Deviation from system

[Vampyr]

Wasn't there a case discussed on these forums some time ago where Chip Martel, a prominent member of the relevant ACBL committee, playing with his wife, opened a 3HCP weak two (outside their stated range, which was limited by the regulation), claiming it was simply a deviation from the agreement and the ruling went in his favor...

 

Did the opponents appeal? It seems to me that a 7-point range is a 7-point range, and if it's not then there should be no such regulation.

 

Then there is the mis-disclosure... perhaps the director was somewhat in awe of the Martels.

[blackshoe]

The rule is that pairs are not allowed to have an agreement that a weak two could be opened on a greater than 7 point range. Martel argued that it wasn't an agreement, he deviated from the agreement. The TD bought it. The question is whether the TD would have bought the argument had it not been Chip Martel.

[aguahombre]

I would be more likely to buy it from someone else. This is not a slur on Chip; his rep is beyond reproach. It is an observation of this preempts.

[Vampyr]

The rule is that pairs are not allowed to have an agreement that a weak two could be opened on a greater than 7 point range. Martel argued that it wasn't an agreement, he deviated from the agreement.

 

Well. I am reminded once again of the quote in post #14...

[blackshoe]

I would be more likely to buy it from someone else. This is not a slur on Chip; his rep is beyond reproach. It is an observation of this preempts.

 

If there are easily obtainable records of his preempts, including the frequency of the deviations, then something might be done. Absent evidence, though, nothing will be done. Nor should it. Of course, every player should be treated the same in this regard. Are they?

[Phil]

You don't believe in accurately disclosing your methods then? You might treat the first hand as being worth a 3-count, but calling it a 5-count is ridiculous.

 

As long as the league makes me put a range on the cc and that range (or is it difference?) cannot exceed six points without some consequences, then if I have to put two numbers in a box, it will be 5 to 10. I agree, "3 to 9" is a better w/r description, and if there were multiple choices depending on vulnerability like there is for NT openings, then the problem would be solved.

 

I do not feel like I play anything out of the ordinary.

 

BTW, K and R calls QT9xxx x xxxx xx 4.8.

[aguahombre]

I have no idea about frequency of deviation. My comment was from observing as an opponent and on Vugraph over a significant period. Five to the nine-spot in the suit and a couple quacks outside, etc. These certainly have become possible maneuvers in the eyes of his partners. I don't have any idea if they meet the standard for agreement, and also don't have any knoweledge of how often his total point count is below the stated range.

 

That is why TD's get the big bucks :rolleyes:

[barmar]

I assume most of your observing on Vugraph was when Chip was playing with Lew. Do his tendencies with Lew have any bearing on his agreements when playing with Jan?

[aguahombre]

I assume most of your observing on Vugraph was when Chip was playing with Lew. Do his tendencies with Lew have any bearing on his agreements when playing with Jan?

Yes. She is a pretty smart person. That doesn't mean he does the same thing with both partners, but the knowledge of his tendencies in certain situations certainly has a bearing. I did not say the TD's ruling was wrong, nor did I attribute an agreement which might not meet the qualifications for an agreement.

 

I do believe that Chip might have a greater problem convincing a TD than others would; and apparently he succeeded in doing so. I also believe that the TD was not swayed by the fame and stature of the person....maybe the respect that Chip would tell it like it is.

 

I was replying to the question by Blackshoe: "The question is whether the TD would have bought the argument had it not been Chip Martel." And the answer is maybe not, if the other person were not as reputable...and maybe more so, if the person did not have Chip's reputation re: preempts.

[gnasher]

As long as the league makes me put a range on the cc and that range (or is it difference?) cannot exceed six points without some consequences, then if I have to put two numbers in a box, it will be 5 to 10. I agree, "3 to 9" is a better w/r description, and if there were multiple choices depending on vulnerability like there is for NT openings, then the problem would be solved.

