[TimG]

Cascade, on Jul 4 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to play a system where 1NT is 10-12 HCP but from time to time to deviate and open an occasional 9 HCP hand.

Of course if a player writes down 10-12 HCP when in reality they have a partnership agreement to open all or many or some 9 HCP hands then that is also not legal.

Playing a 10-12 1NT and agreeing that some 9 HCP hands should be upgraded is just what you say is not legal in your last paragraph "a partnership agreement to open some 9 HCP hands".

[cherdanno]

Cascade, on Jul 4 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 5 2009, 01:51 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 4 2009, 01:39 AM, said:

... and just why should upgrading be disallowed?

ACBL's convention charts have many references to HCP. Like it or not (I'm in the "not" camp) this is the evaluation technique essentially made official by the ACBL. If there is a regulation that says "no conventions after a 1N opening which, by partnership agreement, may be made with a hand containing fewer than 10 HCP" then players should not be able to get around this regulation by saying their range is 10-12 and choosing to "upgrade" certain 9 HCP hands.

This really isn't a question of "upgrading" but rather of prescribed evaluation method.

The laws of bridge specifically allow me to deviate from my system.

This is legal whether the deviation is 1 HCP or 6 HCP or 10 HCP or whatever.

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to play a system where 1NT is 10-12 HCP but from time to time to deviate and open an occasional 9 HCP hand.

No. If you do it from time to time, then it will constitute an implicit agreement. This agreement is illegal in the ACBL.

[Sadie3]

The difficulty comes in knowing when a pair has crossed over into the implicit agreement stage. That is why it is important to report all "psyches" even though you will get the stock answer that psyches are allowed per law 40. If a pair is reported every time they psyche, a pattern emerges. ...and the decision that a pair has crossed over is open to interpretation by the TD involved as well.

[hrothgar]

Sadie3, on Jul 5 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

The difficulty comes in knowing when a pair has crossed over into the implicit agreement stage.  That is why it is important to report all "psyches" even though you will get the stock answer that psyches are allowed per law 40.  If a pair is reported every time they psyche, a pattern emerges.  ...and the decision that a pair has crossed over is open to interpretation by the TD involved as well.

How delightfully naïve...

Pray tell: What do you think happens when you go off and report a psyche?
Do have some bizarre notion that the director goes and files this information somewhere?
Do honestly believe that this information will ever see the light of day again?

Best case scenario: The director will come over to the table, listen to your tales of woe, look concerned, and pretend to care. 10 minutes later, he'll have forgotten this ever happened.

I recommend trying a little experiment: Next time you're at an event, ask the director whether he he has any ability to actually look at any of these recorder forms. Simply put, if the directors don't have the ability (and inclination) to consult these forms, then they aren't worth a plugged nickle.

[TimG]

I know from experience that there are some recorders who keep track of psyches and even speak to players about it. No, a director will not have access to the records when he comes to the table to rule, but that doesn't mean the recorder process let's everyone slide.

I do not mean to suggest that the process is at all efficient.

[Cascade]

cherdanno, on Jul 5 2009, 11:21 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 4 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 5 2009, 01:51 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 4 2009, 01:39 AM, said:

... and just why should upgrading be disallowed?

ACBL's convention charts have many references to HCP. Like it or not (I'm in the "not" camp) this is the evaluation technique essentially made official by the ACBL. If there is a regulation that says "no conventions after a 1N opening which, by partnership agreement, may be made with a hand containing fewer than 10 HCP" then players should not be able to get around this regulation by saying their range is 10-12 and choosing to "upgrade" certain 9 HCP hands.

This really isn't a question of "upgrading" but rather of prescribed evaluation method.

The laws of bridge specifically allow me to deviate from my system.

This is legal whether the deviation is 1 HCP or 6 HCP or 10 HCP or whatever.

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to play a system where 1NT is 10-12 HCP but from time to time to deviate and open an occasional 9 HCP hand.

No. If you do it from time to time, then it will constitute an implicit agreement. This agreement is illegal in the ACBL.

The laws stop short of saying that.

Rather than the "will" in your quote they say "lead to".

It seems strange to me that while some have a rigid opinion about 9 HCP 1NT openings 7 HCP and fewer 1-level openings in third seat are common practice among experts even at world championships that disallow HUM systems (e.g. one-level openings with a king or more below average).

The laws are very unclear about when the boundary is crossed from deviation to implicit agreement.

To me it would certainly be possible to make many such deviations before necessarily crossing the boundary. It would also be possible for others with only a few deviations to create an implicit agreement e.g. 'we always open 1NT with 9 HCP and a five-card suit (balanced)' as some do with 14 HCP and a 15-17 HCP 1NT.

