact" a 15 count, and a bad 15 count at that, but it is in fact a 16 count and I cannot be expected to know that he will open 1NT with it unless his partnership tells me that he will.

 

He argues, somewhat weirdly, that such a hand is "worse for playing in notrump" than some balanced 15 count or other. This is true, but perhaps he should consider that if your hand is bad for playing in notrump, you might open it with some other bid than 1NT.

[bluejak]

I just got an email from Rick Beye at ACBL HQ on the subject of opening on 9 HCP when your agreement is 10-12. He said "Our position has not change on 10-12 NT = NO deviations.  Once instance deserves a harsh procedural penalty." That only applies in the ACBL, of course.

With a new partner I agree to play 10-12 NT.

 

Case (a). On the first hand I pick up an excellent 9-count which I judge to be a better hand than the average 10-count. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

Law 40B2A.

[Cascade]

I just got an email from Rick Beye at ACBL HQ on the subject of opening on 9 HCP when your agreement is 10-12. He said "Our position has not change on 10-12 NT = NO deviations.  Once instance deserves a harsh procedural penalty." That only applies in the ACBL, of course.

With a new partner I agree to play 10-12 NT.

 

Case (a). On the first hand I pick up an excellent 9-count which I judge to be a better hand than the average 10-count. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

Law 40B2A.

How is a 10-12 HCP 1NT a special partnership understanding?

[Cascade]

It is interesting, though, that the ACBL took the opportunity to designate only one agreement as a "special partnership understanding", and this one ain't it. :blink:  ;)

What have they designated as a special partnership understanding?

[blackshoe]

Any one level opening, in a suit or NT, which could by agreement be on fewer than 8 HCP. It's in the elections at the back of the ACBL version of the lawbook.

[mjj29]

Law 40B2A.

How is a 10-12 HCP 1NT a special partnership understanding?

The RA may designate any partnership understanding as a special partnership understanding even if it is not conventional (L40B1(a)), although the list by default just contains conventional meanings (L40B1(b)). Implicit agreements are also included (L40B1(b)).

 

However, the ACBL do not seem to have so designated it:

It is interesting, though, that the ACBL took the opportunity to designate only one agreement as a "special partnership understanding", and this one ain't it.

Any one level opening, in a suit or NT, which could by agreement be on fewer than 8 HCP. It's in the elections at the back of the ACBL version of the lawbook.

[Cascade]

Law 40B2A.

How is a 10-12 HCP 1NT a special partnership understanding?

The RA may designate any partnership understanding as a special partnership understanding even if it is not conventional (L40B1(a)), although the list by default just contains conventional meanings (L40B1(;)). Implicit agreements are also included (L40B1(:blink:).

This is not what the law says.

 

There is nothing that says "any" agreement can be classified as a special partnership understanding.

 

The limits imposed are "...may not be readily understood and anticipated..."

 

It seems to me to outside the law to disallow agreements that are simple to understand and easy to anticipate.

[campboy]

The limits imposed are "...may not be readily understood and anticipated..."

No, the limits imposed are "in the RA's opinion, may not be readily understood and anticipated". It doesn't matter (legally) if that opinion is wrong ;)

[blackshoe]

I suspect that, if the CandC committee had their act together, the "Kamikaze NT" would already have been designated a "Special Partnership Understanding", and banned on the GCC (possibly moved to MidChart).

 

FWIW, I disagree completely with what Rick Beye says is the current ACBL policy (see upthread). Not that my opinion means anything to the ACBL. ;)

[awm]

Many locales have rules which bar certain agreements. There's a general problem when a pair's announced methods are right up against the permitted agreements, and then they use their "judgment" to deviate from their announced methods and dip just below the allowed line.

 

For example, supposing that 1NT=10-12 is a permitted agreement but 1NT=9-12 is not (which is basically the case in ACBL), what happens when a pair announces 10-12 but the bidder holds only 9 points? It seems like if the upgrade is so frequent that most 9-counts qualify, they are really playing 1NT=9-12 and just claiming the slightly stronger range to get around the rules. Of course, if the upgrade is very unusual and only on hands which "really look like 10" then perhaps it should be okay, but people have differing opinions on which hands would qualify and attempting to enforce the regulation would then be a huge mess. This isn't just a problem in ACBL -- virtually all regions seem to have a rule barring one-level openings on less than 8 hcp, and the same problem comes up when a pair agrees to play 1M = 8-14 hcp and then opens 1M on a "nice seven count."

 

While I agree in principle that deviations should be allowed, it's quite tricky to deal with ones that slide into the range of "illegal agreement." You can't just tell them to disclose that they upgrade frequently and thus open many 9s with their 10-12 notrump or many 7s with their 8-14 1M (which is the usual remedy) because those agreements aren't permitted. The approach which ACBL seems to take is that "upgrades" of hands which are below the limit for legal agreements are just banned. In my opinion this is a practical way (perhaps the only practical way) to address the issue. Of course, outright psychs (which are nowhere near the agreed point range) aren't problematic. So it's okay to open 1NT on your nine-count playing 1NT=15-17, but not okay to open 1NT on your nine-count playing 10-12. In the first case it's a psych and it's usually easy to tell if partner "fields it" (making it a CPU) but in the second case it's hard to tell whether this is an isolated incident on a "really good" nine or something that happens a lot (meaning you really play 9-12).

[peachy]

How is a 10-12 HCP 1NT a special partnership understanding?

Questions such as this are best addressed to the people in the RA who designated 10-12NT as special partnership understanding. As far as I know those folks are not posting here.

 

The Law is clear and leaves it up to the RA. When "in the RA's opinion" 10-12 NT is a special partnership understanding, then under that RA, *it is* a special partnership understanding, and its use can be regulated.

 

This is where we are and I personally have no problem with that.

[bluejak]

This is not what the law says.

 

There is nothing that says "any" agreement can be classified as a special partnership understanding.

 

The limits imposed are "...may not be readily understood and anticipated..."

 

It seems to me to outside the law to disallow agreements that are simple to understand and easy to anticipate.

But the RA gets to decide what is and is not covered by those limits. So effectively anything can so be treated. The fact that you or I might think otherwise is irrelevant.

 

Furthermore, the ACBL has some feeling that a 9-count 1NT is not fair or something. So it is perfectly logical that they can thus decide that a 1NT opening that could be on a 9-count is "...not be readily understood and anticipated..." by ACBL members.There is no point in saying that it is outside the Law if an RA decides something is a special partnership agreement.

 

Yes, I know the ACBL have not yet said so, but that is because it has not occurred to them to bother to make sure their regulation is currently legal. But if it does, it is trivially easy for them to do so.