There is room on the ACBL convention card for specying multiple ranges for weak twos. Even if there weren't, you could put "See below" or "See attached sheet", and put the detailed ranges somewhere else. Or you could write "Please ask". Anything is better than writing something that you know may mislead the opponents.

 

I do not feel like I play anything out of the ordinary.

So what? What we're discussing is whether you personally are properly and fairly disclosing your methods.

 

You've just told us that you describe a bid as "5-10" when in fact you play it as 3-9. I don't understand why you would do this. You obviously enjoy bridge, care about the game, and believe it should be played fairly, except that in this one situation you appear to think it's OK to knowingly misdescribe your methods.

 

Suppose that an opponent misguessed trumps because he'd read "5-10" on your card and didn't understand that you might have an ordinary 3- or 4-count, or an exceptional 2-count. What on earth would you say to him?

 

BTW, K and R calls QT9xxx x xxxx xx 4.8.

That's because it adjusts for the presence of a six-card suit and, to a lesser extent, concentration of values in the long suit. The evaluation of 4.8 is to distinguish it from QT9x xxx xxxx xx, which it makes 2.2. Similarly, it evaluates KQJxxx xx xxx xx as 8.10.

 

When you describe something as "5-10 with a six-card suit", the six-card suit is assumed. It doesn't mean "5-10 with a six-card suit, counting 2.5 points for the long suit."

[RMB1]

The rule is that pairs are not allowed to have an agreement that a weak two could be opened on a greater than 7 point range. Martel argued that it wasn't an agreement, he deviated from the agreement. The TD bought it. The question is whether the TD would have bought the argument had it not been Chip Martel.

 

I think the practical effect of such a regulation is to limit proper disclosure. Instead of accurately describing an agreement that may include some 3HCP and some 10HCP, the agreement will be described as 5-9 and instances outside that range will be dismissed as deviations, when they are in fact systemic.

[Vampyr]

I think the practical effect of such a regulation is to limit proper disclosure. Instead of accurately describing an agreement that may include some 3HCP and some 10HCP, the agreement will be described as 5-9 and instances outside that range will be dismissed as deviations, when they are in fact systemic.

 

Still, every NBO has regulations pertaining to what may and may not be played. Players are required to obey these regulations, even if they feel the regulations are bonkers.

[MrAce]

 

Suppose that an opponent misguessed trumps because he'd read "5-10" on your card and didn't understand that you might have an ordinary 3- or 4-count, or an exceptional 2-count. What on earth would you say to him?

 

Deviation from system, of course :P

 

But anyway, i disagree with you. Of course the frequency matters but people who say they open with 2-3 hcp preempts, do it very rarely. Imo it is not fair to write to cc 3-9 when actually 2-4 hcp preempts are made VERY rarely and will mislead opponents more often than vice versa. If someone wants to gain advantage, writing the wider range on cc is the way to go. Not the opposite.

 

But i dont see Phil saying that this is their pdship agreement. I dont see him saying "i agreed with pd that we can open these hands" As long as his pd acts as if he opened 5-10, and as long as they dont have an agreement how to be careful at these colors, i dont see why what he wrote on cc would be systemic or unsatisfacory disclosure ?

 

For example myself, i play with pds who would never ever open a QJT9xx x xxx xxx in first seat in equal vulnerability. Thats a rare situation i myself open. Should i write on cc that my preempts are 3-9 ? Because this may be a leading my opponents to think that we make these crazy preempts often enough to put on cc, since those are very rare situations, and they maybe made due to the state of the match, strategy etc. and my pd will always act like i have 5 to 10 hcp. By opening this hand i am taking some amount of RISK since my pd and i have no agreement about how to carefully handle this if things go wrong. In return i may have gains too as you said someone may misguess a finesse or whatever..And i dont think this is as unfair as u think it is.

 

Otoh i am not a MP player, i play long team games, and i usually tell my opponents about our non std actions and wen they occur etc, briefly b4 we start playing.

