[Douglas43]

I'd like to hear from a TD on pilowsky's situation. To quote from David Stevenson's Duplicate Bridge Rules Simplified (2017 edition): [if] "the original call was a DEPARTURE from the partnership agreement, which had been correctly explained. In this case, the opponents ARE NOT entitled to a remedy..." [capitals as in original]

Unless I misunderstand Capaletti 2D= majors and pilowsky gave a correct explanation . Unless his partner took advantage of that information (no evidence that they did), or maybe pilowsky failed to bid a long major with a known "fit" then surely no remedy is due? Except maybe he owes them all a beer...

[mycroft]

If it was in fact a departure, then fine. However, there is no proof here that partner didn't think 2♦ showed diamonds. In fact, there is ample evidence (because everybody does this at least once) that since she was just learning Cappelletti, she forgot about it in the heat of the action.

The balance of probabilities is that their agreement is in practise "Majors, but partner until tonight has never played anything but natural, and this is the first NT opener this session." Since that was not the explanation given to the opponents, they were misinformed.

This is why I referenced L75D(2 and 3). There was no mutual understanding, and "If the Director determines that the call had no agreed meaning, an adjusted score is awarded based on the likely outcome had the opponents been so informed."

Another simplification of the Laws (this one by Blackshoe) is "you are entitled to their agreement, not the contents of their hands." But you are entitled to their *actual agreement*, not what he says it is, or what the book says it is, or what she wrote down in their system notes a month ago that partner didn't read, or what the written agreement has morphed into over time playing with this partner, or even "this is our agreement, but partner has forgotten 4 times I can remember. When he did, he had [other hand]". If their actual agreement isn't what the opponents received, they were misinformed; if this misinformation caused damage, it will be rectified. If they were given the correct agreement and the hand doesn't match, then there's no infraction and no rectification.

Making this determination, and explaining the choice made as politically as possible while still being clear and correct, is one of the hardest things a director is asked to do. Many don't, or can't, or don't bother and revert to the "fair" "A+/A- if hand doesn't match explanation", especially in the clubs.

[pilowsky]

 Douglas43, on 2021-January-04, 11:56, said:

I'd like to hear from a TD on pilowsky's situation. To quote from David Stevenson's Duplicate Bridge Rules Simplified (2017 edition): [if] "the original call was a DEPARTURE from the partnership agreement, which had been correctly explained. In this case, the opponents ARE NOT entitled to a remedy..." [capitals as in original]

Unless I misunderstand Capaletti 2D= majors and pilowsky gave a correct explanation . Unless his partner took advantage of that information (no evidence that they did), or maybe pilowsky failed to bid a long major with a known "fit" then surely no remedy is due? Except maybe he owes them all a beer...

To further clarify, my partner (South) bid 2♦ over 1NT by West. East asked "what does that mean after I alerted it. I replied "the majors". I knew that my partner must have made a mistake, but did not mention that (it was obvious to East and West as well if one can deduce anything from smirking - I try to avoid being a psychic - experience tells me that it will land you in trouble. People smirk for all sorts of reasons). I then bid 2♥. Opps then bid their way to 3NT and immediately called the Director when my partner laid down the ♦.

You could say that by taking advantage of the knowledge that a mistake had been made and then bidding into a 3NT contract with no stoppers in ♦ they were snookering us. I don't know exactly what sort of game that is, but it didn't sound like Bridge to me.

It's a funny thing, I can recall incidents like this in vivid technicolour, even the look on partners face, but I never remember with certainty what the opening lead is. In this case, I'm fairly sure it was the DA, followed by quite a few more D's.

[Douglas43]

The point isn't what pilowsky's partner thought 2D meant, it's what they agreed it meant. Did you have a convention card pilowsky?

[pilowsky]

 Douglas43, on 2021-January-06, 07:03, said:

The point isn't what pilowsky's partner thought 2D meant, it's what they agreed it meant. Did you have a convention card pilowsky?

This was FTF play in a small community club pre-COVID. Nobody routinely had convention cards. The Director, OTOH, was a hired gun from a much bigger club and was rather stern.
I did query the decision, but she produced a little book of rules and I immediately decided that discretion was the better part of valour.
Appropriate for me given that the proverb was uttered by Falstaff.

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2021-January-04, 13:08, said:

Making this determination, and explaining the choice made as politically as possible while still being clear and correct, is one of the hardest things a director is asked to do. Many don't, or can't, or don't bother and revert to the "fair" "A+/A- if hand doesn't match explanation", especially in the clubs.

