Deviation from system

[TMorris]

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.

 

It is only understood in practice once you have been playing at the level where this occurs for a while. It is not understood in practice when you initially step up in level thus significantly disadvantaging such people.

 

A good player recently opened a weak two in third position with an 11 count and a good 6-card suit (playing I think 5-9). I was told afterwards by a more experienced teammate that this is "standard". Well until then it wasn't standard to me. I know about "may be weaker in third" but hadn't heard of "may be stronger in third".

 

I just played a match where one of the opponents had 5-13 in third for their weak twos. It's the first time I have ever seen this. That is what I call full disclosure. Otherwise I am at a clear disadvantage.

[phil_20686]

I just played a match where one of the opponents had 5-13 in third for their weak twos. It's the first time I have ever seen this. That is what I call full disclosure. Otherwise I am at a clear disadvantage.

 

Unfortunately, I guarantee there are plenty of 12-13 counts with a six card suit they do not open as a preempt so its not really any better disclosure is it?

[TMorris]

It is of course better.

 

There are balanced 12 counts that I don't open with a weak NT. I still say my 1NT opening is 12-14. There are 9 counts that I open at the one level I still say my weak 2s are 5-9.

[phil_20686]

There are balanced 12 counts that I don't open with a weak NT. I still say my 1NT opening is 12-14. There are 9 counts that I open at the one level I still say my weak 2s are 5-9.

 

And if an opponent misguesses a Queen based on that fact that you "can't" have 12 HCP. That is entirely equivalent to the OP, who when wrong because the wk two "must have" 6 points.

[gnasher]

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.

It's not understood by me. If I see "5-10", I infer that the opening bid shows a hand that the bidder considers worth 5-10. That may well include upgraded 4-counts, but I see no reason why I should expect it to be an upgraded 2-count.

 

I really don't understand the problem. If your real range is 5-10, you write "5-10". If your real range is something else, you say so. There are lots of ways you can do this: "all 5-9 counts, most 4-counts, some 3-counts, a few 2-counts, and some 10-counts", "typically 5-9, but can be as weak as 2 with good shape", or even just "weak, wide range".

 

If you have an imprecise agreement, why would you state a range which is both precise and inaccurate?

[TMorris]

And if an opponent misguesses a Queen based on that fact that you "can't" have 12 HCP. That is entirely equivalent to the OP, who when wrong because the wk two "must have" 6 points.

 

Well they might have read the part on my cc which says " we may not open poor 12 counts". But anyway it is not the same. If I open a weak NT my agreement is 12-14. If I have 12-14 I do not have an agreement to always open.

[phil_20686]

It's not understood by me. If I see "5-10", I infer that the opening bid shows a hand that the bidder considers worth 5-10. That may well include upgraded 4-counts, but I see no reason why I should expect it to be an upgraded 2-count.

 

I really don't understand the problem. If your real range is 5-10, you write "5-10". If your real range is something else, you say so. There are lots of ways you can do this: "all 5-9 counts, most 4-counts, some 3-counts, a few 2-counts, and some 10-counts", "typically 5-9, but can be as weak as 2 with good shape", or even just "weak, wide range".

 

If you have an imprecise agreement, why would you state a range which is both precise and inaccurate?

 

I don't think its a question of an "imprecise agreement", so much as "an agreement that cannot be precisely stated in a few words". the 5-10 is the hands that I would "basically always" open, subject to suit quality. I would open them in any seat at an vulnerability, but how far you are prepared to stretch definitely depends on all of: (1) vulnerability, (2) Position, (3) how good you think your opposition are, (4) suit texture, (5) Side suit distribution, none of which is captured in a HCP scale.

 

I mean (3)5-10 means that I might open x Kxxxxx xxxxx x in third seat at favourable, but would not imagine opening 32 K65432 432 32 at first at red. I do not understand what is imprecise about that. Any explanation that attempts to fit the complex interplay between all five of those factors into a small box on the front of a convention is doomed to failure. Characterising preempts by HCP is basically not very sensible. I mean I imagine third in at favorable most experts would open some kind of preempt with - T987xxx T987xx - does that mean i need to write zero- 10 on my card?

