[TimG]

The ACBL card has a tick box for "VERY LIGHT: 3rd Hand". I do not know what "very light" is.

[blackshoe]

I think that, in the ACBL, 10 is "light" and 8 is "very light". Or thereabouts. But I could be wrong. There is a series of Bulletin articles, available on the ACBL website, that attempts to explain how to fill out the System Card, but it is very vague in this area. It seems more concerned with whether you open "very light" occasionally (no big deal, it says) or routinely (in which case it should be on the card) than with how light is "very light".

[TimG]

TimG, on 2011-January-02, 10:18, said:

♠KQTx ♥xx ♦Axx ♣xxxx

Is this very light? Only 9 HCP. But, 2 QT. A good suit, but 4432 isn't exactly shapely.

[bluejak]

If you open balanced 9 counts by agreement then Yes, it should be on the SC.

[nige1]

mjj29, on 2011-January-02, 05:45, said:

Yes, but the only ones which get posted here are the ones where it is unclear whether it was fielded or not - ergo likely to be judged amber. If it were clearly red or clearly green, noone would bother asking this forum, so there's an in built bias to be expected.

It would be interesting to learn the annual tally of such cases; and how many there are of each colour.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2011-January-02, 07:19, said:

As to the EBU wording, if you like to read it again, it does not say 10 HCP is not Red, despite people assuming it does.

Indeed it does not. Unfortunately, it does not say that 10HCP is "red" either, which is why I would like clarification. I was asked to act as a referee on this exact situation (P P 1suit 1NT P on a 10-count) a year or so ago. The TD had ruled it as "amber". My initial thought that the psyche ought to be "red", but the person whom I consulted thought it ought to be "amber". Then I recalled reading something about this in the new White Book and located the aforementioned White Book reference re 11HCP. In the end, I left the TD's "amber" classification to stand [not least because the TD's ruling should be assumed to be correct unless the AC can demonstrate why it was wrong], but I'm still not sure whether or not this was the correct ruling.

[bluejak]

Matters of judgement will always be matters of judgement, I fear, despite what certain people want.

Suppose I said that it is incredible that a person would not double with an 11 count without it being fielded.

Suppose I said that it is unusual that a person would not double with an 10 count without it being fielded.

Suppose I said that it is debatable that a person would not double with a 9 count without it being fielded.

Suppose I said that it is common that a person would not double with an 8 count without it being fielded.

This assumes normal opening bids, of course, as discussed previously, ie ones where the players have got no indication on their SCs that they open particularly light in third.

The above would fit in with the EBU wording as previously stated, yes?

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-January-02, 17:33, said:

Matters of judgement will always be matters of judgement, I fear, despite what certain people want.
Suppose I said that it is incredible that a person would not double with an 11 count without it being fielded.
Suppose I said that it is unusual that a person would not double with an 10 count without it being fielded.
Suppose I said that it is debatable that a person would not double with a 9 count without it being fielded.
Suppose I said that it is common that a person would not double with an 8 count without it being fielded.
This assumes normal opening bids, of course, as discussed previously, ie ones where the players have got no indication on their SCs that they open particularly light in third.
The above would fit in with the EBU wording as previously stated, yes?

It may well fit in with previous EBU wording but would be clearer with fewer negatives

[barmar]

bluejak, on 2011-January-02, 07:19, said:

One thing I never understand is why, if you have ten points after pass pass 1X 1NT, people assume the points are split 20-20. Someone actually said so in this thread. If th points are split 10-0-15-15 around the table pass is going to get a seriously bad result. Of course pass may be right if partner is guaranteed never to have extras. This guarantee appears [strangely] to be implicit in many people's thinking both here and elsewhere this matter is discussed.

I think they may just be playing the odds. If partner is in 3rd seat, there's a decent chance that he opened light. And when there are 25-28 HCP between you and RHO, it increases those odds, so they're allowing for it.

Myself, I prefer not to play pessimistic bridge. Most of the time, partner will have something close to a normal opener, and the double will work. If we occasionally give away 1NTX, it should be more than made up for all the times that we set them.

[Gerben42]

I think calling this psyche red is too harsh.