[Cascade]

For example myself, i play with pds who would never ever open a QJT9xx x xxx xxx in first seat in equal vulnerability. Thats a rare situation i myself open. Should i write on cc that my preempts are 3-9 ? Because this may be a leading my opponents to think that we make these crazy preempts often enough to put on cc, since those are very rare situations, and they maybe made due to the state of the match, strategy etc. and my pd will always act like i have 5 to 10 hcp. By opening this hand i am taking some amount of RISK since my pd and i have no agreement about how to carefully handle this if things go wrong. In return i may have gains too as you said someone may misguess a finesse or whatever..And i dont think this is as unfair as u think it is.

 

If one opens QJT9xx x xxx xxx by partnership agreement, explicit or implicit, while disclosing that the range is 5-10 hcp with the hope of some gain from the opponents misguessing a finesse then to me that is a deliberate act of cheating. I believe this position is plainly backed up by the laws and regulations.

 

Yes QJT9xx x xxx xxx is low frequency but low frequency is not something to hide behind in your obligations to proper disclosure.

 

Frankly it sickens me that there are players with this attitude that it is proper to hide information from the opponents in the hope of inducing an advantage to their own side.

[MrAce]

If one opens QJT9xx x xxx xxx by partnership agreement, explicit or implicit, while disclosing that the range is 5-10 hcp with the hope of some gain from the opponents misguessing a finesse then to me that is a deliberate act of cheating. I believe this position is plainly backed up by the laws and regulations.

 

Yes QJT9xx x xxx xxx is low frequency but low frequency is not something to hide behind in your obligations to proper disclosure.

 

Frankly it sickens me that there are players with this attitude that it is proper to hide information from the opponents in the hope of inducing an advantage to their own side.

 

I think your language here is what sickens me. You are accusing me of something that i dont deserve. You are incapable of understanding what is written.

 

In which part of my post did i say this is a pdship agreement ? I specifically mentioned that my pds play it 5-10 and they think i open in this range. And that there are times i personally deviate from this agreement and open this hand, and that i do it rarely. Which part of this was too hard to understand ? Which part of "By opening this hand i take RISK" you did not understand or read ? Which part in my post that says "i briefly inform my opponents about non std actions" you did not understand ?

 

Chip Martel's incident is a good proof that you are wrong also about how laws and regulations apply

 

Anyway, reading is required pal, or you say things that makes u write ridicilious accusations.

 

 

 

 

Deviation from system, of course :P

 

But anyway, i disagree with you. Of course the frequency matters but people who say they open with 2-3 hcp preempts, do it very rarely. Imo it is not fair to write to cc 3-9 when actually 2-4 hcp preempts are made VERY rarely and will mislead opponents more often than vice versa. If someone wants to gain advantage, writing the wider range on cc is the way to go. Not the opposite.

 

But i dont see Phil saying that this is their pdship agreement. I dont see him saying "i agreed with pd that we can open these hands" As long as his pd acts as if he opened 5-10, and as long as they dont have an agreement how to be careful at these colors, i dont see why what he wrote on cc would be systemic or unsatisfacory disclosure ?

 

For example myself, i play with pds who would never ever open a QJT9xx x xxx xxx in first seat in equal vulnerability. Thats a rare situation i myself open. Should i write on cc that my preempts are 3-9 ? Because this may be a leading my opponents to think that we make these crazy preempts often enough to put on cc, since those are very rare situations, and they maybe made due to the state of the match, strategy etc. and my pd will always act like i have 5 to 10 hcp. By opening this hand i am taking some amount of RISK since my pd and i have no agreement about how to carefully handle this if things go wrong. In return i may have gains too as you said someone may misguess a finesse or whatever..And i dont think this is as unfair as u think it is.

 

Otoh i am not a MP player, i play long team games, and i usually tell my opponents about our non std actions and wen they occur etc, briefly b4 we start playing.

