Deviation on Simple syatem night

[jallerton]

Some clubs have "simple system nights" aimed at less experiences players whereby everybody is expected to play a standard system.

 

Suppose that North makes a bid which is a gross deviation from his system, for example opening a 15-17 1NT on a balanced 10-count, or a strong 2C on a hand barely worth an opening at the 1-level.

 

Assuming that South had no prior knowledge of the light action and acts as if North's bid showed what it was supposed to show, is North's bid "illegal"?

 

Does it make a difference if North's bid was a deliberate mis-statement (psyche) as opposed to a mistake (misbid)?

[RMB1]

In practice this is usually dealt with by warning the player concerned and (if it is repeated) banning them from playing from such events at that club.

 

The TD may award an adjusted score on the board (usually AVE-/AVE+).

 

There is usually no law/regulation supporting such action - it is just the way such events are run.

[The_Badger]

Some clubs have "simple system nights" aimed at less experiences players whereby everybody is expected to play a standard system.

 

Suppose that North makes a bid which is a gross deviation from his system, for example opening a 15-17 1NT on a balanced 10-count, or a strong 2C on a hand barely worth an opening at the 1-level.

 

Assuming that South had no prior knowledge of the light action and acts as if North's bid showed what it was supposed to show, is North's bid "illegal"?

 

Does it make a difference if North's bid was a deliberate mis-statement (psyche) as opposed to a mistake (misbid)?

 

hi jallerton,

 

That's an interesting question, and I'd leave the technicalities to the tournament directors on here.

 

However, given that it is less experienced players, I would have said that the deviation from the NT range is a far greater crime than opening 2♣ inappropriately.

 

I won't mention the funny yet derogatory term that a very experienced international player calls 2♣ openings made by inexperienced players who let the rush of length and honours go to their head without counting correctly.

 

Yes, we've all seen the Aunt Aggie 2♣ opener, something like ♠AJx ♥QJx ♦x ♣AKQJ10x :)

[gordontd]

Yes, we've all seen the Aunt Aggie 2♣ opener, something like ♠AJx ♥QJx ♦x ♣AKQJ10x :)

That one's entirely legitimate within the EBU regulations - it's ♠x ♥QJx ♦x ♣AKQJ10xxx that isn't.

[The_Badger]

That one's entirely legitimate within the EBU regulations - it's ♠x ♥QJx ♦x ♣AKQJ10xxx that isn't.

 

Oh my God, gordontd!

 

EBU standards have certainly slipped since my day :( lol!

[ahydra]

Doesn't that 8-bagger meet the ER25 as it has eight clear-cut tricks? You'd have to try something like xx QJx x AKQJ10xx.

 

ahydra

[gordontd]

Doesn't that 8-bagger meet the ER25 as it has eight clear-cut tricks? You'd have to try something like xx QJx x AKQJ10xx.

 

ahydra

You are right! I should have said ♠x ♥QJx ♦x ♣AKQ10xxxx

[helene_t]

Hanlon's Razor applies an simple system nights: a strange bid is deemed to be a misbid rather than a CPU or psyche.

[nige1]

Some clubs have "simple system nights" aimed at less experiences players whereby everybody is expected to play a standard system. Suppose that North makes a bid which is a gross deviation from his system, for example opening a 15-17 1NT on a balanced 10-count, or a strong 2C on a hand barely worth an opening at the 1-level. Assuming that South had no prior knowledge of the light action and acts as if North's bid showed what it was supposed to show, is North's bid "illegal"? Does it make a difference if North's bid was a deliberate mis-statement (psyche) as opposed to a mistake (misbid)?

IMO, when conditions of contest specify "Simple System" (or any specific system), only agreements are regulated. Controversially, but arguably under current law, it might be possible for local regulators to forbid psychs and misbids. However this must be an additional explicit regulation.

[barmar]

IMO, when conditions of contest specify "Simple System" (or any specific system), only agreements are regulated. Controversially, but arguably under current law, it might be possible for local regulators to forbid psychs and misbids. However this must be an additional explicit regulation.

I think this is implicit in the understanding that these events are aimed at less experienced players.

[barmar]

I won't mention the funny yet derogatory term that a very experienced international player calls 2♣ openings made by inexperienced players who let the rush of length and honours go to their head without counting correctly.

 

Yes, we've all seen the Aunt Aggie 2♣ opener, something like ♠AJx ♥QJx ♦x ♣AKQJ10x :)

What about when a very experienced player opens 2♣ on ♠Kx ♥xxx ♦ AKQxxxxx ♣-? My partner did this last week in the BBF indy.