 

(3)5-10 is a pragmatic attempt to indicate your agreement to your opposition quickly. If they want more detailed answers they have to ask. It should be read "Open most 5-10 hands with a six card suit a weak two", depending on other factors open a significant number of 3-4 counts , but by no means any 3 count with a six card suit.

 

 

 

 

 

[phil_20686]

If I open a weak NT my agreement is 12-14. If I have 12-14 I do not have an agreement to always open.

 

No, I don't see it this way at all. You have agreements about how to bid particular classes of hands. Hands are the fundamental starting point.

 

 

If you write a bidding agreement like 1N=12-14, you are committing to opening 12-14 balanced hands 1N. If you do not open 1N I am fully entitled to assume that you do not have 12-14 balanced. If you routinely do not open balanced 1N 12 counts, but write 12-14 balanced. You are committing the same Mis-information as if you routinely open 11 counts 12-14 balanced.

 

I mean I admit there is some debate here: If I see 1N=12-14 balanced. I read that as "My system dictates that I open "basically all" 12-14 balanced hands 1N". This is certainly what my partner assumes if I say we are playing a wk nt, and I see any failure to conform to this, either by opening more hands or fewer, to be mis information. You are arguing that it should be read "If I open 1N I am showing 12-14 balanced, but I am completely free not to open as many 12-14 balanced hands as I please", and that is not mis information. Clearly at some point your statement becomes false. If you open fewer than 1% of 10 balanced ten counts, writing 10-14 for your nt range is false. You are misleading declarer into believing that the various HCP in that range are roughly equally likely (given the normal distribution of HCP making numbers closer to ten more likely anyway), and this will often affect his play. For this reason I think the first of these readings is the correct one, and is the one declarers should take.

 

Perhaps this is an interesting hand for a thread. Suppose I constructed a hand from a 24 board team match, where opponents wrote 10-14 for their 1N range, and on board one you played for an opponent not to have a 10 count because he would have opened in first and he did have a ten count. Then on four further occasions in the match your opponents had balanced ten counts that they failed to open 1N. Would you be entitled to redress? I think that you would. Were I a director I would certainly rule that on the evidence presented you do not in fact have the agreement of 1N-10-14, and would rule in declarers favour.

[Cascade]

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 :)

 

I am not back pedalling. I quoted what I wrote.

 

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.

 

If you have a partnership agreement, in fact I should probably have used the term "partnership understanding" to open hands in a certain range but you tell the opponents that you have a different range and you hope to gain from that deception then you are breaking the rules. I suppose that there might be some that are ignorant of the rules and maybe I could have more carefully qualified that if you do this deliberately only then are you cheating. I did however make it clear that this was my opinion - "to me". I could have written unqualified "then that is a deliberate act of cheating" and that is what I would have written if I had been making an accusation. However I was offering an opinion in an internet forum not making an accusation. I qualified what I wrote as a personal opinion based on the assumptions that I wrote. I do not know you. I do not know how you play. I am not in a position to judge that. I know what you wrote. It is something that I am passionate about and I made a qualified personal response to what you had written.

 

The post I originally responded to said

 

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 ?

 

Later you explained this in a modified form

 

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

 

To me these are different. In the first you gave a very specific hand. My simulations suggest that around 1 in 10000 hands with six spades are a three-count with the ten and nine spots. You comment "Thats a rare situation...". Indeed I agree it is rare. You go on to say immediately in the same sentence "i myself open". This is unqualified. Not "sometimes" or "occasionally" or "on a whim I might" but a direct statement that seems to imply that you open this hand.

 

To me if there is a hand that you would always open then that is part of your partnership understanding. That is there is no difference between always opening the around 18% of hands with six spades that have 9 hcp and the 0.0001% of the same hands that are QJT9xx and out with a specific shape. The fact that we see one more than another is neither here nor there in determining that your partnership understanding is to open those hands.

