[Cascade]

Scoring: IMP

PASS (PASS) 1♠

---

The relevant event disallowed HUM systems in the first two rounds. This was the first round.

How do you handle this as director when a player claims that their opponents may have an illegal, possibly implicit, agreement?

[helene_t]

Unless light openings in 3rd seat are explicitly exempted then I suppose it is illegal to do so unless there is evidence that it is a deviation from partnership agreements, but I thought an adjustment of 1 HCP is generally allowed. This hand has some shape and some intermediates so it's ok.

More interesting if the hand had been substantially weaker but in practice people never get punished for opening on KQxxx and out in 3rd seat.

[Cascade]

The regulation and hence the boundary is:

"An opening bid at the one level that may be made on high card strength a king or more below that of an
average hand (i.e., 0-7 HCP and insufficient compensating distributional values)."

So the question is:

Is a singleton and/or a five-card suit sufficient compensating values?

[semeai]

I know nothing of ABF rules, but presumably one hand is not enough to conclude there's an agreement. Did they admit they regularly opened this sort of hand or was there some egregious fielding of this psyche?

[jeremy69]

Quote

How do you handle this as director when a player claims that their opponents may have an illegal, possibly implicit, agreement?

I ask some questions and if I conclude that they would open many hands like this and would respond acting for that possibility then I would probably deal with it in whatever way the regulations require (scrap board and award some imps to the other side unless it has been played at the other table with an exceptionally good result?). On the other hand if they rarely did this and the other hand had not taken it into account then I would not dream of adjusting.

[zenko]

3rd seat superlight non-vul opening? What a bizarre idea! Isn't Drury invented precisely for handling it?

Honestly wouldn't it make more sense to requre pairs who do NOT do those to state that on their CCs?

[peachy]

If it were first or second seat, there is something to investigate. Not-vul in third seat, everybody and their dog the world over frequently opens light in third seat. If I were the TD, I would gently explain this general bridge knowledge to the opponents.

This is not HUM unless the event or the national regulation says so and says that third seat is subject to same regulation as any other seat, or something to that effect. [I don't know].

Edit: If the pair's agreement for 1M opening was 8+ then this isn't even "light" because the shape is good, and the spots are good. If the agreement was 12+ then this is light, but normal for third seat in common general bridge standards.

[dan_ehh]

A 3rd seat light opening is a method which is employed by a substantial percentage of the bridge world (if you can even consider this a "method"), and almost all expert players in the world. How can this be considered a highly unusual method?
Isn't it common bridge knowledge that a 3rd seat openings can be light?

[blackshoe]

The TD has to investigate. That means asking questions and, after gathering whatever evidence he can, making a judgment. Absent the results of such investigation, and without knowing the ABF's guidance (if there is any) on this particular situation, I would say this does not look like an illegal agreement to me, as I think that a stiff and a five card suit is "adequate compensating distributional values" in third seat.

[campboy]

peachy, on Jun 13 2010, 07:20 PM, said:

If it were first or second seat, there is something to investigate. Not-vul in third seat, everybody and their dog the world over frequently opens light in third seat. If I were the TD, I would gently explain this general bridge knowledge to the opponents.

This is not HUM unless the event or the national regulation says so and says that third seat is subject to same regulation as any other seat, or something to that effect. [I don't know].

Why on earth should the regulation need to specifically say that it includes the third seat? I would think rather that it applies equally to all seats unless it says otherwise.

[peachy]

campboy, on Jun 13 2010, 01:38 PM, said:

peachy, on Jun 13 2010, 07:20 PM, said:

If it were first or second seat, there is something to investigate.  Not-vul in third seat, everybody and their dog the world over frequently opens light in third seat.  If I were the TD, I would gently explain this general bridge knowledge to the opponents. 

This is not HUM unless the event or the national regulation says so and says that third seat is subject to same regulation as any other seat,  or something to that effect. [I don't know].

Why on earth should the regulation need to specifically say that it includes the third seat? I would think rather that it applies equally to all seats unless it says otherwise.

Interesting.
Then, the whole world is in violation of whatever the regulation is that they play under, when they open light in third seat [except in ACBL ] if the regulation does not mention third seat light openings.

[mjj29]

peachy, on Jun 13 2010, 01:54 PM, said:

Interesting.
Then, the whole world is in violation of whatever the regulation is that they play under, when they open light in third seat [except in ACBL ] if the regulation does not mention third seat light openings.

No, everyone opens lighter than they have agreed for other seats, however, normally their agreements are 4 points better than the legal minimum, so opening 3rd seats light by 3 points still meets the legal minimum.

In the EBU 1-level openings must be a minimum of 8 points and also meet the rule of 19 (first and second) or just 8 points (third and fourth), Here, the regulations already make allowances for lighter openings in 3rd and while they aren't much lower than the minimum in first, that is not a problem unless you are already making very light openings.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jun 14 2010, 06:21 AM, said:

The TD has to investigate. That means asking questions and, after gathering whatever evidence he can, making a judgment. Absent the results of such investigation, and without knowing the ABF's guidance (if there is any) on this particular situation, I would say this does not look like an illegal agreement to me, as I think that a stiff and a five card suit is "adequate compensating distributional values" in third seat.

Where would you put the boundary?

[blackshoe]

I think this hand is pretty darn close. Give it no stiff, or any points at all in the short suit, and I'd call it over the line.

