[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-27, 07:12, said:

My understanding is the ACBL treat -1 or -2 points as a deviation, with -3pts as psychic - so yes, 7hcp against an advertised strength of 10-15 is a "gross misstatement" of strength. On length, a difference of 1 card from the advertised length is a deviation, 2 cards difference represents a psyche. Other authorities have different ways of handling these matters.

OK. Isn't it common to open a 9 count in 3rd? I have a problem with classifying a hand that is one point fewer than the minimum as a psyche. I have a feeling that this pair have a habit of sailing very close to the wind.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2017-November-27, 08:32, said:

OK. Isn't it common to open a 9 count in 3rd?

It is but then you are actually playing 9-15 rather than 10-15 and should explain it as such. Deviations are meant to be unusual actions outside of normal agreements, not a way of covering your tracks to the opponents and/or regulators.

Vampyr, on 2017-November-27, 08:32, said:

I have a problem with classifying a hand that is one point fewer than the minimum as a psyche.

In the ACBL at least, 3 points below the stated minimum is the borderline for a psyche as per the previous post. However, if you play a 10-12 1NT then deviating by even a single point will land you in hot water assuming you also play conventional responses of some kind. There is a parallel i WBF events too, with (last I heard) agreement to open a gambling 3♠ on ♣♦AKQxxxx and out being strictly prohibited (9hcp being below average strength) unless declared as a BSC.

So yes, 1hcp can make a big difference in certain cases but usually deviating by 1hcp is perfectly acceptable providing it is unusual. If it is your norm to open such hands hen this should be declared as the agreed range rather than a deviation. In some cases this makes the agreement itself illegal, which is sufficiently good reason for many pairs not to be completely honest in this area.

This in the end is rather tha point. Many players would like to agree to open hands below 8hcp but the regulations often prohibit this. So they do it anyway and just pretend that their real range is 8+. The RAs and TDs know that this is going on but usually turn a blind eye to it. My view is that the solution here is to remove from the regulations the artificial minimum requirements for 3rd and 4th seat openings. Whether such a move happens in my lifetime though seems doubtful (and that is really a completely separate thread).

Vampyr, on 2017-November-27, 08:32, said:

I have a feeling that this pair have a habit of sailing very close to the wind.

This reference took me back to the OP and I notice that the name there is Indian. Unfortunately the BFI website believes that Masterpoint totals are more important than playing conditions and I was unable to find the relevant system regulations there. Perhaps someone else will have better luck.

[nige1]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-27, 07:12, said:

My understanding is the ACBL treat -1 or -2 points as a deviation, with -3pts as psychic - so yes, 7hcp against an advertised strength of 10-15 is a "gross misstatement" of strength. On length, a difference of 1 card from the advertised length is a deviation, 2 cards difference represents a psyche. Other authorities have different ways of handling these matters.

IMO, most system-regulations should be scrapped. Failing that:

• Bridge-rules shouldn't allow 'psychic' 'deviation' from minimum opening-bid requirements.
• Most aspects of system-regulation would benefit from simpler tighter definition

[Cthulhu D]

Yeah, the rules that say you can

A) Do something but only if;
B) You have not discussed/agreed the thing

are all terrible and should be scrapped. Either it should be banned or legalised. The ambiguity they create cannot be resolved.

[helene_t]

Cthulhu D, on 2017-November-27, 20:39, said:

Yeah, the rules that say you can

A) Do something but only if;
B) You have not discussed/agreed the thing

are all terrible and should be scrapped. Either it should be banned or legalised. The ambiguity they create cannot be resolved.

I tend to agree (with the exception that I wouldn't punish something that is clearly a missort or a beginner's mistake) but it seems to be a holy cow that
a) we need system restrictions
b) psychs must be allowed

As for the issue of this thread, I think the regulators just need to scrap the strength requirements for 3rd seat (semi)natural openings since they obviously don't want to enforce them anyway.

[Cthulhu D]

helene_t, on 2017-November-27, 21:45, said:

I tend to agree (with the exception that I wouldn't punish something that is clearly a missort or a beginner's mistake) but it seems to be a holy cow that
a) we need system restrictions
b) psychs must be allowed

As for the issue of this thread, I think the regulators just need to scrap the strength requirements for 3rd seat (semi)natural openings since they obviously don't want to enforce them anyway.

Yeah, the solution is to ban psyches or relax system restrictions - or realistically a mix of both.

[Vampyr]

Cthulhu D, on 2017-November-27, 20:39, said:

Yeah, the rules that say you can

A) Do something but only if;
B) You have not discussed/agreed the thing

are all terrible and should be scrapped. Either it should be banned or legalised. The ambiguity they create cannot be resolved.

