When do rules/regs matter?

[Bbradley62]

From the Interesting Hands forum...

♠QJ9732

♥9

♦-

♣AT8542

 

I want to open this hand 1♠,but my partner think it's crazy.

 

It's not legal to agree to open 1♠ on this hand in England: (from the orange book)

 

12 C One of a Suit Opening Bids

12 C 1 Minimum opening bid strength

The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 18, or 11 HCP. However a

partnership may not agree to open with 7 HCP or fewer even if the hand is at least

Rule of 18

 

That's not to say I wouldn't do it without an agreement to do so.

 

I really doubt this type of hand is subject to a jurisdiction's rules about "agreements" for opening bids. As a player, you either judge it to be a strange opening 1-bid, or you don't...

 

... But in general, bidding systems aren't designed for freak hands. Neither are regulations. Just wing it.

 

So, Orange Book 12.C.1 is just a suggestion? I don't understand the attitude that written regs don't actually mean what they say.

[aguahombre]

You are right. You don't understand. The regs on what an opening bid is, or is not, are about agreements. If you have discussed and agree on how your methods will deal with all the extremely wild distributional hands you will incur once each millenium, and incorporate them into your opening 1-bid structure ---then maybe you would be subject to the jurisdictional restrictions.

 

If you think the existing OB regulations were built to stifle judgement on freak hands, that is where we disagree. I don't advocate breaking any jurisdiction's laws. Common sense tells me when they don't apply to a given situation. I think they don't apply to this situation.

[Cyberyeti]

You are right. You don't understand. The regs on what an opening bid is, or is not, are about agreements. If you have discussed and agree on how your methods will deal with all the extremely wild distributional hands you will incur once each millenium, and incorporate them into your opening 1-bid structure ---then maybe you would be subject to the jurisdictional restrictions.

 

If you think the existing OB regulations were built to stifle judgement on freak hands, that is where we disagree. I don't advocate breaking any jurisdiction's laws. Common sense tells me when they don't apply to a given situation. I think they don't apply to this situation.

This is exactly right, and why I said in the other thread that you aren't allowed to agree to open 1, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't do it.

[gnasher]

The rules matter all the time, except (arguably) when breaking them is to your own disadvantage, or to nobody's advantage.

 

In this case, you can't agree to open this hand in EBU events, because the rules say you can't. The rules also say that agreements can be formed through partnership experience as well as by explicit discussion, so you can't open this type of hand often enough for it to constitute an implicit agreement.

 

Regarding the intent of the rules, I think it's very clear that the EBU's regulation was intended precisely to deal with this type of hand. If they were happy to allow an agreement to open a 6-6 7-count, they would have said "The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 18 with at least an 8-count, or rule of 19 with a 7-count, or 11 HCP." Instead, they explicitly stated that you can't agree to open any 7-count. So you can't.

[c_corgi]

I seem to recall a thread from a few months ago which discussed this type of hand. I can't find the thread, but my recollection is that to determine if there was an agreement to open such hands, the director asked the player's partner. The bar seemed to be set quite high in terms of achieving a "no agreement to open this hand" verdict. IIRC expressing sympathy with partner's decision was deemed to be evidence of an agreement. Apologies if I have misrepresented anyone here.

 

EDIT: the thread related to EBU regulations

[TimG]

In the disallowed section of the GCC (ACBL), we find:

 

6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8

HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)

 

The rules don't say "a king or more below average" or "fewer than 8 points", it is very specific in "fewer than 8 HCP". I don't see any reason not to take that at face value and think that the regulators mean :fewer than 8 HCP" rather than "fewer than 8 HCP except in cases of extreme distribution".

 

FWIW, hrothgar and I once entered a KO event with the hopes of testing this rule. We agreed to open some 7 HCP hands. We disclosed this to the opponents and explained our intent. They made no objection. It wasn't long before Richard had a perfect hand, approximately KQxx x QTxxxx xx, and was able to open 1S (we were playing canape). I don't remember the final contract, but the result was unremarkable. When the hand was over, Richard showed his hand and announced he had opened the bidding, by agreement, with only 7 HCP. He called the director. The director, Sol Weinstein, shrugged it off without even a warning that our methods were illegal.

 

So, there is some precedent that aquahombre's (and others') assertion that the rule is not hard and fast is accurate.

[blackshoe]

The director, Sol Weinstein, shrugged it off without even a warning that our methods were illegal.

 

So, there is some precedent that aquahombre's (and others') assertion that the rule is not hard and fast is accurate.

Yeah. Sol Weinstein is a top director, but still this seems to me like somebody deciding the rules can be ignored whenever he feels like it. I don't think that's right, whoever does it.

 

Andy suggests the rules matter "all the time, except…" I don't like that much either. If you allow exceptions, you open the door for the kind of thing Mr. Weinstein did.

[aguahombre]

Again, all the comments about following the rules are accurate. Again, if there were an agreement to open this hand-type 1X, we would be running afowl of a jurisdiction's rules.

