[mgoetze]

shevek, on 2012-March-04, 20:15, said:

She looked at the EW system card and read "2♥ weak, 6-cd suit, 6-10 pts"

mrdct, on 2012-March-05, 05:01, said:

if your system card says 6-10hcp

It doesn't, apparently. Not everyone considers "pts" to be the same thing as "hcp".

[Phil]

When it comes to preempts, hand evaluation is very subjective. Regardless of the ACBL's 7 point rule, I really see nothing wrong with opening a hand like QT9xxx x xxxx xx w/r in 1st seat, and also opening KJ9xxx Qx KJx Jx r/w as well, but marking "5-10".

[blackshoe]

Doing so is perfectly legal - provided you use no conventions afterwards. If you do use conventions afterwards, you are using an illegal method, and if called, the TD should rule accordingly.

[gnasher]

Phil, on 2012-March-16, 20:18, said:

When it comes to preempts, hand evaluation is very subjective. Regardless of the ACBL's 7 point rule, I really see nothing wrong with opening a hand like QT9xxx x xxxx xx w/r in 1st seat, and also opening KJ9xxx Qx KJx Jx r/w as well, but marking "5-10".

You don't believe in accurately disclosing your methods then? You might treat the first hand as being worth a 3-count, but calling it a 5-count is ridiculous.

If it's systemic to open QT9xxx x xxxx xx in some positions, the opponents are entitled to know that. If you claim to be playing "5-10", some opponents will be decieved by that. If they are, your breach of the rules will have gained you an advantage. Is that what you want? And do you know what we call someone who knowingly breaks the rules, knowing that it may bring him an advantage?

It sounds as though you play your weak two bids as approximately 3-9 first at favourable, and 5-10 first at adverse. If so, you should say so on your convention card.

[keeper2]

Wasn't there a case discussed on these forums some time ago where Chip Martel, a prominent member of the relevant ACBL committee, playing with his wife, opened a 3HCP weak two (outside their stated range, which was limited by the regulation), claiming it was simply a deviation from the agreement and the ruling went in his favor...

[Vampyr]

keeper2, on 2012-March-17, 15:37, said:

Wasn't there a case discussed on these forums some time ago where Chip Martel, a prominent member of the relevant ACBL committee, playing with his wife, opened a 3HCP weak two (outside their stated range, which was limited by the regulation), claiming it was simply a deviation from the agreement and the ruling went in his favor...

Did the opponents appeal? It seems to me that a 7-point range is a 7-point range, and if it's not then there should be no such regulation.

Then there is the mis-disclosure... perhaps the director was somewhat in awe of the Martels.

[blackshoe]

The rule is that pairs are not allowed to have an agreement that a weak two could be opened on a greater than 7 point range. Martel argued that it wasn't an agreement, he deviated from the agreement. The TD bought it. The question is whether the TD would have bought the argument had it not been Chip Martel.

[aguahombre]

I would be more likely to buy it from someone else. This is not a slur on Chip; his rep is beyond reproach. It is an observation of this preempts.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-17, 16:22, said:

The rule is that pairs are not allowed to have an agreement that a weak two could be opened on a greater than 7 point range. Martel argued that it wasn't an agreement, he deviated from the agreement.

Well. I am reminded once again of the quote in post #14...

[blackshoe]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-17, 16:41, said:

I would be more likely to buy it from someone else. This is not a slur on Chip; his rep is beyond reproach. It is an observation of this preempts.

If there are easily obtainable records of his preempts, including the frequency of the deviations, then something might be done. Absent evidence, though, nothing will be done. Nor should it. Of course, every player should be treated the same in this regard. Are they?

[Phil]

gnasher, on 2012-March-17, 04:25, said:

You don't believe in accurately disclosing your methods then? You might treat the first hand as being worth a 3-count, but calling it a 5-count is ridiculous.

As long as the league makes me put a range on the cc and that range (or is it difference?) cannot exceed six points without some consequences, then if I have to put two numbers in a box, it will be 5 to 10. I agree, "3 to 9" is a better w/r description, and if there were multiple choices depending on vulnerability like there is for NT openings, then the problem would be solved.

I do not feel like I play anything out of the ordinary.

BTW, K and R calls QT9xxx x xxxx xx 4.8.

[aguahombre]

I have no idea about frequency of deviation. My comment was from observing as an opponent and on Vugraph over a significant period. Five to the nine-spot in the suit and a couple quacks outside, etc. These certainly have become possible maneuvers in the eyes of his partners. I don't have any idea if they meet the standard for agreement, and also don't have any knoweledge of how often his total point count is below the stated range.