[MrAce]

It is also an interesting to be accused of " act of deliberate cheating " When someone is honestly posting his opinions, whether you agree with him or not. How can someone disagree with you if you hold the "Cheater Stamp" in your hand and ready to stick it to other person ? after all someone should argue that writing on cc a wide range while you actually rarely use this range is also wrong (whether u agree or not is another story)

 

I didnt even play much of a live game in last 7 years, letalone " deliberately cheating by writing incorrect cc " . I was merely posting what i think is right. I was telling that just because me and my pds agreed to 5-10 doesnt really mean that i will never open out of that range. And thats called "Deviation from system" You could have a point had i written "I like to open ususally with QJTxxx x xxx xxx " in 1st seat etc etc. Instead i mentioned that it is very rare and that it is my personal action, not pdship's agreement. Did i also write that we do not have any protection if things go wrong ? Oh yes i did, didnt i ?

 

I am writing on CC whatever my pd is expecting me to have. How is this improper disclosure ?

 

And how are you so sure about the intentions of people who write 5-10 ? How can you publicly accuse them of "deliberately cheating" ? At the end you may be right that it is proper to fill the CC as 3-9 hcp, but how can you prove your accusation about their intention ? How can u be so sure this guy actually was intending to protect his opponents by not writing a range that will mislead them % 99 of the time while your suggestion is trying to protect them %1 of the time and letting them be misled the rest of % 99 or whatever the % you assign to it ?

[blackshoe]

If you've made your rare openings often enough that your partner isn't surprised by them, you have an implicit partnership agreement which must be disclosed. But that's only part of the issue. The rest is that an agreement to open on a wider range that seven points precludes you from using any conventions afterwards, and if you have agreed to use conventions after that wide a weak two, you're using an illegal agreement. Pre-alerting does not get you off that hook.

 

If your partner is as much surprised by your sub-minimum opening as your opponents are, you haven't established an implicit agreement yet.

[MrAce]

 

If your partner is as much surprised by your sub-minimum opening as your opponents are, you haven't established an implicit agreement yet.

 

I thought this was clear in what i wrote that this is the case ?

 

I mean i used words in my first post that says;

 

-I personally ....

 

-I have no protection ...

 

-I take RISK ....

 

Also, i see you are one of the admins of this forum, i request you to take an action for the post Cascade made.

 

If you read my post and his reply, which starts with quoting me and continues with serious accusations, you will see that none of the things he claims exists in my post. So you should take action.

 

 

Yes QJT9xx x xxx xxx is low frequency but low frequency is not something to hide behind in your obligations to proper disclosure.

 

Frankly it sickens me that there are players with this attitude that it is proper to hide information from the opponents in the hope of inducing an advantage to their own side.

 

If you look at this quote, it is extremely offensive and very serious accusation. He is making an ASSUMPTION about the intention of people and myself that he doesnt even know, and accusing of "hiding information in the hope of inducing an advantage" And he is doing this publicly. You should take an action as admin.

 

Even if we all sit here and agree, that it is proper to disclose as the way he suggests, it still doesnt cover his accusations about the INTENTIONS of those who disclosed differently. Yes, there maybe people who can do that, i am sure there are some people out there doing that, but thats not what he said. He quoted me and said it sickens him, and assigned serious blame from his ASSUMPTIONS.

 

I saw your earlier post that says "Chip Martel should not be treated differently" which i agree if what he did was systemic. Same goes here, just because Cascade has yellow uniform of BBO or he may even be an admin in forums, doesnt give him immunity from the "Zero Tolerance" rule which is being applied in other forums for much less than this. Thats why i think you should take an action.

[blackshoe]

Well, in seven hours I have to get up to drive two hours for some minor surgery, so whatever action I might take it isn't going to happen before probably Tuesday. So what action would you like me to take?

[Cascade]

If one opens QJT9xx x xxx xxx by partnership agreement, explicit or implicit, while disclosing that the range is 5-10 hcp with the hope of some gain from the opponents misguessing a finesse then to me that is a deliberate act of cheating. I believe this position is plainly backed up by the laws and regulations.

 

Yes QJT9xx x xxx xxx is low frequency but low frequency is not something to hide behind in your obligations to proper disclosure.

