[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Jun 4 2010, 01:59 AM, said:

How can it be an illegal agreement?

Maybe I have been misled by the Orange Book, and the 4HCP etc rule does not apply at Level 4. I have reread the regulation, but have not been able to work it out.

Quote

Or, to put it another way, there are no other Multi 2Y openers at Level 3, so I do not see how you can say it does not apply to them!

Naturally I meant at Level 4, but as I said, there is no clear indication that the Multi regulation for Level 3 does not apply to Level 4. The heading in the book suggests that it applies to both.

[bluejak]

Anything under "Allowed at Level 3 and 4" may be played at Level 4. But so may anything that is "Allowed at Level 4", and thus a Multi is legal without any of the special requirements.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on Jun 4 2010, 02:30 AM, said:

Anything under "Allowed at Level 3 and 4" may be played at Level 4.  But so may anything that is "Allowed at Level 4", and thus a Multi is legal without any of the special requirements.

Then the Multi with restrictions should be listed under "allowed at Level 3".

[nige1]

bluejak, on Jun 1 2010, 07:52 PM, said:

Scoring: IMP

I am not 100% sure of the actual hand, but it was something like. The player bid 2♦, Multi, and his opponent asked the TD whether this was legal, because he understood it was illegal to psyche the Multi. [SNIP] How should we have ruled if it had been a Level 3 tournament?

---

EBU Orange book 2006 rev 2009 said:

Allowed at Level 3
11 G 6 Multi 2♦
[SNIP] Permitted strength:
A defined range of no more than 5 HCP, a minimum strength of 4 HCP and a maximum of 12 HCP.
[SNIP] (iii) The provisions set out here must be adhered to strictly – variations are not permitted.
(iv) It is not permitted to psyche a Multi 2♦ in a Level 3 event.

There have been similar debates in the context of 10-12 notrump openers, 3rd hand openers and so on (when these are subject to system-restriction). Are you allowed to deviate with certain hands? If you regularly deviate with those hands, is that the basis of an implicit agreement? I hate system restrictions but if we must have them then IMO...

• The rules should be easy to understood by the players, who are expected to comply with them.
  
• Hence such rules should be phrased in simple objective terms, like suit-lengths and Milton Work HCP (as these are).
  
• The rules should depend as little as possible on the director's subjective judgement (and the rule-books should make that clear).

Normally, a 1 HCP deviation wouldn't be a psych. Here, however, the range-restriction is explicit and "variations are not permitted". Hence I think Bluejak should rule against a 2♦ multi with 3HCP at level three. But, he should also

• Campaign to scrap such regulations, in the long term.
  
• In the short-term, rewrite the regulations with greater clarity and more illustrative examples (like this hand); frustrating posters to endless topics like this one; but making it easier for players to understand and comply with the rules and directors to enforce them.

[bluejak]

Vampyr, on Jun 4 2010, 10:07 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 4 2010, 02:30 AM, said:

Anything under "Allowed at Level 3 and 4" may be played at Level 4.  But so may anything that is "Allowed at Level 4", and thus a Multi is legal without any of the special requirements.

Then the Multi with restrictions should be listed under "allowed at Level 3".

As often the case, that might solve this particular problem, but would create a myriad of other problems. If you put allowed at Level 3 separately from allowed at Level 4, you get the previous Orange book, and we are back to an Orange book that people had a lot of trouble with. People say this form is far superior. I do not wish to spoil the strides forward we have taken in the change to the current style.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on Jun 3 2010, 01:44 PM, said:

It cannot be a disallowed deviation at Level 4 because there is no rule against deviating at Level 4.

It is a specific regulation for the Multi at Level 3, so of course it does not apply to natural weak twos, general Multis at Level 4, or 5♠ openers at Level 5.

Or, to put it another way, there are no other Multi 2Y openers at Level 3, so I do not see how you can say it does not apply to them!

Cascade, on Jun 2 2010, 08:07 PM, said:

Further the laws of bridge permit deviations "A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings..." (Yes I know there are conditions.)  Therefore a regulation that did not permit deviations would be contrary to the laws of bridge.

Not as simple as that, I think.

Law 40B2A 1st sentence said:

The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership understanding.

In my opinion, "without restriction" means that it is legal to allow conditionally depending on a regulation that bars deviating.

It is not as simple as that, I think.

"special partnership understanding" is a term that carries with it its own definition.

To me it is at best moot whether a multi meets the definition of "special partnership understanding".

[PeterE]

Cascade, on Jun 4 2010, 07:12 AM, said:

To me it is at best moot whether a multi meets the definition of "special partnership understanding".