That is why TD's get the big bucks

[barmar]

I assume most of your observing on Vugraph was when Chip was playing with Lew. Do his tendencies with Lew have any bearing on his agreements when playing with Jan?

[aguahombre]

barmar, on 2012-March-17, 19:38, said:

I assume most of your observing on Vugraph was when Chip was playing with Lew. Do his tendencies with Lew have any bearing on his agreements when playing with Jan?

Yes. She is a pretty smart person. That doesn't mean he does the same thing with both partners, but the knowledge of his tendencies in certain situations certainly has a bearing. I did not say the TD's ruling was wrong, nor did I attribute an agreement which might not meet the qualifications for an agreement.

I do believe that Chip might have a greater problem convincing a TD than others would; and apparently he succeeded in doing so. I also believe that the TD was not swayed by the fame and stature of the person....maybe the respect that Chip would tell it like it is.

I was replying to the question by Blackshoe: "The question is whether the TD would have bought the argument had it not been Chip Martel." And the answer is maybe not, if the other person were not as reputable...and maybe more so, if the person did not have Chip's reputation re: preempts.

[gnasher]

Phil, on 2012-March-17, 17:36, said:

As long as the league makes me put a range on the cc and that range (or is it difference?) cannot exceed six points without some consequences, then if I have to put two numbers in a box, it will be 5 to 10. I agree, "3 to 9" is a better w/r description, and if there were multiple choices depending on vulnerability like there is for NT openings, then the problem would be solved.

There is room on the ACBL convention card for specying multiple ranges for weak twos. Even if there weren't, you could put "See below" or "See attached sheet", and put the detailed ranges somewhere else. Or you could write "Please ask". Anything is better than writing something that you know may mislead the opponents.

Quote

I do not feel like I play anything out of the ordinary.

So what? What we're discussing is whether you personally are properly and fairly disclosing your methods.

You've just told us that you describe a bid as "5-10" when in fact you play it as 3-9. I don't understand why you would do this. You obviously enjoy bridge, care about the game, and believe it should be played fairly, except that in this one situation you appear to think it's OK to knowingly misdescribe your methods.

Suppose that an opponent misguessed trumps because he'd read "5-10" on your card and didn't understand that you might have an ordinary 3- or 4-count, or an exceptional 2-count. What on earth would you say to him?

Quote

BTW, K and R calls QT9xxx x xxxx xx 4.8.

That's because it adjusts for the presence of a six-card suit and, to a lesser extent, concentration of values in the long suit. The evaluation of 4.8 is to distinguish it from QT9x xxx xxxx xx, which it makes 2.2. Similarly, it evaluates KQJxxx xx xxx xx as 8.10.

When you describe something as "5-10 with a six-card suit", the six-card suit is assumed. It doesn't mean "5-10 with a six-card suit, counting 2.5 points for the long suit."

[RMB1]

blackshoe, on 2012-March-17, 16:22, said:

The rule is that pairs are not allowed to have an agreement that a weak two could be opened on a greater than 7 point range. Martel argued that it wasn't an agreement, he deviated from the agreement. The TD bought it. The question is whether the TD would have bought the argument had it not been Chip Martel.

I think the practical effect of such a regulation is to limit proper disclosure. Instead of accurately describing an agreement that may include some 3HCP and some 10HCP, the agreement will be described as 5-9 and instances outside that range will be dismissed as deviations, when they are in fact systemic.

[Vampyr]

RMB1, on 2012-March-18, 05:09, said:

I think the practical effect of such a regulation is to limit proper disclosure. Instead of accurately describing an agreement that may include some 3HCP and some 10HCP, the agreement will be described as 5-9 and instances outside that range will be dismissed as deviations, when they are in fact systemic.

Still, every NBO has regulations pertaining to what may and may not be played. Players are required to obey these regulations, even if they feel the regulations are bonkers.

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2012-March-18, 03:55, said:

Suppose that an opponent misguessed trumps because he'd read "5-10" on your card and didn't understand that you might have an ordinary 3- or 4-count, or an exceptional 2-count. What on earth would you say to him?

Deviation from system, of course

But anyway, i disagree with you. Of course the frequency matters but people who say they open with 2-3 hcp preempts, do it very rarely. Imo it is not fair to write to cc 3-9 when actually 2-4 hcp preempts are made VERY rarely and will mislead opponents more often than vice versa. If someone wants to gain advantage, writing the wider range on cc is the way to go. Not the opposite.

But i dont see Phil saying that this is their pdship agreement. I dont see him saying "i agreed with pd that we can open these hands" As long as his pd acts as if he opened 5-10, and as long as they dont have an agreement how to be careful at these colors, i dont see why what he wrote on cc would be systemic or unsatisfacory disclosure ?

