When do rules/regs matter?

[gordontd]

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.

As described here, this does not of itself provide a precedent. Did the L&E conclude that the rule is not hard and fast?

[bluejak]

I don't believe there was a real conclusion. But it aired the difference between what a pair's agreements are and what call a player makes.

[barmar]

If they want to ban the mini-NT, all they have to do is designate it a "special partnership understanding".

The current laws do allow this, but there are way too many members playing it for them to be able to get away with such a move now. So the best they can do is stick with the kludge of treating any 9 HCP opening as evidence of an agreement, rather than a deviation.

[blackshoe]

Maybe if there are that many people playing it, they ought to just give up trying to ban it or mess with those players, and get rid of the kludge. Frankly, saying "a one point deviation is okay, except in this one case" seems a bit dishonest to me.

[gordontd]

I don't believe there was a real conclusion. But it aired the difference between what a pair's agreements are and what call a player makes.

That doesn't sound like a precedent to me.

[bluejak]

Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it is a bad precedent. But when an official publication states something is correct, it is not immediately obvious to everyone that it should not be followed.

[nige1]

If a player writes in this forum that he opens such hands and a regular partner reads his post then they have have an agreement. They are likely to escape legal sanction because hands suitable for such "deviations" and "psyches" are uncommon and recording them is rarer.

 

Anyway, most players are oblivious to such rules. They handicap only a tiny minority of players who know about them and comply with them.

[aguahombre]

If a player writes in this forum that he opens such hands and a regular partner reads his post then they have have an agreement. They are likely to escape legal sanction because hands suitable for such pseudo-psyches are uncommon and recording them is rarer.

 

Anyway, most players are oblivious to such rules. They handicap only a tiny minority players who know about them and comply with them.

Actually no. Most players know what an agreement means in Bridge.

[nige1]

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.

If a player writes in this forum that he opens such hands and a regular partner reads his post then they have have an agreement. They are likely to escape legal sanction because hands suitable for such "deviations" and "psyches" are uncommon and recording them is rarer. Anyway, most players are oblivious to such rules. They handicap only a tiny minority of players who know about them and comply with them.

Actually no. Most players know what an agreement means in Bridge.

:)

[blackshoe]

If a player writes in this forum that he opens such hands and a regular partner reads his post then they have have an agreement. They are likely to escape legal sanction because hands suitable for such "deviations" and "psyches" are uncommon and recording them is rarer.

 

Anyway, most players are oblivious to such rules. They handicap only a tiny minority of players who know about them and comply with them.

agreement |əˈgrēmənt| noun

harmony or accordance in opinion or feeling; a position or result of agreeing:

 

That I read something my partner said here does not mean I agree to it. OTOH, we do have a partnership understanding. Specifically, my understanding is that he said whatever he said. If he said that he opens certain hands, then my understanding is that he does so, and that must be disclosed IAW RA regulations. If my partner thinks I have agreed that I will open those same hands, he's dreaming.

[nige1]

That I read something my partner said here does not mean I agree to it. OTOH, we do have a partnership understanding. Specifically, my understanding is that he said whatever he said. If he said that he opens certain hands, then my understanding is that he does so, and that must be disclosed IAW RA regulations. If my partner thinks I have agreed that I will open those same hands, he's dreaming.

On reflection, I accept that distinction. But does Blackshoe imply that such partnership understandings are legal? Must agreements be mutual to flout system restrictions? For example is it legal for me to use so-called random overcalls, regularly, with partner's full knowledge, provided he doesn't, and we never discuss the matter?

[blackshoe]

Blackshoe does not imply that such partnership understandings are legal, nor that they are illegal. The legality of a partnership understanding is a separate matter to its existence, and depends on the regulations in force. In the ACBL, for example, there is no restriction on style, only method. If one player's weak two bids tend to be less disciplined than his partner's, that's a matter of style, and legal. If one player plays weak two bids, and the other Acol two bids, that is a matter of method, and illegal in the ACBL (both players must use the same methods).

[nige1]

Blackshoe does not imply that such partnership understandings are legal, nor that they are illegal. The legality of a partnership understanding is a separate matter to its existence, and depends on the regulations in force. In the ACBL, for example, there is no restriction on style, only method. If one player's weak two bids tend to be less disciplined than his partner's, that's a matter of style, and legal. If one player plays weak two bids, and the other Acol two bids, that is a matter of method, and illegal in the ACBL (both players must use the same methods).

I'll try to clarify the questiion: Is it legal for partner to habitually make calls that would certainly flout system-regulations if we had an agreement? Assume, however, that he does so with my knowledge but I don't do the same and we never discuss it? i.e. In Blackshoe's terms, we have a "partnership understanding" but not an "agreement"

 

FWIW, I'm uncertain whether Bridge-law recognizes Blackshoe's sensible distinction between agreements and partnership understandings. . For example consider the case where if we had an agreement we would both be breaking system regualtions . We do so in the same way; and we are fully aware of each others habits; but we never discuss them.

