[mrdct]

 gnasher, on 2012-March-19, 09:28, said:

... it's generally understood that additional shape can be treated as making up for a deficiency in high cards.

Is that a true statement? I thought the whole idea (albeit misconceived) about having system regulations that constrain partnership agreements about weak twos, be that "Rule of 15" or "can't play conventional responses if your range is >x", is to provide certainty and protection to opponents such that they will know what they dealing with when you open a weak two and that can only really be provided if "points" are based on A=4, K=3, Q=2 and J=1. Under the "Rule of 15" I think it's quite clear that the intent is that "points" are actual high-card points as the distributional aspects of hand evaluation are built into the rule. However, the ACBL 7-point range requirement for a weak two that has conventional responses is less clear in terms of whether you can count your distributional points.

At the end of the day, it's all about proper disclosure and not having concealed partnership understandings. In the OP's case, which is in a jurisdiction where there are no restrictions on two-level openings, all that is required is that the partnership agreements be properly disclosed. If you open 3 or 4 counts at certain vulnerability and/or positions, you need to disclose that to your opponents and I don't think "6 cards 6-10hcp" adequately encompasses such an agreement.

[Vampyr]

 mrdct, on 2012-March-19, 19:28, said:

However, the ACBL 7-point range requirement for a weak two that has conventional responses is less clear in terms of whether you can count your distributional points.

There is no substitute for looking it up! The range is 7HCP.

[gnasher]

 MrAce, on 2012-March-19, 14:26, said:

In my understanding, in order to talk about an "imlicit agreement " a repeated deviation from the system MUST ALSO form a pdship METHOD. Not JUDGEMENT or STYLE"

No, that's not what it means. It means that if you deviate repeatedly it automatically becomes a partnership method.

Quote

And EVEN if it becomes an implicit agreement, TD's action will be based on the damage, and that damage has to be done by the pdship undisclosed METHOD.

That's not strictly true - failing to disclose an agreement is against the rules, and therefore subject to penalty. Also, your implicit agremeent may also be an illegal agreement.

However, you're right that the main consequence of not disclosing your agreements is that it may damage the opponents. But that's exactly what we're talking about. The arguments in this thread are, in essence:
"Everyone knows that '5-9' doesn't really mean '5-9'."
"No they don't. If someone reads '5-9' and that doesn't accurately describe your methods, you mislead them and you may damage them."

[gnasher]

 MrAce, on 2012-March-19, 18:07, said:

I didnt understand it either, i also didnt understand where OP is explicitly seeking other juristrictions than ACBL.

I dunno if the regulation about range x-y in a cc differs in ACBL from WBF, but the law about " Deviation from system " is exactly the same.

http://www.worldbrid...lcode/Law40.asp

The Laws are (almost) the same everywhere. Regulations about what systems you can play vary by jurisdiction. What you quoted in your previous post were Laws.

I agree with Mgoetze about one thing: the ACBL's system regulations are completely irrelevant. Even if your implicit agremeents mean that you are playing an agreement that's not allowed, you still have to disclose that agreement.

[MrAce]

 gnasher, on 2012-March-20, 03:17, said:

No, that's not what it means. It means that if you deviate repeatedly it automatically becomes a partnership method.

Thats where i am having hard time to understand it, how many times repeat is considered to be a pdship method ? It doesnt say that.

Also it doesnt match with how they define the "pdship methods" Shortly it seems to me that there are still a lot of "unclear" statements in there. And i think thats why they leave it to TD's judgement to decide whether it was a deviation from system or undisclosed pdship method. Unless of course there is a proper recording and filing these incidents. Do they have the ability to do that ? I am asking because as i said to you before i havent been playing live bridge for long years now.

For the other post you made, i am very well aware that there is no way to get away from procedural penalty even if opponents are not damaged. I was refering to the decision about a board result.

[gnasher]

 MrAce, on 2012-March-20, 04:45, said:

Thats where i am having hard time to understand it, how many times repeat is considered to be a pdship method ? It doesnt say that.

That's specified in the laws. If it happens often enough for his partner to have "more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents", it has to be disclosed.