 

If I have accounted for all of the hcp in the hand except for a queen and I have a two-way finesse then I am entitled to know that an opponent would or would not open with a three count. I can only know this if you disclose it to me. To not disclose and claim that there are advantages in hiding this information from your opponents - "In return i may have gains too as you said someone may misguess a finesse or whatever." - is not close to what I consider fair play.

 

Claiming that something this low frequency is a "deviation" whilst simultaneously stating "i myself open" seems to me to be a convenient deception. Sure its "rare" but 'partnership understanding' is not qualified by frequency.

 

In the play example I gave a priori the probability 0.0001% for the low frequency hand could have grown to around 50% (plus or minus depending on what else I have discovered about the distribution) when I have to make my 'guess' for the missing queen. However if you tell me your range is 5-10 then I may (erroneously) diminish this ~50% to near 0% based on the deception.

 

Anyway I believe if one deliberately fails to disclose ones partnership understandings (including implicit understandings) in the hope of gaining an advantage then you are clearly not playing according to the rules. You can call it what you want.

[gnasher]

I mean I imagine third in at favorable most experts would open some kind of preempt with - T987xxx T987xx - does that mean i need to write zero- 10 on my card?

No, because it's generally understood that additional shape can be treated as making up for a deficiency in high cards.

 

(3)5-10 is a pragmatic attempt to indicate your agreement to your opposition quickly.

Yes, I agree, and I don't see anything misleading about that. When you said earlier "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", I thought that you meant that it was OK to write "5-10" when your real range is "(3)5-10". If you meant something else, fine.

Edited March 19, 2012 by gnasher

[Phil]

I still think that the crux of the problem is the unreliability of point ranges with weak 2's.

 

If I open QT9xxxx x xx xxx 3♠, no one is going to say anything about it. If my RHO opens 3♠, I will probably get a funny look from my LHO if I ask, what is the point range of this bid? A better response is something along the lines of, "I expect five tricks at this vulnerability". This is a classic, "light" preempt, and there is a place on the CC where I can mark this. My own CC is marked "light" at NV, and "sound" at V.

 

On the other hand, if an opponent said, "we preempt soundly. Even at these colors, I expect seven, maybe eight tricks", I can justifiably expect something more like a KQJTxxxx x Kxx xx and I would feel they violated their agreements if they commonly opened QT9-7th and out a preempt.

 

If my opponent makes a wide ranging preempt in certain seats, I expect this to be disclosed, and maybe even alerted. When I ran a club four years ago, during one session I kibitzed a local pro that preempted in 3rd seat vul with a 14 count, and then did it the next round with a 4 count, and then did it a 3rd time with a 12 count. I told her that its clear that her partnership's style was to open very wide ranging preempts and the opponents have a right to this information.

 

Accordingly, what is so sacred about point ranges and weak 2's? If there was as section where you could mark, sound, or light, or wide ranging, or "5 cards" it seems like that would be a better form for disclosure than point range.

[TMorris]

No, I don't see it this way at all. You have agreements about how to bid particular classes of hands. Hands are the fundamental starting point.

 

If you write a bidding agreement like 1N=12-14, you are committing to opening 12-14 balanced hands 1N. If you do not open 1N I am fully entitled to assume that you do not have 12-14 balanced. If you routinely do not open balanced 1N 12 counts, but write 12-14 balanced. You are committing the same Mis-information as if you routinely open 11 counts 12-14 balanced.

 

 

 

 

Well we seem to have a fundemental disagreement here :) . As far as I am concerned my agreement is that when I open 1NT I have 12-14 balanced. It is not, when I have 12-14 balanced I open 1NT.

 

If I routinely don't open balanced 12 counts I would agree that 12-14 is misleading, but that is not the case. I have no idea what proportion of balanced 12 counts that I don't open 1NT but it won't be that high; low single figure percent I would guess. It will of course vary by position and vulnerability and shape.