For example myself, i play with pds who would never ever open a QJT9xx x xxx xxx in first seat in equal vulnerability. Thats a rare situation i myself open. Should i write on cc that my preempts are 3-9 ? Because this may be a leading my opponents to think that we make these crazy preempts often enough to put on cc, since those are very rare situations, and they maybe made due to the state of the match, strategy etc. and my pd will always act like i have 5 to 10 hcp. By opening this hand i am taking some amount of RISK since my pd and i have no agreement about how to carefully handle this if things go wrong. In return i may have gains too as you said someone may misguess a finesse or whatever..And i dont think this is as unfair as u think it is.

Otoh i am not a MP player, i play long team games, and i usually tell my opponents about our non std actions and wen they occur etc, briefly b4 we start playing.

[Cascade]

MrAce, on 2012-March-18, 16:31, said:

For example myself, i play with pds who would never ever open a QJT9xx x xxx xxx in first seat in equal vulnerability. Thats a rare situation i myself open. Should i write on cc that my preempts are 3-9 ? Because this may be a leading my opponents to think that we make these crazy preempts often enough to put on cc, since those are very rare situations, and they maybe made due to the state of the match, strategy etc. and my pd will always act like i have 5 to 10 hcp. By opening this hand i am taking some amount of RISK since my pd and i have no agreement about how to carefully handle this if things go wrong. In return i may have gains too as you said someone may misguess a finesse or whatever..And i dont think this is as unfair as u think it is.

If one opens QJT9xx x xxx xxx by partnership agreement, explicit or implicit, while disclosing that the range is 5-10 hcp with the hope of some gain from the opponents misguessing a finesse then to me that is a deliberate act of cheating. I believe this position is plainly backed up by the laws and regulations.

Yes QJT9xx x xxx xxx is low frequency but low frequency is not something to hide behind in your obligations to proper disclosure.

Frankly it sickens me that there are players with this attitude that it is proper to hide information from the opponents in the hope of inducing an advantage to their own side.

[MrAce]

Cascade, on 2012-March-18, 17:54, said:

If one opens QJT9xx x xxx xxx by partnership agreement, explicit or implicit, while disclosing that the range is 5-10 hcp with the hope of some gain from the opponents misguessing a finesse then to me that is a deliberate act of cheating. I believe this position is plainly backed up by the laws and regulations.

Yes QJT9xx x xxx xxx is low frequency but low frequency is not something to hide behind in your obligations to proper disclosure.

Frankly it sickens me that there are players with this attitude that it is proper to hide information from the opponents in the hope of inducing an advantage to their own side.

I think your language here is what sickens me. You are accusing me of something that i dont deserve. You are incapable of understanding what is written.

In which part of my post did i say this is a pdship agreement ? I specifically mentioned that my pds play it 5-10 and they think i open in this range. And that there are times i personally deviate from this agreement and open this hand, and that i do it rarely. Which part of this was too hard to understand ? Which part of "By opening this hand i take RISK" you did not understand or read ? Which part in my post that says "i briefly inform my opponents about non std actions" you did not understand ?

Chip Martel's incident is a good proof that you are wrong also about how laws and regulations apply

Anyway, reading is required pal, or you say things that makes u write ridicilious accusations.

MrAce, on 2012-March-18, 16:31, said:

Deviation from system, of course

But anyway, i disagree with you. Of course the frequency matters but people who say they open with 2-3 hcp preempts, do it very rarely. Imo it is not fair to write to cc 3-9 when actually 2-4 hcp preempts are made VERY rarely and will mislead opponents more often than vice versa. If someone wants to gain advantage, writing the wider range on cc is the way to go. Not the opposite.

But i dont see Phil saying that this is their pdship agreement. I dont see him saying "i agreed with pd that we can open these hands" As long as his pd acts as if he opened 5-10, and as long as they dont have an agreement how to be careful at these colors, i dont see why what he wrote on cc would be systemic or unsatisfacory disclosure ?

For example myself, i play with pds who would never ever open a QJT9xx x xxx xxx in first seat in equal vulnerability. Thats a rare situation i myself open. Should i write on cc that my preempts are 3-9 ? Because this may be a leading my opponents to think that we make these crazy preempts often enough to put on cc, since those are very rare situations, and they maybe made due to the state of the match, strategy etc. and my pd will always act like i have 5 to 10 hcp. By opening this hand i am taking some amount of RISK since my pd and i have no agreement about how to carefully handle this if things go wrong. In return i may have gains too as you said someone may misguess a finesse or whatever..And i dont think this is as unfair as u think it is.

Otoh i am not a MP player, i play long team games, and i usually tell my opponents about our non std actions and wen they occur etc, briefly b4 we start playing.