Quote

Also it doesnt match with how they define the "pdship methods" Shortly it seems to me that there are still a lot of "unclear" statements in there. And i think thats why they leave it to TD's judgement to decide whether it was a deviation from system or undisclosed pdship method. Unless of course there is a proper recording and filing these incidents. Do they have the ability to do that ? I am asking because as i said to you before i havent been playing live bridge for long years now.

The laws are often criticised for a lack of clarity, but I don't think this is particulary unclear. If you do something often enough for your partner to be aware of it, it's part of your system. If it's part of your system, the opponents are entitled to know it.

How the rules are enforced varies by jurisdiction. However, for an individual player there's no need to worry about that. If you disclose your methods properly, there will never be any need to know any more. That means:
- Give the real range.
- If the range varies according to vulnerability or position, say so.
- If only some hands in the given range are included, say so.
- Once you've accurately described the range, you may realise that your methods are illegal. If so, change them,

(I should add that not all of my convention cards do all of this, but they will do shortly.)

[bluejak]

 mrdct, on 2012-March-19, 19:28, said:

At the end of the day, it's all about proper disclosure and not having concealed partnership understandings.

Not solely. There is also a view that it is unfair to be allowed to play anything you want, so another matter is being allowed to play things.

In the case of weak twos the EBU have no restrictions, so you can play them as 4+ cards, 0-3: you can play them as 7+ cards, 8-12 [ok, maybe you call those "weak to intermediate"] and you can play them as 5+ cards, 0-11. In the EBU your statement is correct in the case of weak twos.

However, in the ACBL there is a regulation which I believe to be out of date [though I am told I did not mean the words I used: curious, I thought I did] which would make the first and last method unplayable since no artificial responses are allowed thereafter. This is complicated by the fact that no-one is really sure whether opening a suitable hand out of range makes it illegal to use artificial methods thereafter or not.

So we have two problems where describing weak twos with point ranges are concerned: Full Disclosure and legality.

[blackshoe]

I don't know what you mean by "out of date", David, but the current GCC was published in January 2012. The regulation in question is there.

[aguahombre]

 blackshoe, on 2012-March-20, 09:21, said:

I don't know what you mean by "out of date", David, but the current GCC was published in January 2012. The regulation in question is there.

 bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 11:37, said:

Most hilarious.

When the game of bridge changes but the regulation does not keep up with the change, it is out of date.

I patched in his answer to my earlier question along the same lines. Seems his reply would be the same to both of us.

[blackshoe]

Well, I guess that would have to be taken up with the Competition and Conventions Committee.

[MrAce]

I have a question, to those who believes they must fill the CC with 3-9 hcp, even if they rarely open with 3-4 hcps.


Lets say i am playing a long match, i held 4 hcps and 6 card major which i didnt open. And then 4-5 boards later i had another 3 hcp hand with 6 card major i didnt open again. My opponents recognized this and calls TD. They claim that i took different action than whats written in my CC 2 times, and both times they were declaring and while they are declaring they thought (after seeing my 6 card major during the play) i am out of 3-9 hcp (or i would open weak 2 lets say) range while now they believe this is obviously not the case. And that they wer edamaged, had they known i could not have 3-4 hcps, their play would be more accurate etc etc...

What am i supposed to say to TD or to my opps ?

Also is this considered sort of "repeated deviation from system" ? Does that mean TD can think that now it is repeated in 1 match, it has been our pdship method and an implicit agreement, so we should correct out CC before the next round back to 5-10 ?

I mean we debated here all about the bids that falls out of the range, but not about the bids that falls in the range and not been used, repeatedly. Or is that mean this is considered as player's judgement/style ? If so, why can not it apply also the the bids that falls out of range ?

[AlexJonson]

 MrAce, on 2012-March-20, 13:12, said:

I have a question, to those who believes they must fill the CC with 3-9 hcp, even if they rarely open with 3-4 hcps.