 

Frankly it sickens me that there are players with this attitude that it is proper to hide information from the opponents in the hope of inducing an advantage to their own side.

 

 

Also, i see you are one of the admins of this forum, i request you to take an action for the post Cascade made.

 

If you read my post and his reply, which starts with quoting me and continues with serious accusations, you will see that none of the things he claims exists in my post. So you should take action.

 

 

Yes QJT9xx x xxx xxx is low frequency but low frequency is not something to hide behind in your obligations to proper disclosure.

 

Frankly it sickens me that there are players with this attitude that it is proper to hide information from the opponents in the hope of inducing an advantage to their own side.

 

If you look at this quote, it is extremely offensive and very serious accusation. He is making an ASSUMPTION about the intention of people and myself that he doesnt even know, and accusing of "hiding information in the hope of inducing an advantage" And he is doing this publicly. You should take an action as admin.

 

Even if we all sit here and agree, that it is proper to disclose as the way he suggests, it still doesnt cover his accusations about the INTENTIONS of those who disclosed differently. Yes, there maybe people who can do that, i am sure there are some people out there doing that, but thats not what he said. He quoted me and said it sickens him, and assigned serious blame from his ASSUMPTIONS.

 

I saw your earlier post that says "Chip Martel should not be treated differently" which i agree if what he did was systemic. Same goes here, just because Cascade has yellow uniform of BBO or he may even be an admin in forums, doesnt give him immunity from the "Zero Tolerance" rule which is being applied in other forums for much less than this. Thats why i think you should take an action.

 

Perhaps you should take your own advice and read what I wrote.

 

I carefully began my post with "If" that necessarily means that it does not apply if the condition that I wrote immediately after "If" does not apply.

 

You conveniently left out this first word and paragraph in your quote.

 

I made no personal attack against you but you have responded with a personal attack against me.

[Vampyr]

If your partner is as much surprised by your sub-minimum opening as your opponents are, you haven't established an implicit agreement yet.

 

"Yet" is the sticking point here. How are the opponents or the directors to know whether this is the 1^st, 3^rd or 100^th time you have done this?

[gnasher]

Deviation from system, of course :P

 

But anyway, i disagree with you. Of course the frequency matters but people who say they open with 2-3 hcp preempts, do it very rarely. Imo it is not fair to write to cc 3-9 when actually 2-4 hcp preempts are made VERY rarely and will mislead opponents more often than vice versa. If someone wants to gain advantage, writing the wider range on cc is the way to go. Not the opposite.

If the style is to open only a small proportion of the hands in the 2-4 range, you write "5-10 (occasionally as weak as 2)" or "2-10 (usually 5-10)".

 

But i dont see Phil saying that this is their pdship agreement. I dont see him saying "i agreed with pd that we can open these hands" As long as his pd acts as if he opened 5-10, and as long as they dont have an agreement how to be careful at these colors, i dont see why what he wrote on cc would be systemic or unsatisfacory disclosure ?

If Phil would sometimes open Q109xxx x xxxx xx first at favourable, and his partner knows he would sometimes do that, it's a partnership agreement. How his partner acts in response is irrelevant - what matters is what his partner knows or expects.

[MrAce]

Perhaps you should take your own advice and read what I wrote.

 

I carefully began my post with "If" that necessarily means that it does not apply if the condition that I wrote immediately after "If" does not apply.

 

You conveniently left out this first word and paragraph in your quote.

 

I made no personal attack against you but you have responded with a personal attack against me.

 

With all due respect, sir, you are back pedalling and you know it ;)

 

If you intended to make a general statement about explicit and implicit agreements and what you think about them when they are disclosed differently in CC, then how will you explain starting this statement with a quote of me ?

 

And WHY would you still duck the questions that i asked ? Which part of my post made you write a general statement about agreements which ended up with serious accusations (since you used my quote i think i have the right to know that). Which part of my post did u connect to explicit or implicit agreements that are disclosed differently ? Which part of my post made you say "It sickens me to see people with this attitude who tries to gain advantage etc etc " If i am not directed in this sentence, then who is ? Why is it written by quoting me ?