Yes, it seems that if you have ever had a situation and then discussed the hand afterwards in the bar, you have an agreement and have no option but inaction the next time the situation occurs. You will never finish another duplicate session again.

Last night, my partner and I were doing the bid em ups from the latest issue of English Bridge magazine. On one of the hands both opponents made insufficient bids. Under Norwegian or ACBL regulations, would we have been required to skip that hand without comment?

[barmar]

Cthulhu D, on 2017-November-27, 20:39, said:

Yeah, the rules that say you can

A) Do something but only if;
B) You have not discussed/agreed the thing

are all terrible and should be scrapped. Either it should be banned or legalised. The ambiguity they create cannot be resolved.

That's not what the rules say.

If you've agreed the thing, it becomes part of your system that you have to disclose to partner -- you're not allowed to have secrets about your agreements. But there are some things you're not allowed to have in your agreed system in the first place.

You're allowed to psych because it should be just as much a surprise to partner as opponents. If you do it often enough that partner isn't surprised (and might even cater to it in his bidding) then it becomes an implicit agreement, which must be disclosed and must conform to system regulations.

[blackshoe]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-27, 07:12, said:

My understanding is the ACBL treat -1 or -2 points as a deviation, with -3pts as psychic

That is not my understanding. Can you provide any official documentation?

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-27, 07:12, said:

- so yes, 7hcp against an advertised strength of 10-15 is a "gross misstatement" of strength.

7 HCP is a king below the agreed minimum. I would not call it a gross misstatement, and I don't think the ACBL does either. 6, OTOH, qualifies.

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-27, 07:12, said:

On length, a difference of 1 card from the advertised length is a deviation, 2 cards difference represents a psyche. Other authorities have different ways of handling these matters.

Maybe. It might depend on other factors. AKQJ looks like a five card suit to me, and AKQJ10 looks like six. But if a one card difference is a deviation, there isn't much room for deviations based on length, is there? :-(

As for other authorities, what can I say but "of course"?

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-27, 07:12, said:

"Very Light" only appears on the ACBL CC as far as I know, where it is defined as aggressive, light bidding "as a matter of course, not just now and then" on hands that most players would not, with an example given for a very light preempt of ♠92 ♥T ♦862 ♣Q876543. The question is then obviously what the minimum is for "most players". Presumably this is a moving level though, so what is "very light" now might not be in 10 years' time.

"Very light" also appears twice in the WBF guidelines for filling out a CC. There there is afaik no definition given but the context makes it clear that this should be taken to mean "much lighter than normal", for some reasonable definition or "normal" (the example given being responses to an opening bid of less than 3hcp).

I submit that you pulled that definition out of some dark place. Under a rock, perhaps. IAC, I've not seen the term defined anywhere except in your post. Can you give an official reference?

I suspect that "light" and "very light" are going to be very different to pin down.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2017-November-28, 11:46, said:

You're allowed to psych because it should be just as much a surprise to partner as opponents. If you do it often enough that partner isn't surprised (and might even cater to it in his bidding) then it becomes an implicit agreement, which must be disclosed and must conform to system regulations.

And what if the resulting implicit agreement does not conform to system regulations? Do you:-

a. dissolve the partnership;
b. change to a completely different bidding system so as to avoid the unwanted agreement (switching between Symmetric Relay and 2/1, say);
c. keep the original agreements and promise the RA's CTD the life of your first born child if either of you ever make this specific psyche again; or
d. pretend it never happened and conceal the PU?

[Cthulhu D]

barmar, on 2017-November-28, 11:46, said:

That's not what the rules say.

If you've agreed the thing, it becomes part of your system that you have to disclose to partner -- you're not allowed to have secrets about your agreements. But there are some things you're not allowed to have in your agreed system in the first place.

You're allowed to psych because it should be just as much a surprise to partner as opponents. If you do it often enough that partner isn't surprised (and might even cater to it in his bidding) then it becomes an implicit agreement, which must be disclosed and must conform to system regulations.

And this is precisely the bit I am saying is terrible. If I think it's tactically optimal to open very light third in I'm allowed to do it, but only if I don't share this view with my partner, not all the time and the threshold isn't defined (No more than once a month? Once a session? Once a year? Once every 10 hands?).

Yeah, this is super bad. Either it should be allowed, or it should be banned. A reasonable criteria here is that a ban/rule should be:

A) Enforcable - you can reliably detect the breach of the rules
B) Discrete - you can clearly define the breach of the rules.
C) Warranted - it's necessary for the health of the game to have the rule.

These 'It's banned, but you can do it sometimes, as long as you don't do it to often' fail the 'Discrete' and 'Enforceable' tests. If you want to ban opening light in third seat by partnership agreement because it's bad for the game (fine), there needs to be an enforceable and discrete standard about light openings in third seat.