Not sure I would describe a ruling that does not conform to the laws of bridge as "fair", even with the quotes. OTOH, club directors do all kinds of things they shouldn't, for all kinds of bad reasons. Laziness, for example.

[barmar]

 blackshoe, on 2021-January-07, 11:02, said:

Not sure I would describe a ruling that does not conform to the laws of bridge as "fair", even with the quotes. OTOH, club directors do all kinds of things they shouldn't, for all kinds of bad reasons. Laziness, for example.

I generally attribute it to a combination of ignorance (even if they read the Laws, they don't understand them fully), laziness, and utilitarianism (inexperienced players are likely to take more offense at what they perceive as an excessive penalty, and may be turned away from the game).

[mycroft]

Directing is a very difficult job. Some are better, or less lazy, or prioritise X over Y than others. Oddly enough, the referees in my "casual work league" indoor soccer event weren't as good as the MSL ones, and sometimes even made practical rulings that might not have been book perfect. Shocker. Especially when the pay is "you get your game tonight for free, you can apologize to partner later."

Club directing (especially when you are also the club owner) is also a very difficult job. One where the technical legal requirements come at least third place. Which, when I started club directing, I didn't understand, and I'm still not great at. I still would never want to own a club. I guarantee the rulings would be right(er) as it died, though.

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2021-January-07, 11:35, said:

I generally attribute it to a combination of ignorance (even if they read the Laws, they don't understand them fully), laziness, and utilitarianism (inexperienced players are likely to take more offense at what they perceive as an excessive penalty, and may be turned away from the game).

As my TD experience in clubs grows, I increasingly sympathise with mycroft here.
I don't agree with you that it is inexperienced players who are likely to take offence at what they perceive as an excessive penalty.
In my experience, inexperienced players expect penalties and are surprised they do not arrive, they are content if they can now learn what is right (that's the hard bit).
The players that take offence are those that have already got away with things for too long and now take it as a right.

[pigpenz]

Nicolas Hammond has listed all the illegal NT openings by players for acbl games.
this was done when he was running scripts for alleged cheating.

[pilowsky]

 pigpenz, on 2021-January-24, 13:21, said:

Nicolas Hammond has listed all the illegal NT openings by players for acbl games.
this was done when he was running scripts for alleged cheating.

It would be helpful if you could provide the reference as a hyperlink.
I need to see it as an official statement on ACBL letterhead before I believe it.
Is it a policy, protocol, or guideline (these are different things)?

[pigpenz]

it is not an ACBL linke but data culled by Nicolas Hammond's software for detecting cheating
here is the link to the statistics, just look in illegal nt openings.

https://www.detectin...tics/index.html

[pilowsky]

 pigpenz, on 2021-January-24, 19:12, said:

it is not an ACBL linke but data culled by Nicolas Hammond's software for detecting cheating
here is the link to the statistics, just look in illegal nt openings.

https://www.detectin...tics/index.html

So to be clear, when you said "Nicolas Hammond has listed all the illegal NT openings by players for acbl games."


You did not mean (when you said "for ACBL game" that these are the illegal 1NT openings 'as specified by the ACBL' -


You just mean what Nicholas Hammond thinks is correct.


Would you be kind enough to provide the actual ACBL position so that I do not 'offend'.


Thank you.

[pigpenz]

I am not an ACBL employee or do i represent them. I used to be a District Recorder.


These are hands that were culled out by his software to find 1NT openings in acbl games that
were done with a singleton non AKorQ. It may also include deficit point also.

But it DOES NOT REPRESENT what Nicolas Hammond thinks it only shows what his software was able to dig out
of the acbl bbo online data.

Originally when his project started was the amount of people who underlead Aces in suit contracts. It was very interesting
that some pairs might have 40-60 hands where they did this out of 1000 hands. and had a success rate that was way too hight.

Iknow I used DDS to check out hands by Jeff Meckstroth and in 1 month he had 1200 hands and only underlead an ace once against a suit contract.
So its all about taking the available data and looking at it.

could only find this link
http://web2.acbl.org...s/LCSFM2019.pdf

if appears that there is a regulation but no remedy had been stipulated...it comes up in
#5....maybe they have updated it but i couldnt find it anymore.

[pilowsky]

Thanks for that. Perhaps someone that actually represents the ACBL and knows what the real situation is could answer the question.

When you say that 'I am not an ACBL employee" and then say that you used to be "a District Recorder" are you claiming to speak authoritatively for the ACBL or are you claiming plausible deniability.

