[Blue Uriah]

Trinidad, on Sep 22 2009, 10:00 AM, said:

bluejak, on Sep 22 2009, 02:48 AM, said:

Ok, I give in: please excuse one completely off-topic post.  Nothing to do with the Laws!!!!

I played a Welsh Cup match.  I cannot remember the exact hand, but it was something like:

Dealer: West Vul: Both Scoring: IMP

♠ AQx ♥   ♦ AKJxxxx ♣ Kxx

W. .N. .E. You 4♠ 6♣ 6♥ 7♣ .P. .P. 7♥ ?

Do you double?

I would double. I wouldn't expect to beat it a lot, but I would expect to beat it. (And I am not allowed to save in 8♣, anyway.)

What's the story?

Rik

Did East have 12 hearts? It wouldn't be a story unless 7♥ was cold.

[Trinidad]

jeremy69, on Sep 22 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

Quote

So you think that you and I now have an implicit understanding. What would our implicit understanding be?

That you would open hands which had extreme distribution but did not meet the current EBU regulations for a strong two with a 2C artificial opening. You also know that I wouldn't, of course, as it would be too embarrassing for the Chairman of the Laws & Ethics Committee to be caught breaking this rule.

Hi Jeremy

You took the bait. Don't worry, I am not going to eat you, but it makes it possible to make my point clear.

I would never open ♠AQJT98765432 ♥- ♦- ♣2 or ♠2 ♥3 ♦- ♣KQJT9876543 with 2♣. You can be pretty sure about that.

This has nothing to do with the EBU regulations. It has everything to do with the fact that I don't think 2♣ is the best bid. In fact, I think it is a horrible bid, because it will get me a bad result. This is not the situation to bid cooperatively with your partner, following your agreements, to some nice result.

So my point is not: "I should be allowed to open 2♣, since I think it is the best way to find out where we belong." My point is: "When Aunt Millie happens to get this hand, she should be allowed to open it 2♣ if she thinks that it's the best way to find out where she belongs." And since Aunt Millie and Uncle Ted won't have an agreement on how to bid these hands, they are not breaking any rules.

And by all means, read "Justin Hacket" or "Andy Robson" where I wrote "Aunt Millie". Or do you think that they have any agreements for these hand types?

Rik

[Trinidad]

Blue Uriah, on Sep 22 2009, 12:46 PM, said:

Did East have 12 hearts?    It wouldn't be a story unless 7♥ was cold. 

I think it would be a much better story if he would have 13 hearts.

Rik

[campboy]

If we are really talking about 12-card suits then I have wasted my time in reading this thread.

But I think people are talking about really extreme hands, and exaggerating. And the worry is that someone will apply what is said here to a 10-card suit, or a 9400.

[NickRW]

nigel_k, on Sep 21 2009, 08:24 PM, said:

It seems to me this falls into the category of regulating psyches, rather than simply regulating agreements. You just don't want people opening a strong artificial 2♣ (whether Benji or Std) on weak hands because it is too easy for them to avoid subequent problems and too hard for the opponents to deal with.

If so, wouldn't it be simpler to just say it is illegal to open 2♣ without meeting the stated requirements, regardless of partnership agreement? It would also be much easier to police and would catch the fairly common case of people who decide to take advantage of their one or two chances to open a weak hand before it becomes an implicit agreement.

I think this post has legs and that David's response is not really adequate. The EBU, in its infinite wisdom, has no problem in regulating that a multi 2D is not allowed to be psyched at Level 3. Therefore there is precedent, in the current regs, for an exception.

The reason I say this is that we had a case of this at the local club only last night where someone opened a strong 2 of some sort on an 8 card spade suit and little else - probably in ignorance of the rules, rather than deliberately. The pair they were playing against did know the rules and when they had taken an (as its turns out) ill advised 6♥ sac against what they thought was a making 5♠ the other way, called the director (not me this time fortunately). Now that was simple enough to deal with, but there are a few players, possibly ignorant of the rules, who are never the less street wise enough to say, "but I psyched - my partner did indeed think it was strong". Which leaves the TD in an awkward position.

Frankly, I wish the L&EC would simply come up with a version of this regulation that they wouldn't keep changing. I think I am right in saying that there has been a tweak to the wording of this every year since it has come into being and, apparently from one thread here, maybe yet another in the pipeline.

Opening a strong 2 on some of the sorts of hands talked about here may be good bridge, but changing the rules every year is not good regulating either.

Nick

[Trinidad]

Of course, we are not talking about 12 card suits. They just make clearer examples.

The key is that at some point, the hand will be so extreme that you have reached hand types that you can't describe by "system". You are on your own, your system won't help you. Then your job is to make the best of it.

Since at that point, there is no "system", there are no agreements. That means that there are no agreements to regulate either. Therefore, system regulations simply do not apply.

