When do rules/regs matter?

[Cyberyeti]

Sorry to derail the thread, but 6♦ seems a bizarre bid. Presumably E thought they were playing 3041 keycard with spades agreed, so reckoned there was one loser in diamonds, W thought they were playing 1430 or this wasn't Blackwood. If they're both on the same wavelength, E should be bidding 5 or 7 if he thought 4N was asking.

[nige1]

The EBU regulations appear to treat the two terms as interchangeable: OB3A1: "All agreements, including implicit understandings ..."

Aquahombre and Blackshoe think the terms are non-equivalent. They seem to be right, in ordinary English usage. I agree with Gnasher, however, that the laws seen to treat them the same. IMO the law should state that explicitly. Unfortunately, persuading regulators to clarify what rules mean is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. Especially in specific cases, like this

• Is it OK for me to open regularly with distributional seven counts, with partner's knowledge, provided he doesn't do so, and we never discuss it?
• Is it OK for us both to open on distributional seven counts (again based purely on common-sense and experience, without discussion)?

i.e. We have an implicit nonverbal partnership understanding. But we certainly don't have an agreement in the common dictionary sense.

[nige1]

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.

• Partner sends you his system-notes that explain his habits OR
• Partner advertises his habits on his BBO profile OR
• Partner describes his habits in a public forum that you read OR
• You and partner independently describe your identical habits in the same forum

MO, the law should treat these as implicit partnership "agreements". In all but the last case the "agreement" may be unilateral. IMO, however, they remain your "agreement" until partner repudiates them or flouts them often enough for you to revise your assessment.

[barmar]

The Laws mostly deal with disclosure, and for this the distinction between explicit agreements and implicit understandings is less significant. The Laws don't specify restrictions on the meanings of bids, except to say that RAs are allowed to establish such regulations. And unless we want to debate whether this only licenses them to regulate explicit agreements versus implicit understandings, the distinction is not necessary here, either -- it's up to the RA to state which they're addressing, as the EBU does.

 

Although I suppose the question would arise: if the regulation is not explicit about this, does the way the Laws are written imply a default interpretation?

[gnasher]

Aquahombre and Blackshoe think the terms are non-equivalent. They seem to be right, in ordinary English usage. I agree with Gnasher, however, that the laws seen to treat them the same.

That isn't what I said. I said that the Laws are unclear on this subject, and later that the EBU regulations appear to treat them as the same.

 

Unfortunately, persuading regulators to clarify what rules mean is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.

I don't think that's particularly true in the case of the EBU's system regulations. Since "agreement" and "understanding" are used interchangeable in the EBU regulations, it's clear that they mean the same thing for the purpose of the EBU's regulations. That makes the answers to your questions equally clear:

 

Is it OK for me to open regularly with distributional seven counts, with partner's knowledge, provided he doesn't do so, and we never discuss it?

Not in the EBU.

Is it OK for us both to open on distributional seven counts (again based purely on common-sense and experience, without discussion)?

If it's shared experience, no. If it's general bridge experience, yes. Obviously there are grey areas, but that's unavoidable if we're going to both prohibit particular agreements and allow players to depart from their agreements.

[nige1]

Is it OK for us both to open on distributional seven counts (again based purely on common-sense and experience, without discussion)?i.e. We have an implicit nonverbal partnership understanding. But we certainly don't have an agreement in the common dictionary sense.

If it's shared experience, no. If it's general bridge experience, yes. Obviously there are grey areas, but that's unavoidable if we're going to both prohibit particular agreements and allow players to depart from their agreements.

If the hand-type is rare but neither partner wants to be constrained by relevant regulations, they should avoid remembering partner's cards, especially when dummy, and refuse to discuss such hands. Regulators could have performed a valuable service for unimaginative players like me, by explaining this simple tactic. :)

If a partnership seek further refinement then, according to some, they can independently describe their habits in a public forum :)

 

I doubt any of this is the regulator's intention. :)

 

Whether from ignorance of the laws, or for other reasons explained in this forum, in practice, few players comply with such rules. Also, breaking such rules is unlikely to result in an adverse ruling.

 

Either such regulations should be simple to to understand and simple to enforce -- or (better) they should all be scrapped.

