[aguahombre]

So now we have two sections of the laws which ---according to some people --- don't really mean what they seem to say; we seem to need an English-to-Whatever pocket converter for reference.

In that converter, we will find "repeated" to mean "once", and from another thread, "bids which have been made" to mean "might be made in the future".

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-23, 01:48, said:

I say 1% more.

I say you can't put a number on it. And if you could 1% would be too low. But if you insist, why pick 1%? Why not 0.1%, or 0.01%, or 0.001%?

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-23, 01:48, said:

Then you must be careful not to mention the auction, ever, or the deviation will become an explicit understanding.

I disagree again. It is the deviation that needs to be repeated, and that must mean "twice or more". Discussion of the auction is not a deviation although we do need to disclose if in the discussion we agreed exceptions to the system. "Without repetition, hesitation or deviation" is allowed, surely.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2012-March-23, 06:37, said:

I disagree again. It is the deviation that needs to be repeated, and that must mean "twice or more". Discussion of the auction is not a deviation although we do not need to disclose if in the discussion we agreed exceptions to the system. "Without repetition, hesitation or deviation" is allowed, surely.

If you have discussed an auction and agreed that a particular hand should be bid in a certain way that is treated as an "exception" then it is no longer an exception but an accepted part of the system. This is no different from agreeing to play 5 card majors but then agreeing that a 4♠333 hand is an "exception" but still telling the opponents that our agreement is always 5 or more spades. If your discussion has concluded that the best way to handle a hand with 3 spades and short hearts over 2NT is to respond 3♣ and rebid 3♥ then that is your systemic agreement and must be disclosed. It does not matter if you have never bid it before for this to be so either! I find it very difficult to believe that you really meant to write that such agreements do not need to be disclosed.

[blackshoe]

Discussion is not the same thing as agreement.

P1: Why did you do that?
P2: It seemed to me the best way to handle the hand I had.
P1: Well, I think you're nuts. We should do it this other way.
P2: No, that's crazy.
P1: I gotta go. Let's talk about it later.

Discussion, no agreement. Note: that you disagree on how to handle whatever it was is disclosable. "We have no agreement, but my partner thinks..." Assuming you can recognize the situation from the bidding.

[Trinidad]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-23, 02:26, said:

So now we have two sections of the laws which ---according to some people --- don't really mean what they seem to say; we seem to need an English-to-Whatever pocket converter for reference.

In that converter, we will find "repeated" to mean "once", and from another thread, "bids which have been made" to mean "might be made in the future".

Oh come on. That discussion is about explaining a bid that has been made by explaining bids that might be made in the future. That is entirely different from randomly explaining bids that might be made in the future. If you still fail to see that the first one is an explanation of a bid that has been made, no English-to-whatever converter is going to help you. You are mixing the ends (explaining the asking bid) and the means (explaining the responses). You are better off putting your money in an EMD (Ends-Means-Distinguisher).

Rik

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2012-March-23, 06:37, said:

we do not need to disclose if in the discussion we agreed exceptions to the system.

blackshoe, on 2012-March-23, 07:32, said:

Discussion is not the same thing as agreement.

This is true but you can see from the excerpt above that we are specifically talking about agreement here. I maintain that if you have agreed exceptions to the system with your partner then this agreement is no longer an exception and needs to be disclosed. Do you disagree?

[Vampyr]

The above quote by Lamford must be a typo or a joke.

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-23, 08:10, said:

The above quote by Lamford must be a typo or a joke.

Corrected now, deleting the surplus "not".

[barmar]

MrAce, on 2012-March-22, 17:51, said:

Almost all players who are currently still playing vandy too. Just print their cc, and sit back and watch the vugraph. They make bids that are totally out of the range that they filled in their cc, frequently, by both partners too. Most have similar explenations in their cards "Can be light, we upgrade a lot etc etc"

Not only that, but it seems to me thats pretty much what their pd expects and acts accordingly also, as oppose to the ones we discussed in this topic.

Or does THE LAW apply differently to the agreements about preempts and 1 level openings ?