If Hammond uses a tool to 'discover something' and then publishes it, that is exactly the definition of what he thinks. If he did not think it he would not have published it.

Possibly you do not have enough knowledge of how research works to be aware of this. I don't know.

I can provide a useful reference that explains what it means if you think that you know something but are unaware of all the possible meanings. Write to me personally if you would like a copy.

[hrothgar]

 pilowsky, on 2021-January-25, 14:54, said:

Thanks for that. Perhaps someone that actually represents the ACBL and knows what the real situation is could answer the question.

When you say that 'I am not an ACBL employee" and then say that you used to be "a District Recorder" are you claiming to speak authoritatively for the ACBL or are you claiming plausible deniability.

If Hammond uses a tool to 'discover something' and then publishes it, that is exactly the definition of what he thinks. If he did not think it he would not have published it.

Possibly you do not have enough knowledge of how research works to be aware of this. I don't know.

I can provide a useful reference that explains what it means if you think that you know something but are unaware of all the possible meanings. Write to me personally if you would like a copy.

ACBL officials have already (clearly) ruled what does / does not constitute a legal 1NT opening.

At the level of the Basic and Basic+ chart, the relevant clauses are:

1. What constitutes a natural 1NT opening bid

Quote

A NT opening bid or overcall that contains no voids, no more than one singleton, which must be an ace, king, or queen, and that does not contain 10 or more cards in two suits combined.

2. The following metadata

Quote

Bidding Agreements are disallowed unless they are specifically allowed. If an Agreement would be disallowed unless it satisfies a specific High Card Point or shape requirement, a player may not use judgment to include hands with fewer High Card Points or a different shape. Note that almost all Agreements are allowed beginning with Responder’s initial action.

At the level of the Open Chart, the section on disallowed opening bids specific lists

Quote

4. *** A Natural 1NT opening bid that could contain fewer than 10 HCP.
5. *** A Natural 1NT opening bid that has a Range greater than 5 HCP.
6. A non-Forcing 1NT opening that does not meet the definition of Natural.

Simply put, the ACBL has already spoken authoritatively on this subject.
All that Hammond has done is automate detection routines to find cases in which various partnership

1. Opened 1NT with a stiff (not including the stiff A, K, or Q)
2. Opened 1NT with fewer than 10 HCPs (with some secondary logic around psychs)

I can provide a useful reference that explains the ACBL's convention regulations...

[pilowsky]

 hrothgar, on 2021-January-25, 15:15, said:

I can provide a useful reference that explains the ACBL's convention regulations...

Thank you - I always like to know what authorities think.

[mycroft]

Remember, of course:

• This applies to agreements. A bid is not illegal, only an agreement. When faced with evidence of an illegal agreement, it requires investigation to determine what is going on. Certainly, the onus can be put on the players if we wish; it's their job to prove they don't have that agreement, not ours to prove they do; but one swallow does not make a summer.
  
• The above especially applies in a L40A world. While you can't use "psych" to cover "we have an illegal agreement, so we'll claim all the evidence is psychic", you can in fact psych.
  
• I have at least 3 cases in my life (one partner, two opponents) of NT openings on a 7 or 8 card suit and a void. Guess whether that fit their agreement, or if there was another cause. Also, sometimes "I had a heart in my diamonds" is actually true.
  
• It has to be deliberate. "Yes, we have that agreement, it's perfectly legal where I play, I didn't know it wasn't here." while *wrong* and *won't deny redress*, is not cheating, unless they clearly avoided learning the rules (viz. several European pairs, and at least one American, playing Multi in pair games at NABCs in the last decade).

I have issues with the framing by Sr. Hammond. The bids are not illegal. On a site called "detecting cheating", that misphrasing is a problem. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be collecting and potentially publishing that information. When there's 5 or 6 by one player, that's certainly going to be a high barrier to climb attempting to prove they don't have this agreement, implicitly at least.

[hrothgar]

 mycroft, on 2021-January-26, 09:28, said:

Remember, of course:[list][*]This applies to agreements. A bid is not illegal, only an agreement. When faced with evidence of an illegal agreement, it requires investigation to determine what is going on. Certainly, the onus can be put on the players if we wish; it's their job to prove they don't have that agreement, not ours to prove they do; but one swallow does not make a summer.

I think that you are wrong on this.

If I have an agreement that I am playing a 10 - 12 HCP NT opening than the ACBL has ruled that opening 1NT on a 5332 9 count is not a psych.
And therefore, if I were to open 1NT on said 9 count, the choice to make this bid itself is illegal.