Lets say i am playing a long match, i held 4 hcps and 6 card major which i didnt open. And then 4-5 boards later i had another 3 hcp hand with 6 card major i didnt open again. My opponents recognized this and calls TD. They claim that i took different action than whats written in my CC 2 times, and both times they were declaring and while they are declaring they thought (after seeing my 6 card major during the play) i am out of 3-9 hcp (or i would open weak 2 lets say) range while now they believe this is obviously not the case. And that they wer edamaged, had they known i could not have 3-4 hcps, their play would be more accurate etc etc...

What am i supposed to say to TD or to my opps ?

Also is this considered sort of "repeated deviation from system" ? Does that mean TD can think that now it is repeated in 1 match, it has been our pdship method and an implicit agreement, so we should correct out CC before the next round back to 5-10 ?

I mean we debated here all about the bids that falls out of the range, but not about the bids that falls in the range and not been used, repeatedly. Or is that mean this is considered as player's judgement/style ? If so, why can not it apply also the the bids that falls out of range ?

Seems an excellent point to me.

[mgoetze]

Personally I tend to write "(3)6-10 points" on my convention cards. What I mean to convey is that I will open pretty much any 6-10 point hand with appropriate shape 2M, but only some 3-5 point hands, the latter possibly depending on vulnerability.

[MrAce]

 mgoetze, on 2012-March-20, 14:07, said:

Personally I tend to write "(3)6-10 points" on my convention cards. What I mean to convey is that I will open pretty much any 6-10 point hand with appropriate shape 2M, but only some 3-5 point hands, the latter possibly depending on vulnerability.

Bro, that came to my mind too.

Here is where i get confused. As i said in my first post in this topic, i dont really open these type of hands strictly based on vulnerability but rather strategy, state of match etc etc. I may open QJT9xx x xxx xxx in first seat R/R also if i need we need some sort of boost in the match, or if i just made a doubled partscore previous board to go for the throat and put another punch in opponents lower ribs and finish em right there. You know what i am saying ?

But on the other hand i dont really wanna fool my opponents and lead them to think that i am a maniac premptor. Because indeed i rarely do this. Like not more than 4-5 times a year when i was playing activeley. I never counted but when u play actively live bridge, i think a person makes at least 200 preempts a year ? Idk to be honest in which % my 4-5 times very unusual (unusual to my style) falls in. Thats why i say to my opps, briefly and vocal " I may make a preempt once in a while but usually i am within our range, and my pd is always in our range" (Back then my pd was indeed a sound preemptor)

But i like the idea of writing (3)x-y type of range where in parentheses shows a very low frequency.

[gnasher]

 MrAce, on 2012-March-20, 13:12, said:

I have a question, to those who believes they must fill the CC with 3-9 hcp, even if they rarely open with 3-4 hcps.

Who are you hoping will answer? I don't remember anyone arguing that.

[Vampyr]

 MrAce, on 2012-March-20, 13:12, said:

I have a question, to those who believes they must fill the CC with 3-9 hcp, even if they rarely open with 3-4 hcps.

You have said that you believe that (3)5-9 is correct. It is even legal in the ACBL. Are you not now satisfied?

[phil_20686]

 MrAce, on 2012-March-20, 13:12, said:

I have a question, to those who believes they must fill the CC with 3-9 hcp, even if they rarely open with 3-4 hcps.


Lets say i am playing a long match, i held 4 hcps and 6 card major which i didnt open. And then 4-5 boards later i had another 3 hcp hand with 6 card major i didnt open again. My opponents recognized this and calls TD. They claim that i took different action than whats written in my CC 2 times, and both times they were declaring and while they are declaring they thought (after seeing my 6 card major during the play) i am out of 3-9 hcp (or i would open weak 2 lets say) range while now they believe this is obviously not the case. And that they wer edamaged, had they known i could not have 3-4 hcps, their play would be more accurate etc etc...

This was discussed extensively starting with post 49.

[MrAce]

 gnasher, on 2012-March-20, 16:08, said:

Who are you hoping will answer? I don't remember anyone arguing that.