The players in the vandy understand that point counts are just an approximation. They all use judgement to decide how to bid, adjusting for their ideas about the state of the match, the style of the opponents, etc. They don't expect precise disclosure, because that's not how any of them think about bidding.

This is all "just bridge" to them.

[gnasher]

barmar, on 2012-March-23, 10:19, said:

The players in the vandy understand that point counts are just an approximation. They all use judgement to decide how to bid, adjusting for their ideas about the state of the match, the style of the opponents, etc. They don't expect precise disclosure, because that's not how any of them think about bidding.

Maybe not, but they expect, or should expect, accurate disclosure.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2012-March-23, 08:06, said:

This is true but you can see from the excerpt above that we are specifically talking about agreement here. I maintain that if you have agreed exceptions to the system with your partner then this agreement is no longer an exception and needs to be disclosed. Do you disagree?

I suppose it depends on what "agreed exceptions to the system" means. If it means you have agreed to include certain exceptions in your heretofore exception-less agreements as to the meaning of a call, then those exceptions become part of your new and broader — and possibly illegal — agreement. So If that's what "agreed exceptions…" means, then no, I do not disagree.

[MrAce]

barmar, on 2012-March-23, 10:19, said:

The players in the vandy understand that point counts are just an approximation. They all use judgement to decide how to bid, adjusting for their ideas about the state of the match, the style of the opponents, etc. They don't expect precise disclosure, because that's not how any of them think about bidding.

This is all "just bridge" to them.

This is a very interesting reply, Barmar.

Is there any TD or A.C member on earth who doesnt understand that point counts are just an approximation ?

Is there any player on earth that who doesnt use judgement (good or bad) to decide how to bid, adjusting their ideas about the state of the match and style of opponents ( may not be as good and effective as players in vandy but still ) ?

This is all bridge to ALL OF US also.

But anyway, i dont think there is such a thing in rules and law that says u are OK to fill a cc in a way your peers can understand. There are opponents especially at the start of Vandy, who are not even remotely close to the level of some teams there. Also some of them use the same cc in a sectional or regional event, where they play vs flight B or C players occasionally. If it is a lefit cc in vandy it is in other events too (excluding event restrictions)

Or were you trying to tell me that they dont get into trouble with the way they fill their cc because their opps dont call TD ?

[barmar]

MrAce, on 2012-March-23, 21:00, said:

Or were you trying to tell me that they dont get into trouble with the way they fill their cc because their opps dont call TD ?

The question isn't whether they fill in their CC's, it's whether their bids always fit the criteria described on the CC. When it says that a weak 2 is 5-10 HCP, that should be understood as an approximate description of most weak 2's, but not a guarantee that all will be in that range.

P.S. This isn't text messaging, the 2nd person pronoun is spelled "you", not "u".

[MrAce]

barmar, on 2012-March-24, 02:02, said:

The question isn't whether they fill in their CC's, it's whether their bids always fit the criteria described on the CC. When it says that a weak 2 is 5-10 HCP, that should be understood as an approximate description of most weak 2's, but not a guarantee that all will be in that range.

P.S. This isn't text messaging, the 2nd person pronoun is spelled "you", not "u".

First at least u understood that "u" stands for "you" from what i wrote. Since u seem to miss the rest.

Second, spell checking in a forum debate is sign of being emotional/angry, did i somehow hurt your feelings ? If i did so unintentionally by using "u", then get over it, u will get use to. U can of course disregard what i said if one of your duties in forum as a yella is to enforce correct spelling, which i strongly doubt.

[Trinidad]

I don't know why you write. I usually write because I have something to ask or say that I want others to read. I think it is easier to get people to read your writing if what you write is actually readable. So I strive to spell correctly, though I am aware that I (like almost everybody else) will fail now and then. A spelling error or grammatical mistake might accidentally creep into the text, which is fine.

But that is not what you are doing. You are not making an accidental spelling error. You are not even sloppy. You misspell words on purpose. That is fine when it is serves a function (like it did in your last post). But it is not fine if you do it out of laziness (like you did in the post before that). I think that is not very respectful to your readers. (And no, you don't need to be over 80 to feel that way.)