 

To widen the discussion. With a weak 2 bid my agreement is 5-9. There are significantly more hands in the range 5-9 with a 6 card suit that I don't open a weak 2 than there are bad 12 counts that I don't open 1NT. Usually this is due to suit quality eg I don't open with 987654 as my 6-card suit & probably not with slightly stronger suits than that. Perhaps I should state that I have a minimum suit quality requirement. I have never seen anyone do this, or even suggest it for that matter, but I am quite prepared to be convinced that it is something I should do. I would of course happily explain, if asked, that this is the case but perhaps that is insufficient.

 

There is a well known quote that is consistent with my view - I just wish I could remember it, from some very well known UK player - something like, " an agreement with partner not a promise to my opponents" but it is phrased much better than that.

[bluejak]

Hmmm. I have seen some posts that seem somewhat unfortunate.

 

However, let me make one thing clear. If I write

 

Percy Popplewell makes illegal bids deliberately

 

I have really called him a cheat, but only because I said that he did, and that it was deliberate, and named him.

 

If I write

 

I do not approve of bids of this sort which are dubious

then I have called no-one a cheat.

 

If then Percy Popplewell writes

 

By saying I have made illegal bids of this sort he has called me a CHEAT.

then only Percy Popplewell has called himself a cheat.

 

Having read what was written there was no accusation of cheating aimed at MrAce except by himself. I think it better if these posts were not continued.

 

:ph34r:

 

If you object to a post by another person and want Ed or myself to deal with it, the normal approach is to send one of us a private memo, and it will not be dealt with in public. This is better than public complaints because they really need to be dealt with in public.

[bluejak]

I believe point ranges are a poor idea with weak twos and cause trouble without much gain. No-one asks for point ranges for weak threes.

 

Since there are no restrictions in England there is no need to find ranges out. Sure, everyone does, but I never see why.

 

Since the ACBL has a regulation which is clearly out of date then they need players to name point ranges. However, it is time they looked at the regulation and the approach.

[gordontd]

There is a well known quote that is consistent with my view - I just wish I could remember it, from some very well known UK player - something like, " an agreement with partner not a promise to my opponents" but it is phrased much better than that.

Edgar Kaplan said something like:

A partnership agreement is an agreement between partners, not an undertaking to opponents

[aguahombre]

I wonder what makes a regulation out of date. Is it when someone in a different jurisdiction disagrees with it?

 

I can imagine if a WBF interpretation or ruling is binding on everyone, and some NBO has not recodified, then a regulation would be out of date. Is that the case, here?

[TMorris]

That's the one, thanks.

[bluejak]

I wonder what makes a regulation out of date. Is it when someone in a different jurisdiction disagrees with it?

Most hilarious.

 

When the game of bridge changes but the regulation does not keep up with the change, it is out of date.

[MrAce]

So with this logic, if i make a post, quoting someone, and starting with IF, BlueJack sjould not be offended

 

Watch...

 

 

 

Bla Bla Bla...Quoting a specific admin !

 

IF admins make decisions , in order to protect their peer, especially when they just made big words about a famous player (Chip Martel) and how laws should be equally applied, but can not even apply the rule in a small forum that he moderates then he is a "insult-accusation" with double standarts. It sickens me to see admins with this attitude bla bla more insult, accusation....

 

Can you see where i am coming from BlueJack ? Please dont tell me there was nothing offensive the way he wrote his post and it was me, myself who made a huge deal out of it.

 

 

Wonderful technique indeed. When i want to insult or accuse someone, i should just quote him and make sure i use the word "IF" and then say whatever i wanna say. And claim that "hey if you dont fit in the description that comes after IF, then u are not supposed to be offended"

 

Cmon, seriously, we are not in Federal Court here.

 

And please NOTE that, in ACBL, we all know there are A LOT OF players who fit in the description that was written by Cascade which started with his famous "IF", but still innocent. As i listed, those who disagrees with the definition of accurate disclosure (just like some replies in this topic), those who are just ignorant of law and regulations, those who just sits and plays with a pd and a CC that is filled by pd. He put all t hese people in 1 category, and he assigned blame to their intentions. And that is "Deliberately Cheating "

 

Also, his incident was reported privately to Inquiry. His reaction to the words, taste and accuracy of his post was totally different than you. But he convinced me that if any action taken, such as editting, moving, deleting, that would result with changes in my reply too (since i quoted him) , which he believed my reply was worth reading. And he also mentioned that this forum is moderated by you and another admin, not himself.

