Where is the line?

[olegru]

We are using artificial opening bid that promise the certain distribution and points range.

I have the perfect distribution for my convention bid with hand overloaded with tens and nines but little less points that we agreed.

1. Is this a legal to open with artificial convention bid if I have 1 point less than was agreed? 2 points less? 3 points less?

2. What if the minimum of points required for us to use the convention is the minimum point range permitted by ACBL general chart for use of it?

3. Should “must to be active” tournament situation taking into account?

To make problem clear:

There is no prior partnership experience with subminimum opening with this convention. I feel that overall picture of the hand compensate insufficient number of points (do not treat it as a psych).

[axman]

In a KO final my partner had an affectation for mini-roman. 2D mini-roman= 4414 11-15hcp opener. Well, on five occasions he held 4414 all of them 10hcp and opened 2D instead of 1C or pass; and we bid too high dropping 30+ imps [enough to cover the margin of loss]. Lesson, if the convention is constructed well there is a reason it is 11-15 hcp rather than 10-15hcp and it is a matter of judgment to deviate.

 

Lesson 2: if a convention is X because of a regulation, but instead needs to be Y you probably have a bad convention [X] because to use X anyway you run a foul of fair play [disclosure] or of the regulation [due to useage in actuality of Y instead of X]

[barmar]

ACBL has pretty consistently advised that pairs that play 10-12 NT are not permitted to upgrade hands that are below 10 HCP, as that would violate the GCC's restriction on strength ranges of natural NT openings.

 

However, this is not necessarily a precedent that applies to other GCC clauses with strength restrictions -- ACBL has never claimed consistency in this regard. So it's not really possible to answer your general question, it must be dealt with on a case by case basis.

[semeai]

We are using artificial opening bid that promise the certain distribution and points range.

I have the perfect distribution for my convention bid with hand overloaded with tens and nines but little less points that we agreed.

1. Is this a legal to open with artificial convention bid if I have 1 point less than was agreed? 2 points less? 3 points less?

 

This seems fine (but see (2) below). If you do it frequently, your explanation should include "we may upgrade with compensating distribution/spot cards/etc." For example, opening a precision 16+ 1♣ on 15 or 14 or even 13 could be fine, though if you often do it, it's good to tell the opponents.

 

Precision 1♣ seems to be specifically protected by precedent, even if it would knock your 1♣ bid out of the 15+ "strong opener" range that is then allowed to have any responses you want, as enough top players do it.

 

2. What if the minimum of points required for us to use the convention is the minimum point range permitted by ACBL general chart for use of it?

 

Here you're in much murkier waters. As barmar says, there's precedent against allowing a 10-12 NT to be opened with 9. There's also precedent against allowing weak twos with fewer points than you write on your convention card because they're restricted to having a 7 point range. For example, if you write 4-10, opening with 3 HCP is frowned upon (whether it's actually illegal maybe depends on whether you've ever done it before with that partner, etc).

 

3. Should "must to be active" tournament situation taking into account?

 

What does this mean?

[olegru]

It was a general theoretical question.

Practical case was opening 10-13 Flannery with:

 

A1098

KJ1097

1098

3

 

No questions asked by opponents, no director calls, but I am not sure if my opening was legal under the ACBL law.

By "must to be active" I meant, for example, the end of knockout match when you are behind.

[semeai]

It was a general theoretical question.

Practical case was opening 10-13 Flannery with:

 

A1098

KJ1097

1098

3

 

No questions asked by opponents, no director calls, but I am not sure if my opening was legal under the ACBL law.

By "must to be active" I meant, for example, the end of knockout match when you are behind.

 

Good question. Psyching artificial opening bids is not allowed, so your argument would have to be that you upgraded it. I don't know what the ruling would be here. I doubt state of the match considerations are relevant, or if they are they might work against you, as you don't want to be arguing that you psyched the bid.

[blackshoe]

This is a deviation, not a psych. Not illegal. However, if you do this often enough that your partner begins to expect it, then you have an implicit partnership understanding that the range of your Flannery is 8-13, and your partnership will have to disclose that. Until that time, though, you should be okay.

 

State of the match is not relevant. Generally, what you do is relevant, why is not.

 

Keep in mind that your partner will treat you as having 10-13 HCP, so you may get too high.

[Bbradley62]

This is a deviation, not a psych. Not illegal. However, if you do this often enough that your partner begins to expect it, then you have an implicit partnership understanding that the range of your Flannery is 8-13, and your partnership will have to disclose that. Until that time, though, you should be okay.

ACBL's GCC prohibits such agreement below 10HCP. So, when does it get to the point that it's a problem?