In a similar vein, suppose that I am playing a 15 - 17 HCP 1NT opening

I decide to open 1N on

♠ J
♥ KQT9
♦ AQJT9
♣ KT9

Here, once again, the ACBL has regulations that this hand can not psych 1NT.
The choice to make this bid itself is illegal in and of itself.

1NT openings are really common.
Its quite easy to look at 100 or so hands and understand what the pair's agreements are (Especially if they are announcing their range as they are supposed to)

And, it's just as easy to use this information to rule out bids that are legitimate psychs under the new regulations.

[pilowsky]

It turns out that the concept of all 1NT openings played in ACBL competition is false. Although why should the Forum allow facts to get in the way of a good opinion?
I have just looked through the relevant documents on the ACBL website and here is what I discovered:
Rules and regulations

http://bit.ly/ACBLalert2021
http://bit.ly/ACBLlaws2017
http://bit.ly/ACBLcommentary2017
Commentary updated in 2019

In none of these documents is it stated that a 1NT opening with a particular shape is illegal.

Here are some pertinent quotes:
"LAW18 A. Proper Form
A bid designates a number of odd tricks (tricks in excess of six), from one to seven, and a denomination. (Pass, double and redouble are calls but not bids.)"

"Law 40B1 and Law 40B2(a): An opening bid of 1NT and an opening bid of one in a suit, which by partnership agreement could show fewer than 8 high-card points, is designated a special partnership agreement. These two special partnership agreements are disallowed in all ACBL sanctioned events."
Nothing about shape here.

http://bit.ly/ACBLcharts2020
4. A Natural NT opening bid, as long as it shows at least 10 HCP and the Range is not greater than 5 HCP.
Again, nothing about shape.

It is possible that some people are confused because of the following information that I found in the Club Directors Handbook.

http://bit.ly/ACBLclubHandbook
If your notrump opening shows a balanced hand, you may occasionally pick up a hand with a singleton, which you may want to treat as balanced. You may use your bridge judgment to open or overcall a notrump with a singleton, provided that:
1. It is a rare occurrence (no more than 1% of the time) and,
2. Partner expects you to have at least two cards in each suit and,
3. You and your partner have no agreements which enable you to discover that partner has a singleton.

What this says is that it is only illegal IF you do it more than 1% of 1NT openings AND if you have an agreement aimed at working out whether or not the hand contains a singleton.

NOWHERE in any ACBL documents that I can find does it say:
A natural 1NT bid MUST contain etc.

I note that the rules were drawn up by the following committee:
The Laws Commission of the American Contract Bridge League
Chip Martel, Chairman
Adam Wildavsky,Vice Chairman
Peter Boyd
Eric Rodwell
Chris Compton
Rebecca Rogers
Allan Falk
Aaron Silverstein
Ron Gerard
Matt Smith
Robb Gordon
Roger Stern
Al Levy
Howard Weinstein
Matt Koltnow
www.acbl.org/about-acbl/administration/laws-commission/

It appears that the ACBL is systemically misogynistic.
As a person who grew up with a wife, two daughters, a mother and three sisters I find it disturbing that the rules are controlled by a small group with only one woman.
I'm pretty sure that women also play bridge. It is always my belief that in a situation where two people are arguing and one is a woman, then the woman is more likely to be right.

As Tony Fauci said (and any Doctor or person with scientific training will tell you). If you don't know the answer, just say "I don't know".

The ACBL also explains what humour is. And I quote:
"Humor
http://bit.ly/Humour1NT
A well-placed laugh can make it easier for your students to learn. It relaxes them and makes them more receptive to new information. The ideal time for a joke is when your class has been working hard and you need to break the tension a bit. In fact, there were a couple of lessons in this series where I found the need to tell TWO jokes. My class was working so hard on learning the new material. Yes, you can tell jokes – even if you've never been able to recall a punch line in the past, (trust me – I know this from personal experience). Write the joke down and review it before you tell it. Soon you will find yourself remembering jokes and being able to tell them in social circles. (I never would have believed it either.) Humor is very personal and a joke that one teacher is comfortable telling would embarrass another teacher, so it is wise to start a collection of jokes. Mark each one when you use it in a particular class. Don't be discouraged if some students find the joke the most important item in your lesson plan. I once had a student request the joke from a missed lesson but not the lesson sheet."

So, next time you are concerned about whether or not you are funny, check with the ACBL.
Remember though, it is important to collect your jokes and test them on others to make sure that they laugh, and that they DO NOT contain any singletons or voids. At least none that the audience can discover.