[blackshoe]

Judgement applies to all hands, unless the ACBL says otherwise, which they have done in the specific case of balanced hands with less than 10 HCP. They have not provided a similar interpretation for the rule regarding hands with less than 8 HCP.

[Vampyr]

TimG, on 2012-September-21, 06:19, said:

Judgment only applies to (freakishly) unbalanced hands?

6-5 hands are not freakish, though, although such a hand with 7HCP in a position to open are rare enough that one can easily get around the EBU regulation by saying that there was no agreement. This is why I realy dislike the EBU's regulation.

A friend of mine once lost an important match because he opened a 7HCP rule of 18 hand 2♠ while his opponent opened it 1♠. My friend knew of the regulation, and felt that opening at the 1-level fell afoul of it. I kind of agree. Calling it a psyche is disingenuous, and calling it a deviation... well, you're not going to get caught out even if you deviate every time. The EBU are obviously trying to make their regulation legal, since of course anyone can psyche any bid at any time, but I don't think they have done a very good job with this one. Not that I know the solution.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2012-September-20, 09:11, said:

I don't think there's any such precedent in the EBU. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that attitudes to the equivalent ACBL rule are different, even though this is in a different category from rules about skip-bid warnings and convention cards.

There is a precedent. Back in the days when opening bids had to be Rule of 19, someone wrote an article in English Bridge [the official EBU magazine] which was in effect a teaching article for poorer players. It included a hand which the writer said was an obvious opening bid. Unfortunately it was Rule of 18. This caused a furore. You can imagine what was said in letters to the editor, letters to the L&EC, and so on.

blackshoe, on 2012-September-20, 12:36, said:

The opinions of individual directors not withstanding, if there is a rule prohibiting an agreement to open such hands, and the TD has evidence that a pair has such an agreement, and that evidence outweighs any evidence that they do not have such an agreement, then the TD who does not rule that the pair has an illegal agreement is not doing his job properly.

True: the Sol Weinstein ruling was clearly wrong because the pair was demonstrably playing an illegal agreement. The hand in the OP is different and does not look illegal to me.

Yesterday I held

---

and after some thought opened 4♥ at Amber [v v v], teams. The opponents failed to take their ♣A so that was 12 tricks. That 12th trick was vital.

I had considered 1♥ which was opened in the other room. I doubt that either of us would have felt the presence or absence of the ♣Q relevant to our choice of opening bid.

For your interest the full bidding in the other room was

---

8 off.

Now you see why the twelfth trick was important: if I do not make it I lose 24 imps on a board for the first time in my life.

[barmar]

Freaks in general are not that infrequent, but each one usually presents unique judgement issues. So it's difficult to make general agreements, or to claim that the pair has implicit agreements regarding them.

[blackshoe]

A further thought on the ACBL's stance on opening 9 HCP balanced hands 1NT when the agreement is 10-12 HCP: I think that historically they wanted to ban the "mini-NT" altogether, but felt they could not because it's a natural bid (under the laws previous to 2007 there was no authority to regulate natural bids). So they came up with this silly kludge about "conventional responses" and to top it off they decided that opening on 9 HCP, under any circumstances, is prima facie evidence of an agreement to do so, and thus activates the "conventional responses" kludge. This is patently stupid under the 2007 (or 2008 in the ACBL) laws. If they want to ban the mini-NT, all they have to do is designate it a "special partnership understanding". Mind you, I think they should just leave it alone, let people agree 10-12, and let people use their judgement to open on 9 occasionally if they so desire. But if they truly want to ban it on the GCC, they have the legal tools available to do so without being stupid about it.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2012-September-21, 08:43, said:

There is a precedent. Back in the days when opening bids had to be Rule of 19, someone wrote an article in English Bridge [the official EBU magazine] which was in effect a teaching article for poorer players. It included a hand which the writer said was an obvious opening bid. Unfortunately it was Rule of 18. This caused a furore. You can imagine what was said in letters to the editor, letters to the L&EC, and so on.

As described here, this does not of itself provide a precedent. Did the L&E conclude that the rule is not hard and fast?

[bluejak]

I don't believe there was a real conclusion. But it aired the difference between what a pair's agreements are and what call a player makes.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-26, 23:04, said:

If they want to ban the mini-NT, all they have to do is designate it a "special partnership understanding".

The current laws do allow this, but there are way too many members playing it for them to be able to get away with such a move now. So the best they can do is stick with the kludge of treating any 9 HCP opening as evidence of an agreement, rather than a deviation.

[blackshoe]

Maybe if there are that many people playing it, they ought to just give up trying to ban it or mess with those players, and get rid of the kludge. Frankly, saying "a one point deviation is okay, except in this one case" seems a bit dishonest to me.

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2012-September-27, 07:22, said:

I don't believe there was a real conclusion. But it aired the difference between what a pair's agreements are and what call a player makes.

That doesn't sound like a precedent to me.

[bluejak]

Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it is a bad precedent. But when an official publication states something is correct, it is not immediately obvious to everyone that it should not be followed.