Surely he wasn't playing partner for a psych but for a light opening hand (rule-of-18 or whatever minimum is allowed), which, given that I already see so many HCP, isn't all that unlikely. Given the tough opening lead against 1NTx this player is facing, Pass is a convenient bid, but not a specifically fielding bid. So it's clear amber for me, and I can understand a "red" ruling might be seen as a cheating accusation.

I would have doubled though. I don't play such pessimistic bridge. The cost of a rogue -180 is probably less than the +500 that might result from this.

Also I might want to know what opponents were thinking with 25 HCP and 9 Hearts. Sounds extremely self-inflicted to me.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-January-02, 17:33, said:

Matters of judgement will always be matters of judgement, I fear, despite what certain people want.

Suppose I said that it is incredible that a person would not double with an 11 count without it being fielded.

Suppose I said that it is unusual that a person would not double with an 10 count without it being fielded.

Suppose I said that it is debatable that a person would not double with a 9 count without it being fielded.

Suppose I said that it is common that a person would not double with an 8 count without it being fielded.

This assumes normal opening bids, of course, as discussed previously, ie ones where the players have got no indication on their SCs that they open particularly light in third.

The above would fit in with the EBU wording as previously stated, yes?

Seems about right although the wording could be improved if you put it in the OB . In rough terms failing to double with an 11 count is red, failing to double with a 10 count is amber, and failing to double with a 9 count is green. On the actual hand, I would double, and my partner would pull to 2C exposing the psyche. We would record +90 and everyone would be happy.

[bluejak]

barmar, on 2011-January-03, 15:24, said:

I think they may just be playing the odds. If partner is in 3rd seat, there's a decent chance that he opened light. And when there are 25-28 HCP between you and RHO, it increases those odds, so they're allowing for it.

Myself, I prefer not to play pessimistic bridge. Most of the time, partner will have something close to a normal opener, and the double will work. If we occasionally give away 1NTX, it should be more than made up for all the times that we set them.

Are you suggesting partner will pass if he is sub-minimum? Why?

[bluejak]

Gerben42, on 2011-January-03, 16:23, said:

I think calling this psyche red is too harsh.

Surely he wasn't playing partner for a psych but for a light opening hand (rule-of-18 or whatever minimum is allowed), which, given that I already see so many HCP, isn't all that unlikely. Given the tough opening lead against 1NTx this player is facing, Pass is a convenient bid, but not a specifically fielding bid. So it's clear amber for me, and I can understand a "red" ruling might be seen as a cheating accusation.

A Red ruling is not a cheating accusation, so why should you understand it as such?

[mgoetze]

http://www.bridgebas...r-opens-in-3rd/

23 for double and 2 for pass. However, arguably the strongest player to respond passed. So maybe we can rule "fielded, unless the players are world-class."

[Gerben42]

Quote

A Red ruling is not a cheating accusation, so why should you understand it as such?

Not me, but many players would. And what's worse, sometimes those who called the director meant it as a cheating accusation. That's just the sad truth in bridge clubs around the world.

[TimG]

mgoetze, on 2011-January-04, 05:45, said:

http://www.bridgebas...r-opens-in-3rd/

23 for double and 2 for pass. However, arguably the strongest player to respond passed. So maybe we can rule "fielded, unless the players are world-class."

I bet Justin didn't vote in the poll, so it's probably 23-3.

[RMB1]

bluejak, on 2011-January-03, 20:01, said:

A Red ruling is not a cheating accusation, so why should you understand it as such?

Because a red ruling says that the offenders have a concealed partnership understanding, and for a partnership to knowingly have an understanding that they conceal smacks of cheating.

[mgoetze]

TimG, on 2011-January-04, 06:46, said:

I bet Justin didn't vote in the poll, so it's probably 23-3.

I don't know about Justin actually but at the point where Jillybean had posted that she would pass I didn't see any votes for pass.

[campboy]

mgoetze, on 2011-January-04, 05:45, said:

http://www.bridgebas...r-opens-in-3rd/

23 for double and 2 for pass. However, arguably the strongest player to respond passed. So maybe we can rule "fielded, unless the players are world-class."

Bear in mind that if either of the people voting for pass tick the "very light: 3rd hand" box on their CC then their vote is irrelevant to how we should rule for a pair who don't do that (or its equivalent on the EBU CC).

[mgoetze]

I specified "pickup game" because I expected this to remove any special agreements about 3rd seat openings.