Appeal case #3 in NABC, 2010 at Orlando

[mgoetze]

(4) Is there a recorded history of me making this sort of call? If a number of recorder forms involving me opening outside the stated range have been filed, this is a strong suggestion that I do this a lot. Such frequent violations suggest that a regular partner must be aware of them on some level, and can potentially lead to issues.

 

I recall a discussion on the German bridge mailing list, the conclusion of which was: there is apparently no way for a director to gain any insight into the recorder forms which have been locked away in a closet somewhere at German Bridge Federation headquarters.

 

Recorder forms et al need to move into the 21st century, then we can talk. ;)

[Cascade]

(2) Can I give a believable reason for my call? Here Chip Martel seemed to have some table feel that his LHO held a strong hand, in which case preempting was more likely to work out (cause trouble for opponents) rather than cause a problem for partner. Other reasons might include extremely good spots or extra distribution, or "state of the match" type concerns. A believable reason (given "in tempo" to a director's query) will often cause the table result to stand.

 

I wouldn't automatically accept Chip Martel's reason here.

 

To me it is all to likely that even with this explanation that his range for weak twos is:

 

4-10 or 5-10 but willing to open on less with the right table feel.

 

That is even if the deviation is based on table feel it could still create an implicit agreement.

[barmar]

That is even if the deviation is based on table feel it could still create an implicit agreement.

I'm not so sure about that. Partner isn't privy to your table feel, so wouldn't have any special knowledge that the opponents don't.

 

Players are allowed to deviate from their agreements, and table feel is likely to be a common reason to do so.

[geller]

Everyone knows (or should know) that the 4-3-2-1 point count is just one general and approximate scheme for evaluating the strength of a hand. There are a myriad of other factors (texture, shape, aces are really worth more than 4 and queens/jacks less than 2 and 1 respectively, concentration of honors in long/short suits, etc) that all reasonably strong players take into account. It seems silly to treat minor deviations from the stated strength on the 4321 scale as violations of partnership agreements or psyches.

[awm]

Everyone knows (or should know) that the 4-3-2-1 point count is just one general and approximate scheme for evaluating the strength of a hand. There are a myriad of other factors (texture, shape, aces are really worth more than 4 and queens/jacks less than 2 and 1 respectively, concentration of honors in long/short suits, etc) that all reasonably strong players take into account. It seems silly to treat minor deviations from the stated strength on the 4321 scale as violations of partnership agreements or psyches.

 

Well, I think if my stated range for a preempt is 5-10 hcp and I routinely preempt on all 3-hcp hands with a six-card major there's an issue. Similarly, if my stated notrump range is 15-17 but I routinely open 1NT on all balanced 14 counts, I think there's a problem... even though this is just a "one point" deviation on the 4321 scale.

 

At the same time, there's no need to force players to be strict point counters. In the absence of exhaustive records, the director should ask. If a case can be made that this is somehow an exceptional hand (great spots, extra shape, lots of controls, whatever) then that's fine. If a case can be made that this was basically a psych due to other considerations (state of the match, etc) then a recorder form can be filed but that should be the end of it. However, if you look at the hand given in this thread, it has the flattest possible shape with a six-card suit (6232). The spots are not particularly good after the spade king (KT7xxx). I don't see a real case that this is an exceptional hand that somehow "evaluates" to 5 HCP.

[cherdano]

Given how terrible the opponents bid, it seems quite credible that 4th seat gave away how much he liked his hand.

[Cascade]

 

I wouldn't automatically accept Chip Martel's reason here.

 

To me it is all to likely that even with this explanation that his range for weak twos is:

 

4-10 or 5-10 but willing to open on less with the right table feel.

 

That is even if the deviation is based on table feel it could still create an implicit agreement.

 

 

I'm not so sure about that. Partner isn't privy to your table feel, so wouldn't have any special knowledge that the opponents don't.

 

Players are allowed to deviate from their agreements, and table feel is likely to be a common reason to do so.

 

The problem is that partner may well have knowledge that the opponents do not. Or in the words of the law be more aware.

[Cascade]

Everyone knows (or should know) that the 4-3-2-1 point count is just one general and approximate scheme for evaluating the strength of a hand. There are a myriad of other factors (texture, shape, aces are really worth more than 4 and queens/jacks less than 2 and 1 respectively, concentration of honors in long/short suits, etc) that all reasonably strong players take into account. It seems silly to treat minor deviations from the stated strength on the 4321 scale as violations of partnership agreements or psyches.