[nige1]

If a player writes in this forum that he opens such hands and a regular partner reads his post then they have have an agreement. They are likely to escape legal sanction because hands suitable for such "deviations" and "psyches" are uncommon and recording them is rarer.

Anyway, most players are oblivious to such rules. They handicap only a tiny minority of players who know about them and comply with them.

[aguahombre]

nige1, on 2012-September-27, 20:42, said:

If a player writes in this forum that he opens such hands and a regular partner reads his post then they have have an agreement. They are likely to escape legal sanction because hands suitable for such pseudo-psyches are uncommon and recording them is rarer.

Anyway, most players are oblivious to such rules. They handicap only a tiny minority players who know about them and comply with them.

Actually no. Most players know what an agreement means in Bridge.

[nige1]

aguahombre, on 2012-September-19, 18:31, said:

If you think the existing OB regulations were built to stifle judgement on freak hands, that is where we disagree. I don't advocate breaking any jurisdiction's laws. Common sense tells me when they don't apply to a given situation. I think they don't apply to this situation.

nige1, on 2012-September-27, 20:42, said:

If a player writes in this forum that he opens such hands and a regular partner reads his post then they have have an agreement. They are likely to escape legal sanction because hands suitable for such "deviations" and "psyches" are uncommon and recording them is rarer. Anyway, most players are oblivious to such rules. They handicap only a tiny minority of players who know about them and comply with them.

aguahombre, on 2012-September-27, 20:49, said:

Actually no. Most players know what an agreement means in Bridge.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2012-September-27, 20:42, said:

If a player writes in this forum that he opens such hands and a regular partner reads his post then they have have an agreement. They are likely to escape legal sanction because hands suitable for such "deviations" and "psyches" are uncommon and recording them is rarer.

Anyway, most players are oblivious to such rules. They handicap only a tiny minority of players who know about them and comply with them.

agreement |əˈgrēmənt| noun
harmony or accordance in opinion or feeling; a position or result of agreeing:

That I read something my partner said here does not mean I agree to it. OTOH, we do have a partnership understanding. Specifically, my understanding is that he said whatever he said. If he said that he opens certain hands, then my understanding is that he does so, and that must be disclosed IAW RA regulations. If my partner thinks I have agreed that I will open those same hands, he's dreaming.

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-27, 21:00, said:

That I read something my partner said here does not mean I agree to it. OTOH, we do have a partnership understanding. Specifically, my understanding is that he said whatever he said. If he said that he opens certain hands, then my understanding is that he does so, and that must be disclosed IAW RA regulations. If my partner thinks I have agreed that I will open those same hands, he's dreaming.

On reflection, I accept that distinction. But does Blackshoe imply that such partnership understandings are legal? Must agreements be mutual to flout system restrictions? For example is it legal for me to use so-called random overcalls, regularly, with partner's full knowledge, provided he doesn't, and we never discuss the matter?

[blackshoe]

Blackshoe does not imply that such partnership understandings are legal, nor that they are illegal. The legality of a partnership understanding is a separate matter to its existence, and depends on the regulations in force. In the ACBL, for example, there is no restriction on style, only method. If one player's weak two bids tend to be less disciplined than his partner's, that's a matter of style, and legal. If one player plays weak two bids, and the other Acol two bids, that is a matter of method, and illegal in the ACBL (both players must use the same methods).

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-28, 09:04, said:

Blackshoe does not imply that such partnership understandings are legal, nor that they are illegal. The legality of a partnership understanding is a separate matter to its existence, and depends on the regulations in force. In the ACBL, for example, there is no restriction on style, only method. If one player's weak two bids tend to be less disciplined than his partner's, that's a matter of style, and legal. If one player plays weak two bids, and the other Acol two bids, that is a matter of method, and illegal in the ACBL (both players must use the same methods).

I'll try to clarify the questiion: Is it legal for partner to habitually make calls that would certainly flout system-regulations if we had an agreement? Assume, however, that he does so with my knowledge but I don't do the same and we never discuss it? i.e. In Blackshoe's terms, we have a "partnership understanding" but not an "agreement"

FWIW, I'm uncertain whether Bridge-law recognizes Blackshoe's sensible distinction between agreements and partnership understandings. . For example consider the case where if we had an agreement we would both be breaking system regualtions . We do so in the same way; and we are fully aware of each others habits; but we never discuss them.

IMO, for legal purposes, in all such cases, we have an implicit agreement.

[blackshoe]

nige1, on 2012-September-28, 14:32, said:

I'll try to clarify the questiion: Is it legal for partner to habitually make calls that would certainly flout system-regulations if we had an agreement?

Not after you become aware of his habit.

[barmar]

40B6a says:

Quote

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply
to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special
information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership
experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and
experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

A public forum post is obviously not "partnership agreement", but is it "partnership experience"? The forum post doesn't take place while the players are playing together as partners, so I don't think so. It seems more like GBK, since anyone can read the post and learn about this player's style.

So if he posts that he opens all 11 counts, but you don't think he's ever done it while partnering with you, your partnership experience is that he's a more sound opener.