[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2012-September-27, 18:33, said:

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.

Oh, I must have misunderstood. I thought you were saying that players don't really need to follow the "rule of ..." regulations.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2012-September-21, 07:26, said:

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.

I agree with Vampyr. We also lost a fourth-round knock-out match because an opponent opened a hand, which our team-member passed, slavishly following an EBU rule of 18 regulation. As in this forum, directors seemed to think that only naive masochists adhere to such rules. I agree that system-regulations are daft but while they exist, IMO, we should try to comply with them

[gnasher]

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? 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.

The Laws don't clearly define a difference between agreements and partnership understandings. Depending on how you read Law 40, either they mean the same or "agreement" is a category of "partnership understanding".

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because system regulations relate to "partnership understandings", which "may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players" (emphasis added).

If you know that your partner, playing with you, will open a 5116 7-count, and he knows that you know this, you have a partnership understanding that he will do so, and it is subject to the system regulations. If you know this but he doesn't know that you know, it depends upon the meaning and application of the word "mutual" in the above quote.

[Fluffy]

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.


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.

I don't see the difference between 650 or 680, you would have to be playing 5m or 3NT for the overtrick to matter

[Fluffy]

I think this rule would go directly over me.

In my system, 1♠-1Nt(GF relay) -4m shows a 6-6 distribution with minimum values on a precision context, this usually means 11-13 for semibalanced hands, but sometimes we lower it to 10.... but I guess we cannot lower it much more (In my country having agreements on opening below 10 is already forbidden)

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-September-29, 01:07, said:

The Laws don't clearly define a difference between agreements and partnership understandings. Depending on how you read Law 40, either they mean the same or "agreement" is a category of "partnership understanding".

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because system regulations relate to "partnership understandings", which "may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players" (emphasis added). If you know that your partner, playing with you, will open a 5116 7-count, and he knows that you know this, you have a partnership understanding that he will do so, and it is subject to the system regulations. If you know this but he doesn't know that you know, it depends upon the meaning and application of the word "mutual" in the above quote.

EBU Orange Book 112 C 1, 2012 said:

The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 18, or 11 HCP. However a partnership may not agree to open with 7 HCP or fewer even if the hand is at least Rule of 18. In third and fourth seat the minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is 8 HCP.

EBU Orange Book system regulations refer to agreements rather than partnership understandings

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2012-September-29, 17:13, said:

EBU Orange Book system regulations refer to agreements rather than partnership understandings

The EBU regulations appear to treat the two terms as interchangeable:
OB3A1: "All agreements, including implicit understandings ..."

[Fluffy]

OMG this is creepy, I just played this hand in bridgebig:

---

This hands are more frequent than I though I first maybe

[Fluffy]

its also an argument for the risk of opening 1♠ when you don't have agreements about it. Since BBig is individual East was not on the same wavelenght and ended up in disaster.

You might say that actually it is just a proof of human stupidity on sunday mornings, perhaps more accurate.

[sailoranch]

A player who likes to open shapely 7 counts would do well to partner this guy.



"I know nothing! Nothing!"

[Cyberyeti]

Sorry to derail the thread, but 6♦ seems a bizarre bid. Presumably E thought they were playing 3041 keycard with spades agreed, so reckoned there was one loser in diamonds, W thought they were playing 1430 or this wasn't Blackwood. If they're both on the same wavelength, E should be bidding 5 or 7 if he thought 4N was asking.

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-September-30, 01:35, said:

The EBU regulations appear to treat the two terms as interchangeable: OB3A1: "All agreements, including implicit understandings ..."

Aquahombre and Blackshoe think the terms are non-equivalent. They seem to be right, in ordinary English usage. I agree with Gnasher, however, that the laws seen to treat them the same. IMO the law should state that explicitly. Unfortunately, persuading regulators to clarify what rules mean is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. Especially in specific cases, like this

• Is it OK for me to open regularly with distributional seven counts, with partner's knowledge, provided he doesn't do so, and we never discuss it?
• Is it OK for us both to open on distributional seven counts (again based purely on common-sense and experience, without discussion)?

i.e. We have an implicit nonverbal partnership understanding. But we certainly don't have an agreement in the common dictionary sense.

[nige1]

barmar, on 2012-September-28, 16:29, said:

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.

• Partner sends you his system-notes that explain his habits OR
• Partner advertises his habits on his BBO profile OR
• Partner describes his habits in a public forum that you read OR
• You and partner independently describe your identical habits in the same forum

MO, the law should treat these as implicit partnership "agreements". In all but the last case the "agreement" may be unilateral. IMO, however, they remain your "agreement" until partner repudiates them or flouts them often enough for you to revise your assessment.

[barmar]

The Laws mostly deal with disclosure, and for this the distinction between explicit agreements and implicit understandings is less significant. The Laws don't specify restrictions on the meanings of bids, except to say that RAs are allowed to establish such regulations. And unless we want to debate whether this only licenses them to regulate explicit agreements versus implicit understandings, the distinction is not necessary here, either -- it's up to the RA to state which they're addressing, as the EBU does.