I really didnt understand that, i thought a lot of people here stated that if 3 hcp is something that i use, regardless of its frequency , then it should be written on cc as 3-9. So you can go head and answer my question, if i fill the cc with 3-9 while i actually play 5-10 vast majority of the time, do the bids that i didnt make, which falls in 3-9 range, considered also as deviation from the system ?

I think you are the one who is supposed to answer this, since you seem to think that THE LAW is very clear on this particular issue. Which i disagree.

I disagree because while THE LAW is clear about "undisclosed agreements" it is not clear about "overstated diclosure" (is this a good a good name for it ? i just made it up) which may also damage the opponents and imo it is related. They could have solved this with a smart suggestion just like Mgoetze did, but they didnt, so its not clear. In fact i dont see anything about the issue i stated.

Also, to me THE LAW serves a purpose, and should not be in conflict with the purpose it serves to. Whether you agree with me or not, i or someone else may argue that the way it is arranged and written has some conflict with its purpose. While obviously the law is trying to protect players from undisclosed agreements, it seems to me that it totally ignores the damage that was created by "overstated disclosure"

Don't get me wrong, whether i agree with THE LAW or not, when i decide to play live bridge again (if ever) , i will of course follow it. But that doesnt mean i can not disagree with this part of the law in a forum. Unless of course you think that what i have been arguing is totally irrelevant and just waste of time, you are entitled to your opinions of course.

 Vampyr, on 2012-March-20, 16:25, said:

You have said that you believe that (3)5-9 is correct. It is even legal in the ACBL. Are you not now satisfied?

I haven't said that (3)5-9 is correct, i said i liked this idea, idk if it is legal or not, if it is acceptable or not. It had nothing to do with my satisfaction either since i dont even play live bridge as i repeated so many times already.

[MrAce]

 phil_20686, on 2012-March-20, 17:00, said:

This was discussed extensively starting with post 49.

Which post 49 ?

Ohh sry, nevermind i found.

Seems like i totally ignored it because i was focused on the posts that i was quoted to, my bad, ty bro.

[gnasher]

 MrAce, on 2012-March-20, 17:18, said:

I really didnt understand that, i thought a lot of people here stated that if 3 hcp is something that i use, regardless of its frequency , then it should be written on cc as 3-9.

So show us the posts where people said that. I'm not saying there aren't any - I haven't reread them all - but I can't remember anyone saying that.

Or just address your questions to the entire world.

Quote

if i fill the cc with 3-9 while i actually play 5-10 vast majority of the time, do the bids that i didnt make, which falls in 3-9 range, considered also as deviation from the system ?

I would consider it misleading and therefore a breach of the rules.

You aren't required to shoehorn your style into two numbers and a hyphen. There are lots of ways that you can describe a loose style without misleading the opponents, for example:
"(3)5-10"
"5-10 (occasionally as weak as 3 NV)"
"5-10, plus some 4- and 3-counts NV"
"3-10 1st NV; 5-10 1st vul/2nd; up to 12 3rd"
"Typically 5-10, but can be as weak as 3 with good shape"
"Weak, wide range"
"Weak, strength varies - please ask"
"Weak, strength varies - see attached sheet"

Quote

I think you are the one who is supposed to answer this, since you seem to think that THE LAW is very clear on this particular issue. Which i disagree.

The thing that I think is completely clear is that it's wrong to write "6-10" on your card when you have an implicit agreement to open x A108xxx xxx 108x, and it's even more wrong to write "5-10" when you have an implicit agreement to open QT9xxx x xxxx xx.

I don't think it needs a detailed knowledge of the rules to recognise that this is likely to mislead opponents, and is therefore something that you should not do. However, if you want a legal justification, it's explained in these parts of Law 40:
"Partnership understandings as to the methods adopted by a partnership may be reached explicitly in discussion or implicitly through mutual experience or awareness of the players."
"Each partnership has a duty to make available its partnership understandings to opponents before commencing play against them. The Regulating Authority specifies the manner in which this shall be done."
"A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents. Repeated deviations lead to implicit understandings which then form part of the partnership’s methods and must be disclosed in accordance with the regulations governing disclosure of system."

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2012-March-21, 02:46