illegal NT openings

[blackshoe]

The ACBL very carefully defines what a NT bid is - it does NOT include anything about shape.

You keep saying that. Apparently you missed this definition of "natural" (Item 2h in the "Definitions" section of the current Convention Charts):

A NT opening bid or overcall that contains no voids, no more than one singleton, which must be an ace, king, or queen, and that does not contain 10 or more cards in two suits combined.

[pigpenz]

so in the ACBL games online what will a director rule if called when someone opens

1NT witha singleton X, not AKQ?

 

On Nicolas's data there is one player who has done this 30 times!

But of course Leo has done this for years with ACBL BOTs but they never seem to call the TD :(

[mycroft]

Blackshoe: I don't. It's a regulation. "We claim you have an illegal agreement, and the evidence is that you bid this with this hand. Anything to say about it?"

 

As for where the power comes from to make such a regulation, and interpret said regulation, L40B2a1. Note the "without restriction".

[mycroft]

I don't know what "a director" will rule. It depends on the game, the director, the discussion around the hand, the players, and their history. One of my points is that it's not, and can not be, a "2 minutes for cross-checking" situation. Those players who are believers in "they did something wrong, we get a good score" are, again, going to be disappointed.

 

I would do what I always do - investigate, come to a conclusion on the facts and evidence available, consult with colleagues, and rule. The ACBL's policy on use of illegal agreement, for table rulings at least, is not what I would do if I was the regulator - there is to be no penalty besides an admonition to play only legal agreements, unless the opponents were damaged specifically by the agreement, in which case they will be protected. But I would rule to that.

 

Having said that, use of an illegal agreement, knowing (or having been reminded) that it is an illegal agreement, or worse, doing so *because* they were reminded that it is an illegal agreement, leads to C&E, not table penalties. "Getting lucky" with these breaches, in the online context, adds a little je ne sais quoi to said committee meeting. I assume that this is happening.

 

I also believe that given the public nature of history, if it happens against someone, and they do a quick look online to find that that nick has 6 or 7 other "guesses" to his credit, that they would likely inform the TD of that information. Which might change the process, or the result, somewhat. (Who am I kidding - what they would do is fume about it for 3-4 hours, write a slanderous post on Some Bridge Forum, get told that this user has said evidence in the NH files, and then declaim that the regulators should do Something, Now, because They Were Injured without possible recompense, and of course They are the Only Important Person out there, and Their Problems must be the First Priority, and if Something Isn't Done, the only alternative is Revolution.)

[hrothgar]

FWIW, my position is that all of this information should be (completely) public.

 

When you play a F2F game, your scores on each and every board get posted

In online bridge, we have much better record keeping and the potential to automate a whole bunch of analysis.

 

And, in much the same as you board scores get posted, the number of times that you are underlead Aces gets posted and the number of times that you are opening 1NT with a (small) stiff gets posted and the frequency with which your 15 - 17 HCP 1NT contains a 14 count gets posted.

[mycroft]

It's what gets done with that data and that analysis that concerns me. I am I think reasonably well aware of your position. I also believe you are reasonably well aware of my position, if not my beliefs (and as a result, why you would not be as aware of my beliefs as might otherwise be). I think you can understand why I will say nothing further down that path.

[blackshoe]

Blackshoe: I don't. It's a regulation. "We claim you have an illegal agreement, and the evidence is that you bid this with this hand. Anything to say about it?"

All right. What regulation? Where can I read it?

[mycroft]

I quoted it. It's the convention charts. If you play X, you can't use "judgement" to play X-1, if X-1 would be an illegal agreement. "Does not apply to a psych", but a psychic is a *gross* misstatement of your hand. Not my job to prove that - I can't, I don't know your system.

[blackshoe]

I quoted it. It's the convention charts. If you play X, you can't use "judgement" to play X-1, if X-1 would be an illegal agreement. "Does not apply to a psych", but a psychic is a *gross* misstatement of your hand. Not my job to prove that - I can't, I don't know your system.