[Cascade]

zenko, on Jun 14 2010, 05:37 AM, said:

3rd seat superlight non-vul opening? What a bizarre idea! Isn't Drury invented precisely for handling it?

Honestly wouldn't it make more sense to requre pairs who do NOT do those to state that on their CCs?

Are you saying that Drury is a psychic control?

Not just in the ABF but also in WBF tournaments and many jurisdictions that model their regulations on the WBF regulations there is a requirement that opening bids be within a king of an average hand with some allowance for distribution. If you do not meet this requirement then by definition you are playing a HUM.

The regulations are difficult to interpret because of the distributional requirement which does not set a clear boundary.

The regulations make no attempt to distinguish third seat from any other seat.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jun 14 2010, 10:33 AM, said:

I think this hand is pretty darn close. Give it no stiff, or any points at all in the short suit, and I'd call it over the line.

Interestingly or curiously the regulations do not made any allowance for the location of honours nor for the presence of intermediates they only mention distributional values.

I suppose obtusely one could argue that the location of honours is the "distribution" of those honours but I am not convinced that that is even close to the intention of the regulation.

[blackshoe]

Cascade, on Jun 13 2010, 06:34 PM, said:

Are you saying that Drury is a psychic control?

This is an interesting question. It certainly fits my conception of the term. Yet in the ACBL, at least, Drury is explicitly allowed on the GCC. I've wondered whether this means that, in effect, you are not allowed to psych a 3rd seat major suit opening, but I don't know the official position on it.

[dan_ehh]

campboy, on Jun 13 2010, 09:38 PM, said:

peachy, on Jun 13 2010, 07:20 PM, said:

If it were first or second seat, there is something to investigate.  Not-vul in third seat, everybody and their dog the world over frequently opens light in third seat.  If I were the TD, I would gently explain this general bridge knowledge to the opponents. 

This is not HUM unless the event or the national regulation says so and says that third seat is subject to same regulation as any other seat,  or something to that effect. [I don't know].

Why on earth should the regulation need to specifically say that it includes the third seat? I would think rather that it applies equally to all seats unless it says otherwise.

Because the bridge logic of 1st seat and the bridge logic of 3rd seat are entirely different.
Different positions require different regulations (or so I believe anyway).

I believe that light openings at 3rd seat cannot be classified as an agreement, because they are part of general bridge knowledge. If they cannot be classified as an agreement, they cannot be an illegal agreement.
Remember that these light openings are either made for the lead, or to throw off the opponents. In which case, the implicit agreement that you might want to attribute to them is... "we may open light on 3rd seat if we wish to direct partner's lead, and sometimes we may also psyche in 3rd seat". Isn't this pretty much equal to "we play bridge"?

If this suddenly becomes illegal per some interpretation of regulation, the whole game will change. Do we really want that?

[bluejak]

dan_ehh, on Jun 13 2010, 07:21 PM, said:

A 3rd seat light opening is a method which is employed by a substantial percentage of the bridge world (if you can even consider this a "method"), and almost all expert players in the world. How can this be considered a highly unusual method?
Isn't it common bridge knowledge that a 3rd seat openings can be light?

No doubt. But that hardly seems relevant. If I open a 4333 11 count in third seat playing Acol I have opened light.

To say "because it is well known that many people open light in third seat means that an opening so light as to be illegal is allowed" sounds like tosh to me.

If there is a minimum for an opening then that minimum applies, third seat or no.

Cascade, on Jun 13 2010, 11:34 PM, said:

zenko, on Jun 14 2010, 05:37 AM, said:

3rd seat superlight non-vul opening? What a bizarre idea! Isn't Drury invented precisely for handling it?

Honestly wouldn't it make more sense to requre pairs who do NOT do those to state that on their CCs?

Are you saying that Drury is a psychic control?

Some people play Drury as a psychic control: most people do not.

[bluejak]

dan_ehh, on Jun 14 2010, 12:17 AM, said:

campboy, on Jun 13 2010, 09:38 PM, said:

peachy, on Jun 13 2010, 07:20 PM, said:

If it were first or second seat, there is something to investigate.  Not-vul in third seat, everybody and their dog the world over frequently opens light in third seat.  If I were the TD, I would gently explain this general bridge knowledge to the opponents. 

This is not HUM unless the event or the national regulation says so and says that third seat is subject to same regulation as any other seat,  or something to that effect. [I don't know].

Why on earth should the regulation need to specifically say that it includes the third seat? I would think rather that it applies equally to all seats unless it says otherwise.

Because the bridge logic of 1st seat and the bridge logic of 3rd seat are entirely different.
Different positions require different regulations (or so I believe anyway).

I believe that light openings at 3rd seat cannot be classified as an agreement, because they are part of general bridge knowledge. If they cannot be classified as an agreement, they cannot be an illegal agreement.
Remember that these light openings are either made for the lead, or to throw off the opponents. In which case, the implicit agreement that you might want to attribute to them is... "we may open light on 3rd seat if we wish to direct partner's lead, and sometimes we may also psyche in 3rd seat". Isn't this pretty much equal to "we play bridge"?

If this suddenly becomes illegal per some interpretation of regulation, the whole game will change. Do we really want that?

It is not general bridge knowledge that players ignore the regulations so it is legal: it just is not legal. And no, insisting the rules are followed does not change the game.