 

Ideally this might be reasonable.

 

In fact I think that regulations that restrict judgement are bad for the game - at least the way I would like to play it. I want my opponents to be as free to exercise their bad judgement as I am to exercise my good judgement.

 

However in this case there is a regulation, a rigid regulation, that restricts the range of weak twos or at least constrains pairs that play wide ranging weak twos.

 

The says that deviations create implicit agreements. Those implicit agreements are subject to regulation in the same way that explicit agreements are.

 

Even minor deviations have the potential to create implicit agreements. When those implicit agreements extend beyond boundaries in regulations you are subject to the conditions of the regulations.

 

Previously I wrote that I thought that 10% or fewer 3 counts opened could create an implicit agreement. On reflection I now think that was too slack. If there exists one three count that by agreement you would open 2S in an otherwise 4-10 range then your agreement is in fact wider than that allowed if you wish to continue playing conventions after your weak two openings.

 

When such a regulation exists I don't think it is reasonable to write 5-10 on your card and then open three counts with any sort of regularity. And the existence of 5-10 on the card together with opening a three count should prompt an investigation of your agreements.

[Cascade]

Well, I think if my stated range for a preempt is 5-10 hcp and I routinely preempt on all 3-hcp hands with a six-card major there's an issue. Similarly, if my stated notrump range is 15-17 but I routinely open 1NT on all balanced 14 counts, I think there's a problem... even though this is just a "one point" deviation on the 4321 scale.

 

 

In case it is not clear I think there is a significant difference between opening occasionaly 14 counts with 15-17 1NT and opening occasional 3 counts with a 4-10 weak two.

 

In both cases there maybe a disclosure issue and the degree and impact of that will vary depending on how many and which hands outside the range are opened.

 

In the second case there is a regulatory issue. The regulation by implication prescribes a 4-3-2-1 point count and the existence, by agreement, even implicit, of any hands outside the allowed range means that the regulation is invoked.

[nige1]

IMO, law-abiding players endorse the opinions expressed in Cascade's recent posts. Disclosure problems arise with minor deviations as well as with major ones ("psychs"). These problems are exacerbated when the deviation flouts system-regulations. If a favourable opportunity for such a deviation is an unlikely event, then a deviator may argue that the deviation is too rare to be properly termed a concealed partnership understanding. The vicitm may not realize what has happened until he later peruses the hand-records. For whatever reason, such infractions are rarely reported or rectified. Here, for example, neither director nor commitee found the deviation remarkable enough to investigate. Again, the effect is to penalize those who comply with the rules.

[geller]

In the second case there is a regulatory issue. The regulation by implication prescribes a 4-3-2-1 point count and the existence, by agreement, even implicit, of any hands outside the allowed range means that the regulation is invoked.

The Laws of Bridge authorize regulation of conventions, but there is no provision for requiring that pairs must use the 4-3-2-1 point count rigorously to make their evaluations. Obviously it is a matter of convenience to use 4-3-2-1 point count in stating the definition of bids, but normal flexibility in making hand evaluation should be allowed. If petty-minded clerks insist that the 4-3-2-1 point count must be rigorously followed, with harsh punishment for even minor common sense deviations, bridge as we know it will have ended. Do we really want to say that it's OK to open 2S with xxxxxx QJ Qx xxx because that hand has 5HCP, but that it's a felony to open 2S with KT98xx x xxxx xx?

[Cascade]

The Laws of Bridge authorize regulation of conventions, but there is no provision for requiring that pairs must use the 4-3-2-1 point count rigorously to make their evaluations. Obviously it is a matter of convenience to use 4-3-2-1 point count in stating the definition of bids, but normal flexibility in making hand evaluation should be allowed. If petty-minded clerks insist that the 4-3-2-1 point count must be rigorously followed, with harsh punishment for even minor common sense deviations, bridge as we know it will have ended. Do we really want to say that it's OK to open 2S with xxxxxx QJ Qx xxx because that hand has 5HCP, but that it's a felony to open 2S with KT98xx x xxxx xx?

 

Therein lies the problem in regulating judgement.

 

When the regulators write that if you play a range wider than 7 hcp you cannot use any conventions they are regulating your judgement. Your weak two range must be entirely within the seven point range using the standard high card point count unless you are willing to do without the use of conventions.

