[pran]

hrothgar, on 2018-May-24, 09:08, said:

If this is true, then responder would never expect that a weak 2 bid that promises 6 cards could be made with 5, in which case opening with 5 is clearly a violation of system and therefore legal as a psyche.

If opening with a 5 card suit when 6 is supposed is a violation of an agreement then it is legal (provided partner is unaware of such habit), but if it is (also) a violation of a regulation then it is illegal. A 1 card deviation in length can hardly ever be called a "gross" deviation.

[barmar]

pran, on 2018-May-24, 14:47, said:

If opening with a 5 card suit when 6 is supposed is a violation of an agreement then it is legal (provided partner is unaware of such habit), but if it is (also) a violation of a regulation then it is illegal.

This is simply not true. The regulation restricts the agreements you're allowed to have, not your bidding.

[pescetom]

@pran: as @barmar said, a psych is just a big deviation : it seems unduly creative to sustain that one cannot make a small deviation from a regulation but can make a large one :-)

[blackshoe]

The law says you're allowed to deviate from your agreements. A regulation that says you're not allowed to do that is illegal and invalid.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-May-25, 11:04, said:

The law says you're allowed to deviate from your agreements. A regulation that says you're not allowed to do that is illegal and invalid.

I believe ACBL (like WBF and EBL) has regulations stating (for instance) that a hand must satisfy specific limits on strength (e.g. "a King below average", "a King above average", "the law of 20" - whatever that is - and so on) for certain calls to be legal.

Are you saying that players are free to deviate just one HCP from such limitations at their own discretion?

I have more or less retired from directing now, but if my memory serves me right then such deviations here will automatically cause the call to be classified as a Brown Sticker.

Greater deviations will allow the call to be classified as a psyche.

[hrothgar]

pran, on 2018-May-25, 13:00, said:

I believe ACBL (like WBF and EBL) has regulations stating (for instance) that a hand must satisfy specific limits on strength (e.g. "a King below average", "a King above average", "the law of 20" - whatever that is - and so on) for certain calls to be legal.

Yes and no...

There are some bids in ACBL land where there is an explicit floor regarding the minimum strength for an opening hand.
An artificial Precision style 1D opening is the prototypical example.

There is one such bid - an opening 1NT - where the ACBL explicitly states that

"This bid is different from all the others. You must have a minimum of 10 HCPs to open this hand AND you may not apply judgement to upgrade an exception 9 count"
(Please note, I am paraphrasing)

The fact that the ACBL calls the 1NT out as being special means that this is separate and distinct from other such bids.

[pran]

hrothgar, on 2018-May-25, 14:14, said:

Yes and no...

There are some bids in ACBL land where there is an explicit floor regarding the minimum strength for an opening hand.
An artificial Precision style 1D opening is the prototypical example.

There is one such bid - an opening 1NT - where the ACBL explicitly states that

"This bid is different from all the others. You must have a minimum of 10 HCPs to open this hand AND you may not apply judgement to upgrade an exception 9 count"
(Please note, I am paraphrasing)

The fact that the ACBL calls the 1NT out as being special means that this is separate and distinct from other such bids.

Thanks.
Where I play the fundamental rule is that when a regulation says must then that regulation is non-negotiable.
Apparently when ACBL says "must" then players are free to deviate from the regulation (for cause) at their own discretion unless ACBL has explicitly stated that the regulation is non-negotiable?

Odd.

(Note that I am discussing regulations, not agreements.)

[hrothgar]

pran, on 2018-May-25, 15:56, said:

Thanks.
Where I play the fundamental rule is that when a regulation says must then that regulation is non-negotiable.
Apparently when ACBL says "must" then players are free to deviate from the regulation (for cause) at their own discretion unless ACBL has explicitly stated that the regulation is non-negotiable?

The ACBL is a weird place.

Edgar Kaplan preferred to create a system that provided him with as much flexibility to "interpret" the laws a possible.

As such, very little is documented in any concrete manner and our written documentation is nonsensical and contradictory.
(The new convention charts that we are adopting in November are actually a dramatic improvement)

[blackshoe]

Regulating authorities regulate agreements. Therefore, regulations about bidding are about agreements.

[jfnrl]

blackshoe, on 2018-May-25, 22:11, said:

Regulating authorities regulate agreements. Therefore, regulations about bidding are about agreements.

As far as I understand the WBF's philosophy, real bids show what real agreements are. If you bid 2D with the hand of the OP, your real agreement is "I promise 6cM, but from time to time, I may have only 5 cards".
If you bid 2D with 5cM and 9HCP, you are guilty of using a prohibited agreement (in France).

[blackshoe]

How did you arrive at this understanding? If that truly is the case, then the WBF doesn't understand their own laws. You are permitted to deviate from agreements, so long as you don't do it too often. If you do it too often, you create a new understanding, but if you don't, you don't. So "you did it once, so you have an understanding" is BS.

[barmar]

jfnrl, on 2018-May-26, 09:07, said:

As far as I understand the WBF's philosophy, real bids show what real agreements are. If you bid 2D with the hand of the OP, your real agreement is "I promise 6cM, but from time to time, I may have only 5 cards".
If you bid 2D with 5cM and 9HCP, you are guilty of using a prohibited agreement (in France).

If what you actually bid defines your agreements, then the whole notion of "deviation" doesn't exist, since you can't deviate from your actual actions.

So there's clearly a distinction between agreements and actions. Most of the time your actions will accord with your agreements, but occasionally they won't. As long as the same deviation doesn't come up too often, it doesn't change your agreements.