[blackshoe]

Wasn't looking at that, but you're right. It's Item 6 under Opening Bids. So it's a problem when you have a partnership understanding to open on less than 10. That is, when you've done it frequently enough that partner expects it.

 

I wouldn't be surprised though to find a TD who rules that you did it, therefore you have an agreement. It's not right, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it.

[mjj29]

Wasn't looking at that, but you're right. It's Item 6 under Opening Bids. So it's a problem when you have a partnership understanding to open on less than 10. That is, when you've done it frequently enough that partner expects it.

 

I wouldn't be surprised though to find a TD who rules that you did it, therefore you have an agreement. It's not right, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it.

I think my general approach would be to say "I deliberately deviated/psyched from what my partner would expect" would be fine, subject to implicit agreements forming, but "I think this hand is reasonable to upgrade to the stated range because it has the same playing strength" is not, when this puts it below the legal minimum for that call. Certainly if their partner agreed that it's reasonable to upgrade that hand to that call I would probably rule illegal agreement straight away. I know this is relying on trusting what the OS said, which some people frown upon, but that's what recorder forms are for if people aren't being honest.

[olegru]

I think my general approach would be to say "I deliberately deviated/psyched from what my partner would expect" would be fine

 

I don't think so. At least I do not like word "psyche" here. I believe it is prohibited to psyche by artificial convention oppenings. ;)

 

It is a deviation in tearms of points, agree. Is it deviation from the real agreement? - Hard to say. We did not discuss anything other than number of points for opening, but both have a similar judgment and both understand that this hand has more trick taken potential than average 10 points hand. What I mean is - If I agreed "to open with 10-13 points", I actually understand my agreement a as promise "to open with average and better than average hands, but not good enough to play a game oposite partner's average hand". At least 9 out of 10 it is the same thing. But I can imagine bad 10 points ot too good 13 points I would not open or good 9 points (or even extremily good 8 points I got in the curent case) I would open. Points count, for me at least, just a simple tool to simpify wording and help to estimate the playing strength but not a boss to dictate me what to do.

 

I am still not sure is it legal or not.

[mjj29]

I don't think so. At least I do not like word "psyche" here. I believe it is prohibited to psyche by artificial convention oppenings. ;)

 

It is a deviation in tearms of points, agree. Is it deviation from the real agreement? - Hard to say. We did not discuss anything other than number of points for opening, but both have a similar judgment and both understand that this hand has more trick taken potential than average 10 points hand. What I mean is - If I agreed "to open with 10-13 points", I actually understand my agreement a as promise "to open with average and better than average hands, but not good enough to play a game oposite partner's average hand". At least 9 out of 10 it is the same thing. But I can imagine bad 10 points ot too good 13 points I would not open or good 9 points (or even extremily good 8 points I got in the curent case) I would open. Points count, for me at least, just a simple tool to simpify wording and help to estimate the playing strength but not a boss to dictate me what to do.

 

I am still not sure is it legal or not.

Well, depending on your jurisdiction (in the EBU the same concern would be there about minimum points, at least for 'strong' and 1-level openings, but psychs are legal).

 

Of course it is reasonable to have an agreement to open hands 'worth 10-13 points' and use your judgment to downgrade bad 14s and upgrade good 9s into it - providing that your RA has not prohibited you opening those hands. In this case, the RA has said that there's an absolute minimum of 10 points. Yes there may be some 9 point hands that are as good as hands you are allowed to open, but that's the penalty you pay for having an agreement that matches the minimum allowed by your RA. Your options are: increase your minimum point count so that when you use your judgment to upgrade you're still in the legal limit, petition your RA to change their limit or move to a more liberal RA.

 

Yes HCP isn't the be-all and end-all of hand evaluation, but it's the only thing that RAs can use to make a boundary - anything else would be too open to interpretation to be enforceable.

[mycroft]

It depends. If you and your partner think it fits your agreement of a 2D mini-Flannery hand, then *your agreement is GCC illegal*, because it includes this hand, and that means it does not *promise* 10 *high-card points*. I would make an exception for QJTx KQJxx xxx x or the like, but I'm one of those who feels uncomfortable ruling against 1NT on QJTx KQJx xxx xx (but when I play it, of course, I don't do it).

 

My own personal belief is that if you're playing that close to the regulations, your "but it's just as good as a legal hand" had better be believable by everybody-but-Walruses. I don't think your hand is. It's a 10-count, sure, but it's not 10 high (whereas I think my examples are, to "everybody-but-Walruses").

 

If you think it's a psych, fine, but I'm recording it. I wouldn't do it more than once every few months...

 

The odd case is "I think it's an allowable deviation, but partner doesn't".

[blackshoe]

I agree with Olegru's comments on hand evaluation, and Mycroft's follow up, except that psyching Flannery is illegal (#2 under "Disallowed" on the GCC).