I am questioning your assertion that it's up to the "accused" to prove whatever it is you think he has to prove. AFAIK, there is no legal basis for that assertion. And it may not be your job to prove whether a bid is a psych, but it is your job to investigate, gather what evidence you can find, and determine on the basis of that evidence whether the bid is a psych. Also, while it is in the best interests of the alleged offending side to provide whatever evidence they can in support of their position, that does not mean that the law puts the onus on them to prove anything.

[Zelandakh]

I am questioning your assertion that it's up to the "accused" to prove whatever it is you think he has to prove. AFAIK, there is no legal basis for that assertion. And it may not be your job to prove whether a bid is a psych, but it is your job to investigate, gather what evidence you can find, and determine on the basis of that evidence whether the bid is a psych. Also, while it is in the best interests of the alleged offending side to provide whatever evidence they can in support of their position, that does not mean that the law puts the onus on them to prove anything.

Are you suggesting that RA guidance such as the EBU's "to presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call in the absence of evidence to the contrary" is contrary to the laws of bridge?

[mycroft]

I would argue that your rephrase and mine are, if not equivalent, what actually will happen.

 

We will in fact investigate, we will in fact ask questions, and we will in fact rule. And, given that the regulation is "you don't get to use judgement to play what would be an illegal agreement if it weren't for judgement. Does not apply to a psychic", that the base assumption will be "judgement and not psychic", especially for "you can open 1NT with a singleton if it's the A, K, or Q; you opened it with a stiff J." To be a psychic, your agreement would *at least* have to be "we never open with a singleton, and have system notes/opponents/hands in our record to prove it". To be a misbid, different criteria. Otherwise, it's neither gross nor inadvertent, and therefore, you've violated the regs.

 

Of course, if I can point to a BW thread that says "it's ludicrous that I can't open [flat 16 with stiff ♠7] 1NT - it's the obvious bid, and how dare they regulate my judgement" when the person who wrote that actually does open [flat 16 with stiff ♥T] 1NT, then I think it will be very very difficult to convince me (or an appeals committee, for that matter) that this was a psych. Note: in case this wasn't obvious, the person who started that thread is not blackshoe, nor am I implying that he would say that.

 

I agree with you that the words "reverse onus" aren't anywhere in the regulations. Of course, *no* status of proof is stated in the regulations[1]. Which means that it's up to the directors to make a decision, and the directors have spent the last 50 years being told "it's Just Bridge, Everyone would do it, if you could play, you'd know that too, but you're directing because you can't." (okay, when they're trying to get a ruling in their favour, the last one isn't said. When they're complaining about the ruling they got, that's when it goes from implied to stated.) In an environment like that, you'd better believe we're going to start with "this is what it looks like. Convince me otherwise."

 

Same as the "state of play" that says "if the bidding card you pulled is in the other pocket of the box from the one you claim to have gone for, the assumption is that it actually was a change of mind." Hey, you can win that - I've done so (XX meant to be Stop card, didn't hurt that XX would have been illegal) - but you have to overcome a huge amount of evidence that players try to get away with ohnoseconds by claiming they were finger issues.

 

[1]Yes, there's a "preponderance of the evidence" in there somewhere, whether it's a Law or the General COC. Note that there's a huge amount of evidence that people that "extend" the regulations want to play fast and loose with the rules. *You* might not, but Damon Runyon's rule applies, so prove it.

[blackshoe]

I am questioning your assertion that it's up to the "accused" to prove whatever it is you think he has to prove. AFAIK, there is no legal basis for that assertion. And it may not be your job to prove whether a bid is a psych, but it is your job to investigate, gather what evidence you can find, and determine on the basis of that evidence whether the bid is a psych. Also, while it is in the best interests of the alleged offending side to provide whatever evidence they can in support of their position, that does not mean that the law puts the onus on them to prove anything.

 

Are you suggesting that RA guidance such as the EBU's "to presume mistaken explanation rather than mistaken call in the absence of evidence to the contrary" is contrary to the laws of bridge?

Considering that what you've quoted is, verbatim, Law 21B1{b}, it would be rather foolish of me to make that suggestion so no, I'm not suggesting that.