Therefore, if someone has 10 CCTs in an 8 HCP hand or 12 CCTs in a 7 HCP hand, just let them bid whatever they think is best. Don't go even close to saying that this is an illegal agreement, since there is no agreement.

I am fully agreeing on dealing with pairs that open 2♣ on ♠KQJTxxxx ♥xx ♦xx ♣x and manage to stop in 3♠, where the field is in 4♠X (or the opponents playing game or slam). I even would want to act if a player opens 2♣ on ♠AKQJxxxx ♥xx ♦xx ♣x and somehow, mysteriously, everything falls in place. But in those cases, you can be reasonably sure that a similar situation has come up several times before or even that it was discussed at some point.

But when you are dealt a hand where 7 different opening bids are chosen when the board was played 6 times only, then anything goes, since nobody has any agreement what so ever.

Rik

[NickRW]

bluejak, on Sep 21 2009, 09:37 PM, said:

The problem with many solutions offered about regulations is that they often look at a specific problem rather than the general. The EBU Orange book has a lot of regulations covering permitted agreements of which this is one. Are you suggesting that opening artificial twos should be a special case? What are you going to do about all the other permitted agreements?

I am not saying you are wrong, but personally I do not like special approaches different from the rest, and my guess would be that the L&EC would not either. If you are going to have a special rule for one type of agreement how do you justify it? Or how are you going to generalise it? And how do you get players to understand it?

Just write into the regs that bids that are defined as strong or which include strong options can't be psyched at whatever level you deem they shouldn't. Its simple enough. Or stop trying to regulate against what is, in fact, common practice.

One or the other - you make up your mind. This regulation has been a dogs breakfast and continues to be so.


Nick

[NickRW]

Trinidad, on Sep 22 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

Of course, we are not talking about 12 card suits. They just make clearer examples....

From a purely logical point of view, your post makes sense. But, in practice, where is the TD (or the regulating authority) supposed to draw the line? It is very easy to say that a hand that can be opened 7 different ways should not fall foul of rules, but who is to decide that the hand is of that type - and how are they to come to this decision?

Nick

[Trinidad]

NickRW, on Sep 22 2009, 02:33 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Sep 22 2009, 12:23 PM, said:

Of course, we are not talking about 12 card suits. They just make clearer examples....

From a purely logical point of view, your post makes sense.

Thank you.

Quote

But, in practice, where is the TD (or the regulating authority) supposed to draw the line?  It is very easy to say that a hand that can be opened 7 different ways should not fall foul of rules, but who is to decide that the hand is of that type - and how are they to come to this decision?

Nick

I know that this is very difficult. There is a line somewhere out there, but where? The second problem is that there will not be an aweful lot of jurisprudence since freak hands are rare. This also means that it is difficult to regulate by any rules (specified in HCPs, CCTs, LTC or AOKOHEM).

So: Don't specify. Leave it up to the TD.

In my opinion, a good TD can see whether a hand really is a rare beast or whether it was just a "preempt in disguise". And if he can't see it, just ask a few other players what they bid. If the whole room opened 3 or 4♠, and this pair opened 2♣, it was a "preempt in disguise". If the room opened anything varying from 4♠ to 1♠ to 2♣ to pass and a 1♦ psych, you know that it is the rare beast. Same thing goes if this was the hand that everyone talks about afterwards, since no one was sure what to bid. (I could imagine that the whole room opens 4♠, giving up on slam, and one pair tries to figure out whether slam is possible by opening 2♣. That should be allowed imo.)

The real thing that the TD has to judge is whether there was an agreement. If responder lets the auction die out in a partscore when holding two kings, you know that there was an agreement. This has come up before. Hands with a good 7+ card suit and little on the side (or "something" on the side, depending on the pair) occur much more often than hands with a good 7+ card suit and about 10 HCPs on the side. That means that for this pair "preempts in disguise" occur much more frequently than the hand type that would actually be considered "normal" for an auction like 2♣-2♦; 2♥-2♠; 3♥. In other words, when they have the auction 2♣-2♦; 2♥-2♠; 3♥, they know what it means. Therefore, they have an agreement.

Another thing about leaving it to the TD: TDs are human and make mistakes. It is not the end of the world. But I think that the odds that the TD misjudges when he actually sees the hand are much smaller than the odds that the L&E committee misjudges when they set specifications when they can only try to imagine the hand.

Rik

[bluejak]

Trinidad doubles: anyone else?

[RMB1]

bluejak, on Sep 22 2009, 02:25 PM, said:

Trinidad doubles: anyone else?

Can I try 7NT, and hope LHO does not have a heart to lead?

Robin

[aguahombre]

bluejak, on Sep 22 2009, 09:25 AM, said:

Trinidad doubles: anyone else?