[MrAce]

@ Cascade : I didnt intend to say i rarely open this QJTxxx x xxx xxx because it comes rare, i meant " i rarely open with those hands " If you read my post i mentioned things like "State of match, strategy etc "

 

Again, if this was explicit or implicit agreement, why would i talk about "Taking Risk" when i do that ? Why would i talk about "We have no protection when things go wrong "

 

We have no protection because thats not what pd expects from me. I take risk when i bid this hand because thats not what pd expects me to have.

 

You want me to fill the CC with 3-9 anyway. I would be more than happy to fill it 3-9 when my pds NEVER open this hand i gave, and when i open it VERY rarely regardless of how frequently i hold it. It is hell of an advantage for me to lead my opponents to the process of placing cards in my hand that are 3-9 range while i actually hold 5-10 % 99 of the time. Is this how you describe "accurate disclosure" ?

[aguahombre]

Disagree. The risk is in what the opponents will do to you, whether you have an implicit agreement or not.

[MrAce]

Disagree. The risk is in what the opponents will do to you, whether you have an implicit agreement or not.

 

If one thinks only RISK by opening a hand that pd DOES NOT EXPECT you to have is what opponents will do to you, then this means this person have never been punished by CHO. A lucky one !

 

I didn't know there are players who has not been punished by partner when they take an action that pd is not expecting.

[Vampyr]

If one thinks only RISK by opening a hand that pd DOES NOT EXPECT you to have is what opponents will do to you, then this means this person have never been punished by CHO. A lucky one !

 

I didn't know there are players who has not been punished by partner when they take an action that pd is not expecting.

 

I don't think anyone said that. Yes, you can be punished by partner, and also you can misinform opponents. The former is not anyone else's business, but the latter is what this thread is about. To wit, if you have specified a range for a bid, that should be your range.

[Vampyr]

Most hilarious.

 

Agree!

 

 

When the game of bridge changes but the regulation does not keep up with the change, it is out of date.

 

But this phrase strongly implies that the ragulation has actually been supplanted by something else. Although "outdated" seems on the surface to have the same meaning, it feels a lot more like something that is still in force, but is hopelessly old-fashioned.

[MrAce]

C. D eviation from System and Psychic Action

1. A player may deviate from his side’s announced

understandings always, provided that his partner

has no more reason to be aware of the deviation

than have the opponents. Repeated deviations

lead to implicit understandings, which then form

part of the partnership’s methods and must be

disclosed in accordance with the regulations

governing disclosure of system. If the Director

judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has

damaged the opponents, he shall adjust the score

and may award a procedural penalty.

2. O ther than the above, no player has any obligation

to disclose to the opponents that he has deviated

from his announced methods.

3. (a) U nless permitted by the Regulating Authority,

a player is not entitled during the auction

and play periods to any aids to his memory,

calculation or technique.

(b) R epeated violations of requirements to disclose

partnership understandings may be

penalized.

 

Here is the ACBL laws. In my understanding, in order to talk about an "imlicit agreement " a repeated deviation from the system MUST ALSO form a pdship METHOD. Not JUDGEMENT or STYLE" And EVEN if it becomes an implicit agreement, TD's action will be based on the damage, and that damage has to be done by the pdship undisclosed METHOD.

 

It is not clear tho, how many times it needs to be repeated in order to form a pdship method which makes it a implicit pdship agreement. And how they file these repeats.

 

2. (a) T he Regulating Authority is empowered

without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow

conditionally any special partnership understanding.

It may prescribe a system card

with or without supplementary sheets, for the

prior listing of a partnership’s understandings

and regulate its use. The Regulating Authority

may prescribe alerting procedures and/or

other methods of disclosure of a partnership’s

methods. It may vary the general requirement

that the meaning of a call or play shall

not alter by reference to the member of the

partnership by whom it is made. Such a regulation

must not restrict style and judgment,

only method.*