 

TimG's anecdote is an example of an agreement to run afowl of the rules, with hands even less extreme than the one given. I don't believe the opponents can acquiesce to illegal agreements, and the TD seems to have just been less than interested in the pair's experiment in skirting the rules.

 

My whole reason for saying I believe the horrible 1♠ bid to be legal is based on NO AGREEMENT. The Law is clear in speaking about agreements. There is a gap, however, between a psyche and opening a hand with a point count lower than so many HCP. Within this gap we get to apply our own judgement ---not our own agreements ---about what we open.

[gnasher]

So, there is some precedent that aquahombre's (and others') assertion that the rule is not hard and fast is accurate.

I don't think there's any such precedent in the EBU. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that attitudes to the equivalent ACBL rule are different, even though this is in a different category from rules about skip-bid warnings and convention cards.

[WellSpyder]

My whole reason for saying I believe the horrible 1♠ bid to be legal is based on NO AGREEMENT. The Law is clear in speaking about agreements. There is a gap, however, between a psyche and opening a hand with a point count lower than so many HCP. Within this gap we get to apply our own judgement ---not our own agreements ---about what we open.

And next time one of you holds a similar hand - still no agreement??

[gnasher]

My whole reason for saying I believe the horrible 1♠ bid to be legal is based on NO AGREEMENT. The Law is clear in speaking about agreements.

This thread (as distinct frem the other thread) is about agreeing to open this type of hand. Nobody has argued that it's illegal to open the hand.

 

There is a gap, however, between a psyche and opening a hand with a point count lower than so many HCP. Within this gap we get to apply our own judgement ---not our own agreements ---about what we open.

I don't see any difference between opening this hand and opening xxx xxx xxx xxxx. In both the ACBL and the EBU, you can open either hand, but you can't (according to the rules) agree to open either hand.

[barmar]

My whole reason for saying I believe the horrible 1♠ bid to be legal is based on NO AGREEMENT. The Law is clear in speaking about agreements. There is a gap, however, between a psyche and opening a hand with a point count lower than so many HCP. Within this gap we get to apply our own judgement ---not our own agreements ---about what we open.

The problem isn't with psyches, it's with implicit agreements.

 

If your partner knows your style, and thus that you would open that hand 1♠, doesn't that constitute an implicit agreement?

 

However, the poster's partner says that he thinks it's crazy to open that hand 1♠. Unless the RA authorizes it, you're not allowed to have an agreement that partner A opens 1♠ with that hand, but partner B doesn't, but Law 40B2a specifically says that these regulations may not restrict individual style and judgement, only partnership method.

 

So it all comes down to whether we consider this a stylistic judgemnt or an implicit agreement.

[Gerben42]

The only reason for this rule is to avoid having people playing fertilizer-type opening bids. The 7 HCP rule is NOT meant for annoying people who like to open light. For that they have the (in my opinion patronizing) rule-of-18.

 

So if you choose to open 1♠ on 6-6 with 7 HCP (rule-of-19), I will treat it as a deviation.

[blackshoe]

The opinions of individual directors not withstanding, if there is a rule prohibiting an agreement to open such hands, and the TD has evidence that a pair has such an agreement, and that evidence outweighs any evidence that they do not have such an agreement, then the TD who does not rule that the pair has an illegal agreement is not doing his job properly.

[nigel_k]

My whole reason for saying I believe the horrible 1♠ bid to be legal is based on NO AGREEMENT. The Law is clear in speaking about agreements. There is a gap, however, between a psyche and opening a hand with a point count lower than so many HCP. Within this gap we get to apply our own judgement ---not our own agreements ---about what we open.

You can't avoid having implicit partnership understandings. If this hand came up and was opened 1♠ and the partnership discussed it, they have some kind of understanding. Maybe they even have an implicit understanding if they didn't discuss it when they normally would discuss anything they disagreed with. And these hands do come up now and then if you play with the same person for a while.

 

Also, if the regulators intended aguahombre's interpretation they would have worded the regulation so that you can bid anything you want with these hands. Instead, they explicitly did the opposite by including the 7 HCP provision.

[aguahombre]

If that hand ever comes up again, we will indeed have an agreement that I don't like the 1S opening bid. Does that mean if I open 1S for some offbeat tactical reason, it is illegal?

[TimG]

My whole reason for saying I believe the horrible 1♠ bid to be legal is based on NO AGREEMENT. The Law is clear in speaking about agreements. There is a gap, however, between a psyche and opening a hand with a point count lower than so many HCP. Within this gap we get to apply our own judgement ---not our own agreements ---about what we open.

The ACBL takes a different stance on 10-12 NTs. One "stretch" to open a 9 HCP hand and you have run afoul of regulations and are no longer permitted to use conventional responses to your "10-12 NT". At least that is the way I understand things.