 

IMO, for legal purposes, in all such cases, we have an implicit agreement.

[blackshoe]

I'll try to clarify the questiion: Is it legal for partner to habitually make calls that would certainly flout system-regulations if we had an agreement?

Not after you become aware of his habit.

[barmar]

40B6a says:

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply

to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special

information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership

experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and

experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

A public forum post is obviously not "partnership agreement", but is it "partnership experience"? The forum post doesn't take place while the players are playing together as partners, so I don't think so. It seems more like GBK, since anyone can read the post and learn about this player's style.

 

So if he posts that he opens all 11 counts, but you don't think he's ever done it while partnering with you, your partnership experience is that he's a more sound opener.

[gordontd]

Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it is a bad precedent. But when an official publication states something is correct, it is not immediately obvious to everyone that it should not be followed.

Oh, I must have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that players don't really need to follow the "rule of ..." regulations.

[nige1]

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.

I agree with Vampyr. We also lost a fourth-round knock-out match because an opponent opened a hand, which our team-member passed, slavishly following an EBU rule of 18 regulation. As in this forum, directors seemed to think that only naive masochists adhere to such rules. I agree that system-regulations are daft but while they exist, IMO, we should try to comply with them

[gnasher]

I'll try to clarify the questiion: Is it legal for partner to habitually make calls that would certainly flout system-regulations if we had an agreement? Assume, however, that he does so with my knowledge but I don't do the same and we never discuss it? i.e. In Blackshoe's terms, we have a "partnership understanding" but not an "agreement"

 

FWIW, I'm uncertain whether Bridge-law recognizes Blackshoe's sensible distinction between agreements and partnership understandings. . For example consider the case where if we had an agreement we would both be breaking system regualtions . We do so in the same way; and we are fully aware of each others habits; but we never discuss them.

 

IMO, for legal purposes, in all such cases, we have an implicit agreement.

 

The Laws don't clearly define a difference between agreements and partnership understandings. Depending on how you read Law 40, either they mean the same or "agreement" is a category of "partnership understanding".

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because system regulations relate to "partnership understandings", which "may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players" (emphasis added).

 

If you know that your partner, playing with you, will open a 5116 7-count, and he knows that you know this, you have a partnership understanding that he will do so, and it is subject to the system regulations. If you know this but he doesn't know that you know, it depends upon the meaning and application of the word "mutual" in the above quote.

[Fluffy]

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.

 

 

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.

 

I don't see the difference between 650 or 680, you would have to be playing 5m or 3NT for the overtrick to matter

[Fluffy]

I think this rule would go directly over me.

 

In my system, 1♠-1Nt(GF relay) -4m shows a 6-6 distribution with minimum values on a precision context, this usually means 11-13 for semibalanced hands, but sometimes we lower it to 10.... but I guess we cannot lower it much more (In my country having agreements on opening below 10 is already forbidden)

[nige1]

The Laws don't clearly define a difference between agreements and partnership understandings. Depending on how you read Law 40, either they mean the same or "agreement" is a category of "partnership understanding".

 

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because system regulations relate to "partnership understandings", which "may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players" (emphasis added). If you know that your partner, playing with you, will open a 5116 7-count, and he knows that you know this, you have a partnership understanding that he will do so, and it is subject to the system regulations. If you know this but he doesn't know that you know, it depends upon the meaning and application of the word "mutual" in the above quote.

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. In third and fourth seat the minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is 8 HCP.

EBU Orange Book system regulations refer to agreements rather than partnership understandings

[gnasher]

EBU Orange Book system regulations refer to agreements rather than partnership understandings

 

The EBU regulations appear to treat the two terms as interchangeable:

OB3A1: "All agreements, including implicit understandings ..."

[Fluffy]

OMG this is creepy, I just played this hand in bridgebig:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=sa74hj654da2cqj82&w=sqj6532h9dca97654&n=skthkqt832d653ck3&e=s98ha7dkqjt9874ct&d=w&v=0&b=8&a=1s2h3d4h4sp4np5cp6ddpprppp]399|300[/hv]

 

This hands are more frequent than I though I first maybe :P

[Fluffy]

its also an argument for the risk of opening 1♠ when you don't have agreements about it. Since BBig is individual East was not on the same wavelenght and ended up in disaster.

 

You might say that actually it is just a proof of human stupidity on sunday mornings, perhaps more accurate.

[sailoranch]

A player who likes to open shapely 7 counts would do well to partner this guy.

 

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060711022620/hh/images/thumb/6/60/Sgt._Schultz.jpg/225px-Sgt._Schultz.jpg

 

"I know nothing! Nothing!"