[gnasher]

If the hand-type is rare but neither partner wants to be constrained by relevant regulations, they should avoid remembering partner's cards, especially when dummy, and refuse to discuss such hands. Regulators could have performed a valuable service for unimaginative players like me, by explaining this simple tactic. :)

That wouldn't get him very far. According to both the Laws and the EBU regulations, implicit understandings are formed by partnership experience. If your partner does something repeatedly, you have an implicit understanding that he does this, regardless of whether you've ever noticed him do it.

 

If a player makes an absurd argument in an attempt to circumvent the rules, he deserves an absurd rebuttal.

 

If a partnership seek further refinement then, according to some, they can independently describe their habits in a public forum http://www.bridgebase.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif

The EBU, whose regulations you seem quick to criticise, have covered that to some extent: "Implicit understandings in bidding and play arise from partnership experience, which may include external experience by the partners not available to opponents." It gives the example of two players how each play often with a third player, but I think it would be equally applicable to a situation where one player published a description of his habits and the other player read it.

 

It would be better if the sentence didn't include the phrase "not available to opponents". I imagine that this appears because it's in a section about disclosure rather than about permitted methods.

 

Whether from ingnorance of the laws, or for other reasons explained in this forum, in practice, few players comply with such rules. Also, breaking such rules is unlikely to result in an adverse ruling.

If that is true, I expect you can provide us with some examples from real-life play of players' not complying with these rules and getting away with it?

[nige1]

If that is true, I expect you can provide us with some examples from real-life play of players' not complying with these rules and getting away with it?

I hope Gnasher (or somebody else) can cite a few cases where players have been ruled against for flouting 7HCP opening regulations. That would also provide a welcome practical illustration of what the rules mean,

 

I suspect that most players don't know what the rules mean (ACBL GCC 6 and Orange Book 12.C.1). As is plain from my repeated questions, I'm unsure too. Although I've tried to explain my guesses in my posts here. If my guesses are right as to what the rules mean, then few players comply with them and few directors enforce them. According to my interpretation, the only tentative evidence available to players is an opponent's "deviation".. (Vampyr and I gave examples of apparent rule of 18/19 violations, earlier in this thread but they were slightly easier to pin down). .I write only of the limited experience of myself and acquaintances. I would be relieved to be persuaded by practical evidence to the contrary. from directors with relevant experience.. If a Bridge authority has gathered and published statistics on such matters that would be even more illuminating.

[blackshoe]

There are four items numbered six on the GCC. Which one are you talking about?

[sailoranch]

There are four items numbered six on the GCC. Which one are you talking about?

 

Probably item 6 under disallowed:

 

"6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)"

[gnasher]

I hope Gnasher (or somebody else) can cite a few cases where players have been ruled against for flouting 7HCP opening regulations. That would also provide a welcome practical illustration of what the rules mean,

No, of course I can't. Almost everybody I know plays by the rules, or at least is intelligent enough not to flout them in such an obvious way. So far as I know, I've never seen this rule broken, so it's impossible for me to have seen action being taken against an offender.

 

You have asserted first that "few players comply with such rules", and second that "breaking such rules is unlikely to result in an adverse ruling". Do you have any evidence to support this assertion, or did it come entirely from your imagination?

[TimG]

You have asserted first that "few players comply with such rules", and second that "breaking such rules is unlikely to result in an adverse ruling". Do you have any evidence to support this assertion, or did it come entirely from your imagination?

For what it's worth, I have cited an example of a pair knowingly violating the rule and not being ruled against, or even told to stop.

[blackshoe]

One swallow does not make a summer.

[Zelandakh]

And one summer does not make a global catastrophe. (ooops, wrong thread! :P )

[nige1]

I hope Gnasher (or somebody else) can cite a few cases where players have been ruled against for flouting 7HCP opening regulations. That would also provide a welcome practical illustration of what the rules mean. I suspect that most players don't know what the rules mean (ACBL GCC 6 and Orange Book 12.C.1). As is plain from my repeated questions, I'm unsure too. Although I've tried to explain my guesses in my posts here. If my guesses are right as to what the rules mean, then few players comply with them and few directors enforce them. According to my interpretation, the only tentative evidence available to players is an opponent's "deviation".. (Vampyr and I gave examples of apparent rule of 18/19 violations, earlier in this thread but they were slightly easier to pin down). .I write only of the limited experience of myself and acquaintances. I would be relieved to be persuaded by practical evidence to the contrary. from directors with relevant experience.. If a Bridge authority has gathered and published statistics on such matters that would be even more illuminating.