Maybe this resolves your doubts ...

Law 40 B1b said:

[...] A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning.

[campboy]

Cascade, on Jun 4 2010, 01:12 PM, said:

"special partnership understanding" is a term that carries with it its own definition.

True, but Law 40B1a makes it clear that it is entirely up to the RA to decide whether an understanding meets that definition. So it is a special partnership understanding in the EBU simply because the EBU says so.

@mycroft: I was one of the people suggesting --, xx, Jxxxx, JTxxxx was a deviation rather than a psyche, but in that case there was no question of it being an illegal agreement. Were it not permitted to open this hand 2NT by agreement, I would need some convincing that the pair were not playing something illegal.

[WellSpyder]

mycroft, on Jun 2 2010, 06:32 PM, said:

If you want to play "ordinary" bridge, you have lots of opportunites to "use judgement", "deviate", or what have you.  There's cliffs on the side of the road, but don't worry, you have lots of shoulder to play with. If you want to play close to the regulatory edge, you're using the shoulder already; it behooves to notice the cliffs. 

Just wanted to say I thought this (and indeed the whole of the post I have extracted it from) was a really helpful guide to how to think about these issues.

If I could just be excused for getting onto my hobby horse for a moment about English regulations concerning a strong 1♣, I think the analogy also serves to highlight the oddity that if you want to play "ordinary" Precision with 1♣ showing 16+ you will suddenly find yourself on a road without any shoulder at all and one false move will put you over the cliff - however strong the hand is in terms of intermediates and everything else, you cannot by agreement open a 15-count with 1♣ unless it has at least 10 cards in the two longest suits. The Laws & Ethics Committee have rejected the latest call for a shoulder to be built on this road, and I predict many more drivers will unwittingly be putting their lives at risk before this is put right.

[mycroft]

campboy, on Jun 4 2010, 07:32 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 4 2010, 01:12 PM, said:

"special partnership understanding" is a term that carries with it its own definition.

True, but Law 40B1a makes it clear that it is entirely up to the RA to decide whether an understanding meets that definition. So it is a special partnership understanding in the EBU simply because the EBU says so.

As PeterE quotes above, it's actually a special partnership understanding in the EBU because the EBU doesn't say otherwise. And Cascade, anybody who doesn't think the Multi isn't the poster child for "special partnership understanding" has no knowledge of the legistlative history of L40 (*), or an unspoken agenda, or both. Not that that's a problem - the only reason I have few unspoken agendas is that I run off at the typewriter too much...

Quote

@mycroft: I was one of the people suggesting --, xx, Jxxxx, JTxxxx was a deviation rather than a psyche, but in that case there was no question of it being an illegal agreement. Were it not permitted to open this hand 2NT by agreement, I would need some convincing that the pair were not playing something illegal.

Yes, I know (about deviation vs psychic), and I think you're insane :-) I would suggest an inverted poll criterion for this one - ask people who play two-suited bids of one sort or another the question "you play a 2NT opener as "5-9, 5-5 or better in the minors, 'not kamikaze'. Give me an absolute vulnerable minimum, allowing for distribution" and see if you get anything *near* that hand. If I was given that question, and forced to provide a hand with 2 0.75HCP Jacks only, it would be closer to -- -- JTxxxx JTxxxxx. I wouldn't even think of anything flatter than 6-6. And I bet that I'm not only not alone, I'd be in the majority, or really close to it. And that's of the people who play it. In the people who don't, I think the only reason it wouldn't be pretty much universal, is that there would be a fair few who wouldn't believe that even that 0067 2-count would match the description.

Which means that if that is your agreement, and that is a valid hand for that agreement, you're massively misdescribing it. I think that's a pretty good evaluation of the difference between a psychic and a deliberate deviation.

The subject of this thread, however, is a deviation. Absent the regulation, it's a perfectly reasonable deviation; I'd be likely to do it playing those methods (in a Mid-Chart game here, of course). It's by no means a psychic; but if "this is a suitable deviation" is part of the agreement, it's an illegal agreement at level 3.