 

http://www.bridgebase.com/tools/handviewer.html?bbo=y&myhand=M-522355182-1472409172

[nige1]

I think this is implicit in the understanding that these events are aimed at less experienced players

Inexperienced players are better mind-readers and less likely to misbid? :)

[ahydra]

I think if the deviation is "gross" like the given examples, it can't be considered a deviation any more. It's either a psyche or a misbid. You ask the player what's going on, hopefully get an honest answer, and rule accordingly (hopefully the club has rules concerning, if not simply banning, psyches on simple system nights).

 

ahydra

[barmar]

Inexperienced players are better mind-readers and less likely to misbid? :)

I was only talking about psychs. IMHO it makes no sense to try to regulate misbids, especially with inexperienced players (misbids are a matter of course, since they don't know how to bid properly).

[blackshoe]

It is legal to ban psychs of artificial bids (Law 40B2{d}). It is not legal to ban psychs of natural bids (Law 40A3, Law 40C1). It is possible to rule that any psych is a violation of Law 74A2. It seems this kind of violation might be likely in a "simple systems" event. But the TD needs to make this clear at the beginning of the session.

 

Note that a psych is a deliberate action. So the first question to the bidder ought to be "why did you bid that?" If it becomes clear that the bid was an otherwise legal psych, I would ask the opponents how they feel about it. If they don't care, carry on. If they're annoyed or intimidated by it, rule a violation of 74A2 and issue a PP (or a DP).

 

If it wasn't a psych, the situation becomes "nothing to see here; move along".

[lamford]

It is possible to rule that any psych is a violation of Law 74A2.

You could say that any penalty double could cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player. I cannot accept that the "action" in 74A2 could refer to a call or play.

[lamford]

There is usually no law/regulation supporting such action - it is just the way such events are run.

A club can run any event it wants, and people can choose not to enter if they do not like it. If they do enter, however, then they have to follow the CoC.

[pran]

You could say that any penalty double could cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player. I cannot accept that the "action" in 74A2 could refer to a call or play.

"Action" in Law 74A2 does not refer to any legal call or play.

However, a psych that is in conflict with relevant regulations and/or CoC could indeed be treated as a violation of L74A4.

[jallerton]

A club can run any event it wants, and people can choose not to enter if they do not like it. If they do enter, however, then they have to follow the CoC.

 

Well in the case reported to me which inspired this thread, there does not seem to have been any specific prohibition of psyches (or misbids). There was a list of permitted conventions, with a statement at the end saying:

 

"Please do not use prohibited conventions or you will be warned and might be penalised"

 

Is there any way in which , when the partnership understanding itself is permitted, psyching (or misbidding) could be interpreted as being caught by this restriction?

[pran]

Well in the case reported to me which inspired this thread, there does not seem to have been any specific prohibition of psyches (or misbids). There was a list of permitted conventions, with a statement at the end saying:

 

"Please do not use prohibited conventions or you will be warned and might be penalised"

 

Is there any way in which , when the partnership understanding itself is permitted, psyching (or misbidding) could be interpreted as being caught by this restriction?

Sure yes, if the list of permitted conventions is set up in such a manner as to imply that unlisted conventions are prohibited. It appears to me that this is the case here.

[gordontd]

Well in the case reported to me which inspired this thread, there does not seem to have been any specific prohibition of psyches (or misbids). There was a list of permitted conventions, with a statement at the end saying:

 

"Please do not use prohibited conventions or you will be warned and might be penalised"

 

Is there any way in which , when the partnership understanding itself is permitted, psyching (or misbidding) could be interpreted as being caught by this restriction?

I'm always sceptical of claims to have psyched when it appears to be a minor deviation with the aim of getting around a regulation. But if it really is a gross deviation, that shouldn't be the case and doesn't seem to be covered by the regulation you quote.

[blackshoe]

"Action" in Law 74A2 does not refer to any legal call or play.

However, a psych that is in conflict with relevant regulations and/or CoC could indeed be treated as a violation of L74A4.

So a legal call or play is not an action? Where is this stated in the laws?

 

There is no 74A4 in my law book.

[barmar]

"Action" in Law 74A2 does not refer to any legal call or play.

However, a psych that is in conflict with relevant regulations and/or CoC could indeed be treated as a violation of L74A4.

Could a club run a "no penalty doubles" event?

[blackshoe]

Could a club run a "no penalty doubles" event?

Sure. But they should probably call it a "no bridge" event.

[barmar]

So a legal call or play is not an action? Where is this stated in the laws?

I think we just have to say that it's not reasonable for a player to enter a game knowingly, and then take offense from actions that are to be expected as part of the game. If you play tennis, you shouldn't be offended if your opponent makes a great passing shot against you.

 

If you're offended or embarassed by these things, you can't play the game.

 

No, it's not in the laws, it's just common sense.