I suppose, since partner knows 7C was real, a Forcing pass applies, and Partner will bid 7NT with the heart Ace, since it is the only suit I can be void in.

[bluejak]

Well done, Robin. Of course, since partner has only got nine clubs, you only have 12 tricks, but fortunately LHO with his 10=0=3=0 is endplayed to give you the 13th.

In practice my partner doubled with this hand, and declarer claimed for one off. Me, I would have run the twelve card suit, after an ace lead: especially if the remaining two aces had been in one hand .....

It was one of the very few flat boards in th set. It was dealt by one of the four people at my table - possibly me - and my partner had a sense of humour, so I have always wondered. So I have had my once-in-a-lifetime twelve card suit at my table: I was the 6♣ bidder. So I have no agreements on how to bid one.

Interestingly, at team-mates' table, apart from playing this one in 7♥ doubled as well, of course, and running the entire suit, there were also four six level contracts, all off two aces: team-mates made theirs but beat the opponents' three. And that was that.

[campboy]

Trinidad, on Sep 22 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

The key is that at some point, the hand will be so extreme that you have reached hand types that you can't describe by "system". You are on your own, your system won't help you. Then your job is to make the best of it.

Yes, that happens at some point. You get dealt a weak hand with bundles of tricks which is too extreme to be covered by your system, so you bid it in some way or other. Fine.

But after that -- after the first time that happens -- well, you both know what you are likely to do if you get a "hand type that you can't describe by system". You have explicit agreements about normal hands, but you now have an implicit agreement about the rest.

[NickRW]

Trinidad, on Sep 22 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

...Another thing about leaving it to the TD: TDs are human and make mistakes. It is not the end of the world. But I think that the odds that the TD misjudges when he actually sees the hand are much smaller than the odds that the L&E committee misjudges when they set specifications when they can only try to imagine the hand.

Rik

Well, ignoring David's valiant attempts to derail the thread, I am not sure I agree. The L&E committee may be wrong or misguided in some cases - indeed I am sometimes critical - but, begruding credit where it is due, I don't think they are fools or make up silly rules deliberately. I mean - they are intelligent, experienced people whose heart is in the right place.

Compare that to the reality I have to face. I am in charge of the (entirely voluntary) directors rota at the local club. There are 9 of us that have (or will soon) be directing at one session or another. I'll leave me out of the equation as it is difficult to self evaluate objectively, but the other 8 have a (very) wide range of experience, confidence, and knowledge of the rules (or lack thereof). I cannot expect these 8 to give anything like consistent rulings based on rules that require a lot of judgement - I can expect them to be able to give a book ruling on something that is black and white.

Rules, to my mind, are hardly worth having if they can't be enforced in a consistent way - somewhat dumb, even irksome, though some of they may be.

Nick

[Trinidad]

campboy, on Sep 22 2009, 07:15 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Sep 22 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

The key is that at some point, the hand will be so extreme that you have reached hand types that you can't describe by "system". You are on your own, your system won't help you. Then your job is to make the best of it.

Yes, that happens at some point. You get dealt a weak hand with bundles of tricks which is too extreme to be covered by your system, so you bid it in some way or other. Fine.

But after that -- after the first time that happens -- well, you both know what you are likely to do if you get a "hand type that you can't describe by system". You have explicit agreements about normal hands, but you now have an implicit agreement about the rest.

So it doesn't matter whether my hand deviates from "normal" on the left hand side or the right hand side.

If I open 2♣ on ♠AQJT98765432 ♣2, does that mean that I will open it 2♣ the next time I get it? Does it mean that I will open ♠2♥3♦-KQJT9876543 with 2♣?

Does the fact that my 2♣ opening resulted in a dead bottom change any of this?

The only implicit information that you get, is that I don't know how to bid a freak hand.

Furthermore, just like one swallow doesn't mean it's Summer, one occurance doesn't create an implicit agreement. My son is learning multiplication tables. I just wish that he would implicitly agree on them after experiencing them once.

Rik

[Trinidad]

NickRW, on Sep 22 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Sep 22 2009, 01:11 PM, said:

...Another thing about leaving it to the TD: TDs are human and make mistakes. It is not the end of the world. But I think that the odds that the TD misjudges when he actually sees the hand are much smaller than the odds that the L&E committee misjudges when they set specifications when they can only try to imagine the hand.

Rik

Well, ignoring David's valiant attempts to derail the thread, I am not sure I agree. The L&E committee may be wrong or misguided in some cases - indeed I am sometimes critical - but, begruding credit where it is due, I don't think they are fools or make up silly rules deliberately. I mean - they are intelligent, experienced people whose heart is in the right place.

I don't assume in any way that the L&E committee are not intelligent and experienced. On the contrary. I don't know them, since I am not English, but I assume that they are the country's top TDs, or the equivalent.