[aguahombre]

The ACBL takes a different stance on 10-12 NTs. One "stretch" to open a 9 HCP hand and you have run afoul of regulations and are no longer permitted to use conventional responses to your "10-12 NT". At least that is the way I understand things.

You understand the ACBL position on opening NT's correctly. I don't think it can be related to hands with 12 or 13 cards in two suits, however.

[Lanor Fow]

If, based on your agreements with your partner, your judgement tells you that the correct bid on this hand is to open, then I woudl argue this is an illigal agreement. You can't ignore the rules and ptu it down to judgement.

 

If you are deviating or psyching then it is legal (though you will have to work to convince me of that, I won't just assume it), but if you say you used your judgement, then I will rule against you.

 

If regulators wanted to allow upgarades for judgement, they wouldn't have worded the regulations in the way they do. The same applies, in my opnion, to NT openings where the stated agreement is the minimum that is allowed, but players 'upgrade' hands with less HCP, and the same situation with strong club hands.

[TimG]

You understand the ACBL position on opening NT's correctly. I don't think it can be related to hands with 12 or 13 cards in two suits, however.

 

Judgment only applies to (freakishly) unbalanced hands?

[blackshoe]

Judgement applies to all hands, unless the ACBL says otherwise, which they have done in the specific case of balanced hands with less than 10 HCP. They have not provided a similar interpretation for the rule regarding hands with less than 8 HCP.

[Vampyr]

Judgment only applies to (freakishly) unbalanced hands?

 

6-5 hands are not freakish, though, although such a hand with 7HCP in a position to open are rare enough that one can easily get around the EBU regulation by saying that there was no agreement. This is why I realy dislike the EBU's regulation.

 

A friend of mine once lost an important match because he opened a 7HCP rule of 18 hand 2♠ while his opponent opened it 1♠. My friend knew of the regulation, and felt that opening at the 1-level fell afoul of it. I kind of agree. Calling it a psyche is disingenuous, and calling it a deviation... well, you're not going to get caught out even if you deviate every time. The EBU are obviously trying to make their regulation legal, since of course anyone can psyche any bid at any time, but I don't think they have done a very good job with this one. Not that I know the solution.

[bluejak]

I don't think there's any such precedent in the EBU. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that attitudes to the equivalent ACBL rule are different, even though this is in a different category from rules about skip-bid warnings and convention cards.

There is a precedent. Back in the days when opening bids had to be Rule of 19, someone wrote an article in English Bridge [the official EBU magazine] which was in effect a teaching article for poorer players. It included a hand which the writer said was an obvious opening bid. Unfortunately it was Rule of 18. This caused a furore. You can imagine what was said in letters to the editor, letters to the L&EC, and so on.

 

The opinions of individual directors not withstanding, if there is a rule prohibiting an agreement to open such hands, and the TD has evidence that a pair has such an agreement, and that evidence outweighs any evidence that they do not have such an agreement, then the TD who does not rule that the pair has an illegal agreement is not doing his job properly.

True: the Sol Weinstein ruling was clearly wrong because the pair was demonstrably playing an illegal agreement. The hand in the OP is different and does not look illegal to me.

 

Yesterday I held

[hv=pc=n&n=sat753hkt98764dcq]133|100[/hv]

and after some thought opened 4♥ at Amber [v v v], teams. The opponents failed to take their ♣A so that was 12 tricks. That 12th trick was vital.

 

I had considered 1♥ which was opened in the other room. I doubt that either of us would have felt the presence or absence of the ♣Q relevant to our choice of opening bid.

 

For your interest the full bidding in the other room was

[hv=d=n&v=b&b=13&a=1h(5+%20cards%2C%20%3C16)d2c(Art%20GF)3n(Bid%20a%20minor%2C%20please)4hpp4n(BID%20A%20MINOR%21)dppr(For ****s sake, bid a minor!%21)ppp]133|100[/hv]

8 off.

 

Now you see why the twelfth trick was important: if I do not make it I lose 24 imps on a board for the first time in my life.

[barmar]

Freaks in general are not that infrequent, but each one usually presents unique judgement issues. So it's difficult to make general agreements, or to claim that the pair has implicit agreements regarding them.

[blackshoe]

A further thought on the ACBL's stance on opening 9 HCP balanced hands 1NT when the agreement is 10-12 HCP: I think that historically they wanted to ban the "mini-NT" altogether, but felt they could not because it's a natural bid (under the laws previous to 2007 there was no authority to regulate natural bids). So they came up with this silly kludge about "conventional responses" and to top it off they decided that opening on 9 HCP, under any circumstances, is prima facie evidence of an agreement to do so, and thus activates the "conventional responses" kludge. This is patently stupid under the 2007 (or 2008 in the ACBL) laws. If they want to ban the mini-NT, all they have to do is designate it a "special partnership understanding". Mind you, I think they should just leave it alone, let people agree 10-12, and let people use their judgement to open on 9 occasionally if they so desire. But if they truly want to ban it on the GCC, they have the legal tools available to do so without being stupid about it.