No, of course I can't. Almost everybody I know plays by the rules, or at least is intelligent enough not to flout them in such an obvious way. So far as I know, I've never seen this rule broken, so it's impossible for me to have seen action being taken against an offender.

You have asserted first that "few players comply with such rules", and second that "breaking such rules is unlikely to result in an adverse ruling". Do you have any evidence to support this assertion, or did it come entirely from your imagination?

For what it's worth, I have cited an example of a pair knowingly violating the rule and not being ruled against, or even told to stop.

If neither the ACBL nor the EBU can supply examples of adverse rulings under these rules, then that confirms my experience. Seven HCP shapely hands, suitable for an opening bid are fairly rare but occur often enough for us to notice that many players do open them. Recently, for example, I failed to open ♠ KJTxx ♥ - ♦ xx ♣ QJ9xxxx, while other players were less inhibited. I can't judge whether any particular player flouts this rule. Nevertheless, such examples are common enough for me to believe that many opening-bidders in regular partnerships are breaking the rules -- assuming I've guessed what they mean :)

• Unfortunately: there is little agreement among posters about interpretation.
• Violations (if any) don't seem to result in adverse rulings.
• These rules handicap only those who try to comply with them.
• So it's hard to understand why such rules exist.

[VixTD]

I hope Gnasher (or somebody else) can cite a few cases where players have been ruled against for flouting 7HCP opening regulations. That would also provide a welcome practical illustration of what the rules mean

I'm not sure it provides a "practical illustration of what the rules mean", but the last one I ruled on was at the Brighton Congress this year:

 

Pairs, love all, dealer with ♠J1076 ♥- ♦AJ108754 ♣98 opened 1♦, and eventually bid and made 4♠. The opponents called me and asked if it was a legitimate 1♦ opener. I asked her why she had chosen to open 1♦, and was told that she didn't feel she had any alternative; she couldn't open 3♦ with a four-card major. I asked her if she had considered passing, and she said that was out of the question as she had a seven-loser hand. Her partner also thought this was an obvious opening bid, so I ruled that they had an illegal agreement to open this kind of hand at the one level.

 

Usually when I ask both players whether they consider it normal to open the hand at the one level they both confess that they might well do so. It's rather more difficult to judge if one or both of them swear they would not normally open it, but that doesn't happen very often.

[lamford]

One swallow does not make a summer.

As the interviewer said, rejecting Monica Lewinsky's application for a job as an accounts clerk.

[blackshoe]

Seven HCP shapely hands, suitable for an opening bid are fairly rare but occur often enough for us to notice that many players do open them.

I have never seen this happen. Never.

[nige1]

I'm not sure it provides a "practical illustration of what the rules mean", but the last one I ruled on was at the Brighton Congress this year:

 

Pairs, love all, dealer with ♠J1076 ♥- ♦AJ108754 ♣98 opened 1♦, and eventually bid and made 4♠. The opponents called me and asked if it was a legitimate 1♦ opener. I asked her why she had chosen to open 1♦, and was told that she didn't feel she had any alternative; she couldn't open 3♦ with a four-card major. I asked her if she had considered passing, and she said that was out of the question as she had a seven-loser hand. Her partner also thought this was an obvious opening bid, so I ruled that they had an illegal agreement to open this kind of hand at the one level.

 

Usually when I ask both players whether they consider it normal to open the hand at the one level they both confess that they might well do so. It's rather more difficult to judge if one or both of them swear they would not normally open it, but that doesn't happen very often.

Thank you

[Vampyr]

Her partner also thought this was an obvious opening bid, so I ruled that they had an illegal agreement to open this kind of hand at the one level.

 

I am pretty certain this was not correct. The fact that both would have opened it does not mean that they had had an agreement to open it, or even that opening a hand like this one had ever occurred to either player before.

 

Now this particular hand did not qualify under the Rule of 18, unless you give a point for the two supporting jacks.

 

I really don't see how this regulation can be fairly enforced (and it cannot be uniformly enforced anyway, since director calls will be rare), and think that it is a big problem that those who know of it "self-enforce" and receive poor results therefrom. Scrapping it is the only sensible thing to do.

[bluejak]

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

I wasn't saying anything. But some people thought that citing this as an opening bid in the official EBU publication meant that the EBU was saying that.

 

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

Now you mention it, nor do I. I don't score, and I [stupidly] believed what I was told.

