Illegal 1 level opening?

[blackshoe]

I suspect that Pescetom's concern is regulation that contrives infractions but are rubbish considering (lack of)remedy. For instance, the law provides remedies for insufficient calls but not calls that satisfy law but where by regulation agreement is forbidden to the call. I say to allow the market for ideas to devour the market of bad ideas- and take no prisoners.

Law 40B4: When a side is damaged by an opponent’s use of a special partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations governing the tournament the score shall be adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty.

 

So when a player makes a call and it turns out the agreed meaning of that call is forbidden by regulation, if the director is called before the hand is played out he allows the bidding and play to continue, and if the NOS is damaged (which cannot of course be determined until the play is completed) he adjusts the score. He may also issue a procedural penalty, whether or not the NOS are damaged.

[axman]

Law 40B4: When a side is damaged by an opponent’s use of a special partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations governing the tournament the score shall be adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty.

 

So when a player makes a call and it turns out the agreed meaning of that call is forbidden by regulation, if the director is called before the hand is played out he allows the bidding and play to continue, and if the NOS is damaged (which cannot of course be determined until the play is completed) he adjusts the score. He may also issue a procedural penalty, whether or not the NOS are damaged.

The law does not define what "a side is damaged by an opponent’s use...that does not comply with the regulations governing..." is. No predicate damage, no remedy.

[pescetom]

Law 40B4: When a side is damaged by an opponent’s use of a special partnership understanding that does not comply with the regulations governing the tournament the score shall be adjusted. A side in breach of those regulations may be subject to a procedural penalty.

 

So when a player makes a call and it turns out the agreed meaning of that call is forbidden by regulation, if the director is called before the hand is played out he allows the bidding and play to continue, and if the NOS is damaged (which cannot of course be determined until the play is completed) he adjusts the score. He may also issue a procedural penalty, whether or not the NOS are damaged.

 

I'm comfortable with that. But the agreed (by any sense of the word that I understand) meaning of this call was 5+ cards 11+ HCP which is far from forbidden. So why should the Director adjust under our regulations?

[blackshoe]

The law does not define what "a side is damaged by an opponent’s use...that does not comply with the regulations governing..." is. No predicate damage, no remedy.

Nonsense.

 

Law 12B1, in part: Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

[axman]

Nonsense.

 

Law 12B1, in part: Damage exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

Saying that something exists does not describe that something.

 

A hippograph exists when, because of an infraction, an innocent side obtains a table result less favorable than would have been the expectation had the infraction not occurred.

 

The above does not describe a hippograph, merely that it exists when the condition exists. Many would say such is not particularly useful nor helpful.

[blackshoe]

The point is that damage must exist before the director can adjust the score.

[mycroft]

However, they can penalize for violation of regulations.

 

The ACBL chooses not to except in extreme or willfully repeated occasions.

 

Given the hard line they have chosen to take on "evidence of implied partnership understanding" it is perhaps correct to do so.

 

Given the "incredibly well publicised" way they have chosen to legalize certain "implied partnership understandings" that surprised certain well-connected players when they found out that it wasn't legal, it is also perhaps correct to do so for violations not expected by said well-connected players.

 

I could hardly comment on that, could I.

[pescetom]

The point is that damage must exist before the director can adjust the score.

 

In this case there was clearly no damage, without the 1♥ bid LHO would have opened 1NT and they would find at least the same score, possibly 2♠+1.

But the question remains whether there was an infraction.

I thought not, a more experienced TD thought so (but failed to convince me).

Our regulations are in the previous posts.

[nige1]

The point is that damage must exist before the director can adjust the score.

 

The director has the power to impose a procedural penalty when damage is unclear. IMO the director should usually impose a procedural penalty to encourage compliance with the rules.

[blackshoe]

I agree, mostly, Nigel, although I would add that it depends on the wording of the rule wrt 'does', 'should', 'shall', 'must', etc. Law 40B4 is no help here, so the TD would have to look at the wording of the regulation. 'May not' or 'must not' would garner a PP 'more often than not'. In theory at least.

[pigpenz]

to me all you can do is file it with a recorder if possible, or use double dummy solver to look up all hands

that this pair has played in the last several months to see if this is a regular occurrence....but with out

any relative information it goes down as a psyche.

[blackshoe]

Before you can rule it a psych you have to know what the actual agreement is, whether the hand is a gross deviation from that agreement, and whether the gross deviation was deliberate.

[pescetom]

Before you can rule it a psych you have to know what the actual agreement is, whether the hand is a gross deviation from that agreement, and whether the gross deviation was deliberate.

 

The answers to questions 1 and 3 are in the thread, answer 2 is in your head and worth knowing :)

[blackshoe]

So when you rule it a psych, you specify what those answers are. You don't just say "it's a psych."