 

If you choose to play 4-10 hcp range then you are not by agreement explicit or implicit allowed to upgrade any three counts nor downgrade any eleven counts as then your range will be outside the regulations.

 

I cannot comprehend how anyone can reasonably argue that opening three counts by agreement in a 4-10 range does not affect the range of your weak twos.

 

You cannot both support the rigid regulations and support the position of those who ignore those regulations.

 

Personally I support neither. Although I try to play within the regulations.

 

As Nigel repeatedly has argued unfortunately those who try to play according to the announced regulations place themselves at a disadvantage when others including high profile players flout those same regulations often with throw away arguments like "its just bridge".

 

If your range for weak twos is 3-10 and your require a six card suit then only around 4% of your weak twos are three counts. If only one in 25 weak twos are three counts it is very easy to convince one self that your range is really a legal 4-10 and that the three counts are deviations that only occur occasionally. Especially so if you don't open all 4% of the otherwise qualifying three counts. This self justification would be even easier if you open five or six card suits but would only open a three count with a six-card suit as now the frequency of three counts drops to around 1%. Nevertheless this justification is flawed legally if your partner knows your style and history. It is doubly flawed when that style is not disclosed to the opponents.

[nige1]

When they framed system-regulations, the regulators were quite aware that

• Members of some partnerships prefer another evaluation method to Milton Work's. Presumably, after evaluating his hand by his own criteria, such a player must check that his system-recommended call meets the crude HCP and other criteria specified by the system-regulation. If he is left without a bid, I suppose he must grin and bear it.
• Cascade points out that some players argue that, on a given type of hand in a given context, an apparently illegal call is "just Bridge". IMO, the director should not allow that defence because bidding judgement is so subjective. For example, In bidding polls, an expert sometimes ridicules the call chosen by his long-term partner.
• Others argue that, if the opportunity for such a call is rare, then the the partnership cannot be deemed to have an understanding. IMO, the director should reject this argument too. He may not be able to do so, if the regulation is ineptly phrased. For example: Suppose your undiscussed partnership understanding is to open a strong no-trump with a singleton -- but only if it is a high honour. Is that ACBL legal? IMO the jury is still out :(

In practice, system-regulations are widely flouted and rarely enforced. They seem to compromise disclosure laws. They handicap those who abide by them. Hence, perhaps, law-makers should reconsider them.

[Cascade]

♠ Kxxxxx and out occurs around 18 times in 100000 and ♠ QJxxxx and out another 18 times in 100000

 

If you are willing to have a weaker suit then a three-count weak two in spades balloons to around 96 times in 100000.

 

A normal 4-10 hcp weak two that could be a five or six card suit occurs around 57 times in 1000.

 

In fact these numbers allowed for offshape 3-counts - as you might not care about missing alternative contracts opening that light but not for the normal range where you might care more. So that if I applied the same criteria then the differences in frequency would be even greater.

 

How do you tell if a low frequency 1-2 times in 10000 is a deviation or an integral part of the agreement for a bid that occurs 250+ times more frequently?

 

In addition only half of the time will the bidder be not vulnerable and only a quarter of the time will a particular player be dealer. So we are talking about a hand with a frequency of close to two times in 100000.

 

The fact that Chip Martel choose to open this hand with a weak two outside his stated range and that it is a very low frequency hand creates a prima facie case that this is part of his style and therefore his agreements. His partner is much more likely to know that this is his style than his opponents are.

 

I don't know how often Chip Martel and Jan Martel play together. Lets assume for now that they play one four session tournament every national. And lets only consider the nationals. That is 100 boards per Nationals. So this hand will come up around once every 500 Nationals. Do we need to wait around for nearly 200 years to find out whether they in fact have a partnership agreement? Or would even two occasions not be enough evidence to establish that they have an agreement?

 

This pair gained an advantage by playing what seems to be an illegal method. It is necessary that the legality of this method is determined before any penalties are imposed on the opponents for their subsequent infractions.

[barmar]

Regulations like these are a known compromise. As long as we allow the practice of bidding regulation, there has to be some way to describe what's allowed, what's not, and what's alertable. These require some standard language for describing hands.

 

It seems that the regulators are between a rock and a hard place. One of the most common complaints about ACBL's alert and convention charts is that they're too vague. On the other hand, people also complain about the parts that are very precise, because they don't allow for judgement.

[Cascade]

"In fact, what they may really have is a private, unannounced understanding about the convention, which is against the rules of course, but also kind of hard to enforce." Chip Martel

 

LOL