Although I suppose the question would arise: if the regulation is not explicit about this, does the way the Laws are written imply a default interpretation?

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2012-September-30, 10:22, said:

Aquahombre and Blackshoe think the terms are non-equivalent. They seem to be right, in ordinary English usage. I agree with Gnasher, however, that the laws seen to treat them the same.

That isn't what I said. I said that the Laws are unclear on this subject, and later that the EBU regulations appear to treat them as the same.

Quote

Unfortunately, persuading regulators to clarify what rules mean is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.

I don't think that's particularly true in the case of the EBU's system regulations. Since "agreement" and "understanding" are used interchangeable in the EBU regulations, it's clear that they mean the same thing for the purpose of the EBU's regulations. That makes the answers to your questions equally clear:

Quote

Is it OK for me to open regularly with distributional seven counts, with partner's knowledge, provided he doesn't do so, and we never discuss it?

Not in the EBU.

Quote

Is it OK for us both to open on distributional seven counts (again based purely on common-sense and experience, without discussion)?

If it's shared experience, no. If it's general bridge experience, yes. Obviously there are grey areas, but that's unavoidable if we're going to both prohibit particular agreements and allow players to depart from their agreements.

[nige1]

nige1, on 2012-September-30, 10:22, said:

Is it OK for us both to open on distributional seven counts (again based purely on common-sense and experience, without discussion)?i.e. We have an implicit nonverbal partnership understanding. But we certainly don't have an agreement in the common dictionary sense.

gnasher, on 2012-September-30, 11:18, said:

If it's shared experience, no. If it's general bridge experience, yes. Obviously there are grey areas, but that's unavoidable if we're going to both prohibit particular agreements and allow players to depart from their agreements.

If the hand-type is rare but neither partner wants to be constrained by relevant regulations, they should avoid remembering partner's cards, especially when dummy, and refuse to discuss such hands. Regulators could have performed a valuable service for unimaginative players like me, by explaining this simple tactic.
If a partnership seek further refinement then, according to some, they can independently describe their habits in a public forum

I doubt any of this is the regulator's intention.

Whether from ignorance of the laws, or for other reasons explained in this forum, in practice, few players comply with such rules. Also, breaking such rules is unlikely to result in an adverse ruling.

Either such regulations should be simple to to understand and simple to enforce -- or (better) they should all be scrapped.

[gnasher]

nige1, on 2012-September-30, 11:55, said:

If the hand-type is rare but neither partner wants to be constrained by relevant regulations, they should avoid remembering partner's cards, especially when dummy, and refuse to discuss such hands. Regulators could have performed a valuable service for unimaginative players like me, by explaining this simple tactic.

That wouldn't get him very far. According to both the Laws and the EBU regulations, implicit understandings are formed by partnership experience. If your partner does something repeatedly, you have an implicit understanding that he does this, regardless of whether you've ever noticed him do it.

If a player makes an absurd argument in an attempt to circumvent the rules, he deserves an absurd rebuttal.

Quote

If a partnership seek further refinement then, according to some, they can independently describe their habits in a public forum

The EBU, whose regulations you seem quick to criticise, have covered that to some extent: "Implicit understandings in bidding and play arise from partnership experience, which may include external experience by the partners not available to opponents." It gives the example of two players how each play often with a third player, but I think it would be equally applicable to a situation where one player published a description of his habits and the other player read it.

It would be better if the sentence didn't include the phrase "not available to opponents". I imagine that this appears because it's in a section about disclosure rather than about permitted methods.

Quote

Whether from ingnorance of the laws, or for other reasons explained in this forum, in practice, few players comply with such rules. Also, breaking such rules is unlikely to result in an adverse ruling.

If that is true, I expect you can provide us with some examples from real-life play of players' not complying with these rules and getting away with it?

[nige1]

gnasher, on 2012-September-30, 12:58, said:

If that is true, I expect you can provide us with some examples from real-life play of players' not complying with these rules and getting away with it?

I hope Gnasher (or somebody else) can cite a few cases where players have been ruled against for flouting 7HCP opening regulations. That would also provide a welcome practical illustration of what the rules mean,

I suspect that most players don't know what the rules mean (ACBL GCC 6 and Orange Book 12.C.1). As is plain from my repeated questions, I'm unsure too. Although I've tried to explain my guesses in my posts here. If my guesses are right as to what the rules mean, then few players comply with them and few directors enforce them. According to my interpretation, the only tentative evidence available to players is an opponent's "deviation".. (Vampyr and I gave examples of apparent rule of 18/19 violations, earlier in this thread but they were slightly easier to pin down). .I write only of the limited experience of myself and acquaintances. I would be relieved to be persuaded by practical evidence to the contrary. from directors with relevant experience.. If a Bridge authority has gathered and published statistics on such matters that would be even more illuminating.

[blackshoe]

There are four items numbered six on the GCC. Which one are you talking about?

[sailoranch]

blackshoe, on 2012-September-30, 22:34, said:

There are four items numbered six on the GCC. Which one are you talking about?

Probably item 6 under disallowed:

"6. Opening one bids which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 HCP. (Not applicable to a psych.)"