[pran]

barmar, on 2018-May-26, 14:10, said:

If what you actually bid defines your agreements, then the whole notion of "deviation" doesn't exist, since you can't deviate from your actual actions.

So there's clearly a distinction between agreements and actions. Most of the time your actions will accord with your agreements, but occasionally they won't. As long as the same deviation doesn't come up too often, it doesn't change your agreements.

I have a feeling that we all agree with this.
What is not clear is: When is a deviation legal and when is it not?

For a call to be classified as a psyche it must be a deliberate and gross misstatement of honour strength and/or of suit length (Definitions).

Law 40A3 said:

A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).

and says nothing about psyches except that it refers to law 40C1 which indeed concerns psyches:

Law 40C1 said:

A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings, provided that his partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation [but see B2(a)(v) above]. 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. If the Director judges there is undisclosed knowledge that has damaged the opponents he shall adjust the score and may assess a procedural penalty.

It seems to be a privilege for a player to have a deviation from agreements accepted as a psyche. Not every deviation (even if deliberate) qualifies, the deviation must be "gross".

So when is a deviation that is not acceptable as a psyche legal?

[blackshoe]

When the bidder's partner has no more reason to expect it than the opponents do. Law 40C1 is not just about psyches.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-May-26, 17:40, said:

When the bidder's partner has no more reason to expect it than the opponents do. Law 40C1 is not just about psyches.

So what is the purpose of defining (or even mentioning) psyches at all in the laws?

Considering that a psyche by definition always is a deviation, when the bidder's partner has no more reason to expect the deviation than the opponents:
Is there any time
a: a deviation is forbidden unless it is also a psyche?
b: a deviation is forbidden only when it is also a psyche?

[blackshoe]

No. Yes (when it is a psych of an artificial call and psyching that call is prohibited by regulation).

But I don't understand your point. You seem fixated on psychs, and all I have said is that deviations that are not psychs follow the same rules as deviations that are psychs, except that 40B2v applies only to psychs, and not to other deviations.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-May-27, 10:12, said:

No. Yes (when it is a psych of an artificial call and psyching that call is prohibited by regulation).

But I don't understand your point. You seem fixated on psychs, and all I have said is that deviations that are not psychs follow the same rules as deviations that are psychs, except that 40B2v applies only to psychs, and not to other deviations.

I have been under the impression that the distinction in the laws between deviations from agreements and psyches is there for a reason. Our discussion makes me wonder.

Say that a partnership agreement is to use transfer bids over partner's 1NT opening bid, e.g. that 2D in this position promises (at least) 5 hearts.
By definition in the laws transfer bids are artificial.

Say that a player "deviates" from this agreement by bidding 2D (surprising partner as well as opponents)
a: holding only 4 hearts (e.g. xxxx). This deviation is not "gross", is not a psyche, and can thus never be forbidden by regulation.
b: holding only 3 hearts (e.g. AKQ). This deviation is indeed "gross", is a psyche, and may thus be forbidden by regulation?

I am fixed on possible reasons for distinguishing between deviations in general and psyches in particular, and after our discussion fail to see any real reason (other than possibly historical from the childhood of bridge)? Do we really need such distinction?

(A teacher once instructed us when analyzing problem situations to create extreme, but possible examples and see what effect would be the result. I have many times found this advice very useful.)

[blackshoe]

The usual purpose, as I understand it, of a psych is to induce error in the opponents' bidding or play. The usual purpose, again as I understand it, of a deviation is to, as Max Hardy put it, make "the least worst bad bid".

The lawmakers could, I suppose, eliminate the whole concept of psychs and simply say that any deviation wrt an artificial call is subject to both the rules regarding undisclosed agreements (which is already the case) and the rule on regulating artificial calls (prohibiting any deviation, for example). But they haven't. Seems to me it would come dangerously close to prohibiting judgment, and I don't think we want to go there.

This discussion has gone far from "simple ruling". If we're going to continue it, I'm going to have to move or split the thread.

[pran]

blackshoe, on 2018-May-27, 11:34, said:

The usual purpose, as I understand it, of a psych is to induce error in the opponents' bidding or play. The usual purpose, again as I understand it, of a deviation is to, as Max Hardy put it, make "the least worst bad bid".

The lawmakers could, I suppose, eliminate the whole concept of psychs and simply say that any deviation wrt an artificial call is subject to both the rules regarding undisclosed agreements (which is already the case) and the rule on regulating artificial calls (prohibiting any deviation, for example). But they haven't. Seems to me it would come dangerously close to prohibiting judgment, and I don't think we want to go there.

This discussion has gone far from "simple ruling". If we're going to continue it, I'm going to have to move or split the thread.

Or better just end it.
Thanks

[pescetom]

pran, on 2018-May-27, 11:06, said:

Say that a partnership agreement is to use transfer bids over partner's 1NT opening bid, e.g. that 2D in this position promises (at least) 5 hearts.
By definition in the laws transfer bids are artificial.

Say that a player "deviates" from this agreement by bidding 2D (surprising partner as well as opponents)
a: holding only 4 hearts (e.g. xxxx). This deviation is not "gross", is not a psyche, and can thus never be forbidden by regulation.
b: holding only 3 hearts (e.g. AKQ). This deviation is indeed "gross", is a psyche, and may thus be forbidden by regulation?

pran, on 2018-May-27, 12:18, said:

Or better just end it.

I would appreciate (from others) a clear answer to your example before ending the discussion.
As I understand, your case (a) can never be forbidden by regulation and case (b) can because it is a psyche of an artificial bid.
Is this right?