What I mean to say is that the L&E committee tries to come up with some kind of specification (in HCPs, CCTs or ...) that describes precisely for TDs what a "preempt in disguise" (PID) looks like and where the border with the "rare beast" (RB) lies.

This means that the L&E committee is imagining a large set of possible hands, putting them in category PID or RB. And after that, they need to come up with a set of rules that can be used to derive whether a hand false in the PID or RB category.

This set of specifications needs to be simple, since players and TDs need to understand them. And if the set of specifications is simple, it cannot possibly do right. An (extreme and therefore clear) example where I think it does wrong is the 12-0-0-1 hand where a player opens 2♣ in an attempt to find out about the ♣A. That has nothing to do with "trying to fake strength when you really have a preempt", which is characteristic for a PID.

Another approach is to formulate the rules in general terms, rather than specifications. It could be something like: "It is illegal to open a hand that is generally considered a 1st hand preemptive opening (at the 2/3/4/5 level) with 2♣." Maybe you want to improve the exact phrasing, but I am sure that you get what I mean. (If you want to shift it and add a king, also fine, whatever.)

I admit that this approach is much vaguer than the exact specifications that are in current use. But surprisingly, it is more accurate. That is because you mentioned exactly what you intended to achieve. You wanted to prevent the Preempt In Disguise, therefore you use the term "preempt" (and mentioned the "Disguise": 2♣).

As an aside, in The Netherlands we had a political problem. A cabinet minister wanted to ban burqas (spelling?!?) in public. Obviously, it would be politically incorrect (as well as unconstitutional) to write a bill that simply bans burqas in public. Therefore, she came up with a description along the lines of "outfits or accessories that make the face not recognizable". There was a simple problem with that. She had managed to ban 10 burqas and an enormous amount of motor cycle helmets.

In bridge, we don't have this political problem. We can solve it by just calling the PID, a PID.

Quote

Compare that to the reality I have to face.  I am in charge of the (entirely voluntary) directors rota at the local club.  There are 9 of us that have (or will soon) be directing at one session or another.  I'll leave me out of the equation as it is difficult to self evaluate objectively, but the other 8 have a (very) wide range of experience, confidence, and knowledge of the rules (or lack thereof).  I cannot expect these 8 to give anything like consistent rulings based on rules that require a lot of judgement - I can expect them to be able to give a book ruling on something that is black and white.

Rules, to my mind, are hardly worth having if they can't be enforced in a consistent way - somewhat dumb, even irksome, though some of they may be.

Nick

Of course, it requires judgement to evaluate a hand and answer the question: "Is this hand generally considered a 1st hand preemptive opening (at the 2/3/4/5 level)?" But it is the kind of judgement that bridge players make all the time. Therefore, I expect that TDs and players will get it right.

Rik

[barmar]

Freaks are freaks -- by definition they're not normal hands, and are not generally covered by partnership agreements. I think it's silly to claim that a bid someone makes once with a freak establishes an implicit partnership agreement. Players necessarily improvise with freaks, and the next time a freak comes up you may pick a completely different way to bid it. In fact, if you somehow get dealt the same exact hand, you may bid it differently -- perhaps the way you bid it the first time didn't work out as well as you hoped. Or your experience has changed since then.

In general, I don't think that anything that happens just once automatically establishes a partnership understanding. Who remembers all the once-in-a-partnership things like this? Partnership understandings come from repeated actions, which establish tendencies that a regular partner is likely to know better than opponents.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Trinidad doubles: anyone else?

Of course if anyone else had intruded into a thread by posting what happened in a match it would have been moved to a separate thread somewhere deep in the bowels of the earth along with a complete set of imprecations about hijacking threads.

Oh, and it's helpful if you state the jursidiction where the hand took place (you have been asked before). I thought the Welsh Cup might be a tournament in Patagonia where regulations don't permit bidding at the seven level.

[jeremy69]

I think the regulations are designed for hands that fall within what might be called the normal ambit of things. For sure they also include 12 card suits hands and yes I accept that players don't really know how to bid them but as they happen once very sky-blue pink moon I don't really care that much. They are victims!

The trouble with allowing TD's to judge is that you won't get consistency. Of course they will consult which will help but you don't expect policemen to decide what the law is but to enforce what the politicians have decided it is whether they agree or not. I know we all have the idea of some kindly ancient policeman using discretion to save a soul but I don't think bridge is like that.

Quote

Frankly, I wish the L&EC would simply come up with a version of this regulation that they wouldn't keep changing. I think I am right in saying that there has been a tweak to the wording of this every year since it has come into being and, apparently from one thread here, maybe yet another in the pipeline.

That's a fair point. If it is decided that what is written contains something wrong it will have to be put right but I entirely accept that it should remain set in stone for some time to come as it is likely that any "improvement" to it will result in increased confusion.