(*) In the last version of the Laws, "SPU" was "convention". It was pointed out, legitimately, that restrictions on some calls that were made were illegal, as the calls were not conventions (weak weak 2s, micro-NTs are the ones that come to mind, as they're the ones attempted to be enforced in Leftpondia). So the regulators came up with a way around the Law, which has been labelled the "Endicott Fudge" after the WBFLC (G. Endicott, Secretary) ruled it was perfectly legal and "why would we want to interfere in what local RAs think is good for the game in their area?": you can bid it, but you can't play any conventions afterward, even against a conventional defence, even unto the seventh round of the auction; and you can't psych it. Everybody knew that was just banning the non-convention by the back door, and it was bad PR, and many people who objected said "if this is what you want, admit to it and change the Law, don't hold it in contempt by these kind of end-runs". So they did. Now, RAs can label anything they want SPUs and ban them, rather than having to do the dance - but what used to be known as "conventions" are SPUs by default, and the RAs have to explicitly say that they're not. As a side note, it makes "single-system games" explicitly legal for the first time in history (not that anybody runs them except online, because what people who want "simple systems" want is actually "I want to play *my* toys, but don't want to have to bid against *his*.")

[Cascade]

PeterE, on Jun 5 2010, 12:38 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 4 2010, 07:12 AM, said:

To me it is at best moot whether a multi meets the definition of "special partnership understanding".

Maybe this resolves your doubts ...

Law 40 B1b said:

[...] A convention is included, unless the Regulating Authority decides otherwise, among the agreements and treatments that constitute special partnership understandings as is the case with any call that has an artificial meaning.

I knew I was making a mistake posting from an unfamilar machine without a lawbook handy. I shouldnt have been so lazy and downloaded one.

Nevertheless there are some problems with the law and the interpretation that any regulation is acceptable.

1. Convention is no longer defined by the laws

2. It is not completely clear that 40B1b is not subject to the conditions of 40B1a

3. There are obvious problems if the interpretation is that a regulation can override other laws. Hence I believe that regulations that do override laws are of dubious validity.

[campboy]

I guess it's simply a case of what measure of distance we are using. I think that a 3-point absolute difference is minor; you think that a 60% relative difference is gross. Either of these seems like a reasonable way of thinking, and the definition at the front of the lawbook doesn't really tell us which is more appropriate.

[zenko]

Now I get it why Eric Rodwell-Jeff Meckstroth have prominently displayed on the front side of their CC:
Judgement allowed in any situation.

And on the back side:
All points can be adjusted in any situation.

I used to find it kind of funny, I mean of course that judgement and adjustments are possible, why do you even need to spell it out?

Still I wonder is this kind of blanket disclaimer good enough to let you off the hook, especially if used by some mere plebeians?

[WellSpyder]

zenko, on Jun 8 2010, 10:09 AM, said:

I used to find it kind of funny, I mean of course that judgement and adjustments are possible,

Always possible, but not always legal!

Perhaps for EBU purposes we ought to say "Judgment/point-count adjustments allowed in any situation except where this is inconsistent with EBU regulations".

[peachy]

zenko, on Jun 8 2010, 10:09 AM, said:

Now I get it why Eric Rodwell-Jeff Meckstroth have prominently displayed on the front side of their CC:
Judgement allowed in any situation.

And on the back side:
All points can be adjusted in any situation.

I used to find it kind of funny, I mean of course that judgement and adjustments are possible, why do you even need to spell it out?

Still I wonder is this kind of blanket disclaimer good enough to let you off the hook, especially if used by some mere plebeians?

IMO, this name dropping of a pair from a different zone was completely unnecessary. It could be seen as praise for diligent and complete system disclosure but your followup
of is this kind of blanket disclaimer good enough to let you off the hook reveals you meant it as catching them doing something borderline.
Let us hope it is *I* who has not understood what the point of the name dropping was.

[mycroft]

campboy, on Jun 4 2010, 08:52 PM, said:

I guess it's simply a case of what measure of distance we are using. I think that a 3-point absolute difference is minor; you think that a 60% relative difference is gross. Either of these seems like a reasonable way of thinking, and the definition at the front of the lawbook doesn't really tell us which is more appropriate.

Sorry, this should be in the other thread...

I think that if you think that opening AKJ-seventh and out, even 7231, 1S because "it's a 3 point deviation from our 11-point openers", or you open a good 3352 12 with a 15-17 1NT because "it's a minor, 3-point difference", or you open AKJxxx AQxxx -- xx 1 Precision Club because "it's only 3 points off, and look at the distribution!" that you're going to have issues. In fact, if you think 3 points, even out of 20, is "minor", I think you're going to have *at least* a massive full disclosure issue, and partner issues.

I think 1 point is a minor deviation, 2 needs some major compensating factor; 3 is pretty much gross deviation barring insane distribution (or, conversely, massive knowledge that points are blanks. Note that that rarely applies to openings :-). In general, of course. I also believe that deviations that are "minor" with one call are "massive" with another, because of the way bridge is played and seen - which is why relativity is, to me, the way to go.