 

It is beyond funny that you think the word "IF" rescues you. Because you did not say "This is violation of the rules" You said "this is act of DELIBERATE CHEATING" Thats where you cross the line, because you are making an assumption of why they did this. It is BEYOND your power to know their real intentions. They may indeed trying to gain advantage, they may be doing it for totally opposite intentions as well whether they are right or wrong, they maybe ignorant of the bridge laws or regulations. Or they may simply be not a CC friendly player (there are a lot of them) who just sits and plays with a pd and a cc that is filled by pd.

 

You accused all this type of players for deliberately cheating. It is ironic that you talk about RULES, because as far as i know BBO and BBF rules are simpler than bridge rules, and i know damn well that you are not supposed to accuse anyone of cheating based on your assumptions. And yet you are one of those who is supposed to enforce this rule of BBF and BBO. Good luck with that !

 

No sir, i repeat again, you are back pedalling and you know it :)

 

 

Well, in seven hours I have to get up to drive two hours for some minor surgery, so whatever action I might take it isn't going to happen before probably Tuesday. So what action would you like me to take?

 

Nevermind my request, i believe editting, moving, deleting or whatever u guys do to make a post look better will be doing a favour to him. I think his post remaining there open to public is the worst consequence for him.

[phil_20686]

There has always been a problem with ranges. It also occurs with NT ranges. If I open say 40% of 14 counts 15-17, is my range really 14-17? I say no, because I believe negative inferences are just as important as positive ones. I think the range should be the range in which you open basically all hands that conform fo balanced+HCP range.

 

If you write 6-10, 6 cards, the meaning should be that you open "basically all" hands with a six card suit, with the understanding for preempts that many people have minimum suit quality. If you open some 4, or 5 counts, that is fine. It should be basic bridge knowledge that some extreme hands are best represented with a weak two, even out side the "range", but, imo thats fine.

 

Those people who claim that because you might open a weak two with QJT98x you should write 3-10 are wrong imo, because if you write 3-10 you mislead with the negative inference. If I see 3-10 and find out that a defender has x K7xxxx in the majors, should I not use the 3-10 to infer with >50% accurace that he does not have a minor queen? In practice you are advocating writing 3-10 and massing with x Kxxxxx Qxx xxx and similar, which is equally misleading.

 

The accepted way to get around this pragmatically in NT ranges is to write something like (14)15-17, where the brackets are the lowest number where you open a reasonable fraction. Perhaps we should all be wrting something like (3)5-10, but in practice this is what is understood anyway in the ranges for preempts.

[mjj29]

The accepted way to get around this pragmatically in NT ranges is to write something like (14)15-17, where the brackets are the lowest number where you open a reasonable fraction. Perhaps we should all be writing something like (3)5-10, but in practice this is what is understood anyway in the ranges for preempts.

 

Indeed, I think that writing "6-10" if you ever open outside that range _can_ be misleading and "3-10" if you don't always open with hands in that range can _also_ be misleading. Something like (3)5-10, or (as I have on my cards) 5-9 and "weak bids may be wider ranging in 3rd" or "at favorable vulnerability" is better, but fundamentally most people expect the numbers on preempts to be at least somewhat nominal and expect some amount of up/down grades or deviations. If they aren't rare I'd expect at least something like "frequent upgrades" or "occasional deviations" written on the card.

 

OTOH, I'm working in a region (the EBU) where any range is permissible if properly disclosed. Where the RA has a hard range limit (a-la the ACBL's 7-point one), then I think you should stick to that as a hard limit (I also don't upgrade 'good' 15 counts into our strong opening, since the lower limit is 16 here, even if it's a better hand than some which I would open there).

 

In this case it means, if you open 10 counts in your weak 2s you can't ever open anything less than 4. I would not object if the 4s are infrequent from writing 5-10 still though.