 

It's a deviation. Deviations are legal. To my knowledge (I could be wrong) the only place the ACBL is adamant about HCP boundaries is the 10 HCP lower limit on 1NT openings. So if you deviate like this with Flannery, you should be okay so long as you don't do it frequently enough to establish an implicit agreement. If you want an "official" answer, you can call ACBL HQ (the Tournament Dept., you probably want to speak to Butch Campbell), or write or email Mike Flader. Do not be surprised if you get multiple conflicting answers from different people at HQ, or if you get a table ruling that differs from what HQ tells you. I'd be interested in your experiences with it, so please post them here.

[Bbradley62]

It's a deviation. Deviations are legal. To my knowledge (I could be wrong) the only place the ACBL is adamant about HCP boundaries is the 10 HCP lower limit on 1NT openings. So if you deviate like this with Flannery, you should be okay so long as you don't do it frequently enough to establish an implicit agreement.

Is that like telling a new driver "the posted speed limit is 55mph, so to avoid getting a ticket you should stay below about 67mph"?

[mycroft]

Quoth Ed: Psyching Flannery is illegal.

 

Argh, of course it is. /me=idiot. Thanks.

[blackshoe]

Is that like telling a new driver "the posted speed limit is 55mph, so to avoid getting a ticket you should stay below about 67mph"?

 

No.

[nige1]

Is that like telling a new driver "the posted speed limit is 55mph, so to avoid getting a ticket you should stay below about 67mph"?

IMO, if law-makers must impose system-restrictions based on HCP, then directors should enforce them in a walrus-like manner. Otherwise, if a hand is of a rare type, unlikely to have occurred before, then a pair can easily rationalise it as an upgrade, deviation, psych or whatever,

[bluejak]

Yes HCP isn't the be-all and end-all of hand evaluation, but it's the only thing that RAs can use to make a boundary - anything else would be too open to interpretation to be enforceable.

The EBU uses "Rule of ...", known as Opening Points in Australia. Australia used to use Opening Points - I do not know whether they still do.

 

The ACBL defines a "strong" opening as a hand that the person who made the bid thinks qualifies as a "strong" opening. :) Please don't tempt me to comment on htis one.

 

The EBU uses the "Extended Rule of ..." which includes "clear-cut tricks" and "strength for an opening bid".

 

So HCP is not the only thing used as a boundary.

 

:ph34r:

 

IMO, if law-makers must impose system-restrictions based on HCP, then directors should enforce them in a walrus-like manner. Otherwise, if a hand is of a rare type, unlikely to have occurred before, then a pair can easily rationalise it as an upgrade, deviation, psych or whatever,

I do not see how one follows from the other. If there is an argument, the TDs apply judgement, as is normal. Stupidity is not a requirement for applying rules.

[olegru]

If you want an "official" answer, you can call ACBL HQ (the Tournament Dept., you probably want to speak to Butch Campbell), or write or email Mike Flader. Do not be surprised if you get multiple conflicting answers from different people at HQ, or if you get a table ruling that differs from what HQ tells you. I'd be interested in your experiences with it, so please post them here.

 

As you advised I sent to rulings@acbl.org following email:

My partner and me agreed to use 2 diamond opening as a Flannery – 5+Hearts, 4=Spades, 10-13 points. I understand our agreement as an agreement to open with average or better than average hand but not good enough to bid a game if Partner has average hand. What I want to say is: I have a tendency to use point count for estimation purposes only, but make a decision based on overall playing potential of the hand.

Question: Is it permitted under the General chart to open Flannery with less than 10 points in case of really good hands?

 

Example 1:

Is it permitted to open with good 9 points hand bellow?

 

s. A1085

h. AJ1064

d. 7

c. 1093

 

Example 2:

Is it permitted to open with extraordinary good 8 points hand below?

 

s. A1098

h. KJ10986

d. -

c. 1096

 

 

Today I got answer:

 

NO. The GCC specifically indicates a minimum of 10 HCP. To agree to play otherwise is to play an illegal agreement.

RB

[blackshoe]

I don't know who "RB" is, but there's your answer.

[barmar]

RB is presumably Rick Beyes, I think he's ACBL's Chief Tournament Director. He and Mike Flader are generally the ones that answer rulings@acbl.org.

[blackshoe]

I've had answers to queries to "rulings" from all kinds of different people.

 

AFAIK, the ACBL no longer has a Chief TD.

[barmar]

Looks like he was the last CTD until they abolished the position, although some ACBL policy documents still refer to the role.

[qwery_hi]

Since he/she didn't even bother to write a complete name, I'm guessing RB is Rude Bugger

 

I don't know who "RB" is, but there's your answer.