I also know that there are vocal pros that worry about unusual, "random" weak bids, especially because "they're never described fully enough that our side is in the same field as they are". I disagree with most of their suggested solutions, because most of them have some unsaid assumptions (which are probably accurate, but go after them then!) that if they are not true, the solution becomes totally unacceptable. But that doesn't mean we should give them a poster child for the discussions...

[mycroft]

zenko, on Jun 8 2010, 09:09 AM, said:

Now I get it why Eric Rodwell-Jeff Meckstroth have prominently displayed on the front side of their CC:
Judgement allowed in any situation.

And on the back side:
All points can be adjusted in any situation.

I used to find it kind of funny, I mean of course that judgement and adjustments are possible, why do you even need to spell it out?

Um, because this pair does it so much more often than "possible" that it's imperative that the opponents know it while listening to their auction, perhaps?

In other words, it's a special partnership understanding that they can only play if they disclose it according to the regulations of the RA under which they're playing, and they're following the Law.

[zenko]

mycroft, on Jun 8 2010, 12:36 PM, said:

zenko, on Jun 8 2010, 09:09 AM, said:

Now I get it why Eric Rodwell-Jeff Meckstroth have prominently displayed on the front side of their CC:
Judgement allowed in any situation.

And on the back side:
All points can be adjusted in any situation.

I used to find it kind of funny, I mean of course that judgement and adjustments are possible, why do you even need to spell it out?

Um, because this pair does it so much more often than "possible" that it's imperative that the opponents know it while listening to their auction, perhaps?

In other words, it's a special partnership understanding that they can only play if they disclose it according to the regulations of the RA under which they're playing, and they're following the Law.

Well that might be so, but in their "disclaimer" there is no mention at all about how frequently those deviations occur, and it can not be the base for any assumption how often that happens, and is that frequency below, or above of some imaginary average.

Or in another words, if you want to speculate about what prompted them to put it on their CC (for WBF events) why would not that be for example the severity or maybe atypical nature of those deviations, instead of its frequency?

In any case I think it is praise-worthy that they went that far in attempt to fully disclose their methods.

My question was would such disclosure helped in the case given above, i.e. would the director be more sympathetic if they opened weak two one point short or in some other similar, borderline case between following rigid rules and deviation from it based on bridge logic, if they had something like stated on their convention cards.

[Pict]

zenko, on Jun 8 2010, 01:03 PM, said:

In any case I think it is praise-worthy that they went that far in attempt to fully disclose their methods.

My question was would such disclosure helped in the case given above, i.e. would the director be more sympathetic if they opened weak two one point short or in some other similar, borderline case between following rigid rules and deviation from it based on bridge logic, if they had something like stated on their convention cards.

On your first point, it's good they have a convention card, and I don't know how much better/worse it is than other USA experts.

On your second point, I hope that generalisations that help their opponents would not be given any special weight by Directors.

[campboy]

mycroft, on Jun 8 2010, 06:33 PM, said:

I think that if you think that opening AKJ-seventh and out, even 7231, 1S because "it's a 3 point deviation from our 11-point openers", or you open a good 3352 12 with a 15-17 1NT because "it's a minor, 3-point difference", or you open AKJxxx AQxxx -- xx 1 Precision Club because "it's only 3 points off, and look at the distribution!" that you're going to have issues. In fact, if you think 3 points, even out of 20, is "minor", I think you're going to have *at least* a massive full disclosure issue, and partner issues.

Well, *I* don't have any such issues because I hardly ever psyche, and while I deviate occasionally it is pretty much never by more than a point. This is about how I classify other people's actions, not my own. Now perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "minor" -- which is the word the Orange Book uses as an antonym for "gross" -- and certainly three points is pretty major in the context of being considered a deviation, but if you want to call it a psyche it is a really baby one.

Now one of the reasons I wouldn't make any of the calls you discuss is that they are neither one thing nor the other -- too far away from what they are supposed to be to have an accurate auction afterwards, but not out-and-out psyches. I don't understand why anyone would want to make them, while I can at least understand the mentality that sometimes tries out a strong 1NT on a 6-count with a club suit -- though it is not my mentality.

And that is exactly why I think setting the bar between psyche and deviation at about 3 points difference is sensible -- you won't (I hope) see many actions which are borderline. All the deviations will be obviously deviations and all the psyches will be obviously psyches, and if some weirdo comes up with one of these in-between calls, well, it doesn't matter so much if we disagree on which type it is. After all, the real question is whether it is a genuine mis-description or whether in fact the pair has an implicit agreement that it is ok to open this hand; everything else is just semantics.