Rik

[barmar]

No, you didn't hurt my feelings, I was trying to be constructive. I think it undermines everything you write when you do it in the manner of text messages, since it's not associated with serious discussion.

[MrAce]

barmar, on 2012-March-25, 02:09, said:

No, you didn't hurt my feelings, I was trying to be constructive. I think it undermines everything you write when you do it in the manner of text messages, since it's not associated with serious discussion.

Of course u can claim that your intention was to be constructive.

I hope u can see that, when u debate with someone and reply him about the subject being debated, and then out of nowhere ended your reply with a spell check, looks even more inappropriate than one's style of typing, don't u think ?

It is like disagreeing with someone about lets say politics and telling your opinion to him/her, in public and then adding "oh and by the way, the colour of your jacket is not suitable for country club, please dont take this in a bad way, i am just trying to give u heads up, no harm intended"

No sir, please don't tell me, someone like u, who seems to care about the appropriate way of doing things, even small things such as how someone types "you", did not have the common courtesy or did not know the appropriate way of being constructive, such as using pm It is ok though, when debating about bridge in bbo, i am used to be critisized by my job, language skills, nationality and religion at the end, so what u did was nothing compared to what i have seen and heard.

My skin is thick, and it is in fact more amusing for me rather than upset, to see people say things and then come up with excuses that doesnt add up Please dont tell me you didn't know BBF has private message function, as a yellow moderator if your real intention was what you said. If i had to choose between being called "lazy typer" and "lack of common courtesy" i would definetely go with the first one.

I am not even gonna tell you that there are members who was nominated and won the "best poster of the year" by votes uses some words each and every time in the text messaging form. Actually there is a section in these forums if my memory serves correctly, where it shows how people can use the short form of the sentences, letalone words, encouraging people to use them or understand them.

I will try to remember your "sincere constructive attempt" and try to use "you" instead of "u" anyway. After all it is the practical way to change every little things that annoys people, rather than stop being annoyed at every oportunity...i guess..because there seems to be other people and their upvoters who believe using "u" instead of "you" is disrespectful to my readers, while spell checking in an irrelevant subject and in public, then calling it "try to be constructive" is obviously not for them. Like different people looking at same bridge hand and seeing different things.

Sorry for the hijack which wasnt started by me. Peace.

[WellSpyder]

barmar, on 2012-March-24, 02:02, said:

The question isn't whether they fill in their CC's, it's whether their bids always fit the criteria described on the CC. When it says that a weak 2 is 5-10 HCP, that should be understood as an approximate description of most weak 2's, but not a guarantee that all will be in that range.

At the risk of going round in circles, the issue isn't just about adequate disclosure. I think we can pretty much all agree that there should be a certain amount of flexibility of point counts for weak 2's since it isn't (just) the point count that determines the suitability of a hand. As others have said, this is "just bridge" to most people, and accepted in most circles.

But there is a separate problem if the result of that flexibility is that you are actually playing an illegal convention, and that seems to be a significant risk for some partnerships in the ACBL where the maximum range of a weak is defined in terms of HCPs. Is it still "just bridge" to deliberately circumvent the regulations on permitted agreements by not disclosing the degree of flexibility on HCPs that you have at least implicitly agreed with your partner?

You may feel that it is primarily the regulation that is at fault here, and I wouldn't disagree with that. But while it remains, it seems unfair to me that some partnerships will try to comply and others will just do what they want to do anyway.

(The EBU has avoided this problem with weak 2's by allowing any range - subject to proper disclosure. But it has a rather similar problem with regulating a strong 1♣, where it is not permitted to upgrade certain 15-counts even if the suit quality and other features of the hand suggest the hand is clearly worth a strong 1♣.)

[mgoetze]

WellSpyder, on 2012-March-26, 03:58, said:

At the risk of going round in circles, the issue isn't just about adequate disclosure. [...]
But there is a separate problem if the result of that flexibility is that you are actually playing an illegal convention,

I have seen this discussed endlessly, not here but on the German bridge mailing list, because the German regulations say that if you by partnership agreement open 1 of a suit with less than rule of 18 you are playing a HUM, even if it only happens in 3rd seat. So far I have not seen a useful conclusion to such discussion.