[VixTD]

I am pretty certain this was not correct. The fact that both would have opened it does not mean that they had had an agreement to open it, or even that opening a hand like this one had ever occurred to either player before.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "correct". I can assure you it is an accurate account of what happened. If you mean you think it was an incorrect ruling, I'll have to disagree with you on that count as well.

 

I don't think an "agreement" has to be based on prior explicit discussion. If we strengthen the hand slightly to ♠J1076 ♥- ♦AKJ10875 ♣98 and ask them if they have an agreement to open such hands they could equally well say they haven't discussed this unusually distributional hand, and can't remember being dealt a similar one.

 

If they both declare that the hand (the actual hand they were dealt) is an obvious opening bid, then they are playing a style in which such hands are routinely opened. That constitutes an implicit agreement to open them. I would have probably ruled the same way if both players had said the hand was borderline and they might or might not open it.

 

I also had to deal with a number of psyches at Brighton. Now if both members of the partnership claimed they would psyche this hand 1♦ and could give reason for doing so, I might believe they had no agreement to open it.

 

I have to admit I'm not entirely happy with this regulation, although I'm not sure scrapping it would be any better.

[Vampyr]

If you mean you think it was an incorrect ruling,

 

This.

 

 

I don't think an "agreement" has to be based on prior explicit discussion. If we strengthen the hand slightly to ♠J1076 ♥- ♦AKJ10875 ♣98 and ask them if they have an agreement to open such hands they could equally well say they haven't discussed this unusually distributional hand, and can't remember being dealt a similar one.

 

If they both declare that the hand (the actual hand they were dealt) is an obvious opening bid, then they are playing a style in which such hands are routinely opened. That constitutes an implicit agreement to open them. I would have probably ruled the same way if both players had said the hand was borderline and they might or might not open it.

 

I also had to deal with a number of psyches at Brighton. Now if both members of the partnership claimed they would psyche this hand 1♦ and could give reason for doing so, I might believe they had no agreement to open it.

 

I have to admit I'm not entirely happy with this regulation, although I'm not sure scrapping it would be any better.

 

So what you are doing here is claiming that there is an agreement unless one member of the partnership strongly disagrees with partner's decision to open the hand? And that routinely psyching with such a hand is permitted?

 

I think that this is simply wrong, and the idea that if both players would open it "as an opening bid" constitutes an agreement, while if both players would open it "as a psyche" does not, truly boggles the mind.

[VixTD]

So what you are doing here is claiming that there is an agreement unless one member of the partnership strongly disagrees with partner's decision to open the hand? And that routinely psyching with such a hand is permitted?

I'm saying there is an implicit partnership agreement to open this hand 1♦ if both members of the partnership consider it normal to open the hand 1♦. I can't see how this is controversial. I might also consider there is such an agreement if only one member of the partnership considered this a normal opening, or if one or both of them would frequently open the hand.

 

I'm sure my introduction of psyching to the debate didn't help, but if a player intentionally opens this hand 1♦, it must either be a systemic bid, a deviation or a psyche. The player may be able to convince me that this instance was a deviation or a psyche (although I think they'd have a hard job doing so). The partnership cannot have an agreement to open the hand "as a psyche", and a psychic opening cannot be "routine" for the partnership without becoming part of their agreement.

 

Perhaps this hand is a poor example, but I was trying to cover a hypothetical situation in which a player psyches, I ask their partner whether they would have taken the same action on the hand and they can understand the reasons for the psyche and admit that they might well have psyched in that situation as well. I'm not sure this constitutes an agreement.

 

I'm not sure how well that sits with OB6A2 and 3, but there are no clear boundaries in these situations, and a TD just has to do their best.

[Vampyr]

I'm saying there is an implicit partnership agreement to open this hand 1♦ if both members of the partnership consider it normal to open the hand 1♦. I can't see how this is controversial. I might also consider there is such an agreement if only one member of the partnership considered this a normal opening, or if one or both of them would frequently open the hand.

 

So doing it constitutes having an agreement to do it? This is rather nonsensical, but perhaps it is what the regulation is hoping to achieve.

 

My Lawbook describes a psyche as a "gross misrepresentation". Is one card or HCP away from the 8pt/Ro18, the Extended Ro25 or the like, a "gross" misrepresentation? I submit that it is not, and so such a bid is therefore not a psyche. Is it a "deviation"? What exactly is a "deviation"? Is it just a word that means circumventing the regulations?