The key is if there is a discernable pattern then there might be an implicit agreement if there is no pattern then I think it would be difficult to cogently argue that there is an implicit agreement. I mean if I open some particular 9 HCP on a whim as a deviation this should be allowed especially if there is no guarantee I will open the same or a similar hand next time.

[Cascade]

TimG, on Jul 5 2009, 09:51 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 4 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to play a system where 1NT is 10-12 HCP but from time to time to deviate and open an occasional 9 HCP hand.

Of course if a player writes down 10-12 HCP when in reality they have a partnership agreement to open all or many or some 9 HCP hands then that is also not legal.

Playing a 10-12 1NT and agreeing that some 9 HCP hands should be upgraded is just what you say is not legal in your last paragraph "a partnership agreement to open some 9 HCP hands".

Yes but I did not say there was any agreement about the potential deviations.

[TimG]

Cascade, on Jul 5 2009, 12:11 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 5 2009, 09:51 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 4 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to play a system where 1NT is 10-12 HCP but from time to time to deviate and open an occasional 9 HCP hand.

Of course if a player writes down 10-12 HCP when in reality they have a partnership agreement to open all or many or some 9 HCP hands then that is also not legal.

Playing a 10-12 1NT and agreeing that some 9 HCP hands should be upgraded is just what you say is not legal in your last paragraph "a partnership agreement to open some 9 HCP hands".

Yes but I did not say there was any agreement about the potential deviations.

I don't think you had to say it, I think it is simply an implicit partnership agreement. Your contention that you might somehow randomly pick 9 HCP hands to deviate with doesn't really do anything for me. Given the regulations in place in ACBL (barring the use of conventions after a 1NT opening which may be made on fewer the 10 HCP) the old guideline/rule about establishing an agreement seems reasonable to me.

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Jul 5 2009, 06:10 AM, said:

It seems strange to me that while some have a rigid opinion about 9 HCP 1NT openings 7 HCP and fewer 1-level openings in third seat are common practice among experts even at world championships that disallow HUM systems (e.g. one-level openings with a king or more below average).

Two points:
- It is not clear to me if the requirement that a 1NT opening should promise at least 10 points means "evaluate to 10 points according to the player's judgment", or whether it means literally 10 MW points. Does anyone know? In that latter case it would effectively mean that 10-12 is illegal unless you have the weird policy of never evaluation a literal 9-count as 10.

- Very light 3rd seat openings are HUMs that are generally not considered HUMs, or condoned, or whatever you call it. At least that was my understanding.

Lorenzo has (had?) the habit of overcalling on very good 3-card suits as lead directors. Maybe that would be a similar case. Or maybe directors would disagree on whether it was a BSC. Or maybe he only did it when BSCs were allowed. I dunno,

[Cascade]

TimG, on Jul 6 2009, 03:48 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 5 2009, 12:11 AM, said:

TimG, on Jul 5 2009, 09:51 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 4 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

Therefore it is perfectly reasonable to play a system where 1NT is 10-12 HCP but from time to time to deviate and open an occasional 9 HCP hand.

Of course if a player writes down 10-12 HCP when in reality they have a partnership agreement to open all or many or some 9 HCP hands then that is also not legal.

Playing a 10-12 1NT and agreeing that some 9 HCP hands should be upgraded is just what you say is not legal in your last paragraph "a partnership agreement to open some 9 HCP hands".

Yes but I did not say there was any agreement about the potential deviations.

I don't think you had to say it, I think it is simply an implicit partnership agreement. Your contention that you might somehow randomly pick 9 HCP hands to deviate with doesn't really do anything for me. Given the regulations in place in ACBL (barring the use of conventions after a 1NT opening which may be made on fewer the 10 HCP) the old guideline/rule about establishing an agreement seems reasonable to me.

What "old guideline/rule"?

[Sadie3]

hrothgar, on Jul 4 2009, 07:03 PM, said:

Sadie3, on Jul 5 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

The difficulty comes in knowing when a pair has crossed over into the implicit agreement stage.  That is why it is important to report all "psyches" even though you will get the stock answer that psyches are allowed per law 40.  If a pair is reported every time they psyche, a pattern emerges.  ...and the decision that a pair has crossed over is open to interpretation by the TD involved as well.

How delightfully naïve...

Pray tell: What do you think happens when you go off and report a psyche?
Do have some bizarre notion that the director goes and files this information somewhere?
Do honestly believe that this information will ever see the light of day again?

Best case scenario: The director will come over to the table, listen to your tales of woe, look concerned, and pretend to care. 10 minutes later, he'll have forgotten this ever happened.

I recommend trying a little experiment: Next time you're at an event, ask the director whether he he has any ability to actually look at any of these recorder forms. Simply put, if the directors don't have the ability (and inclination) to consult these forms, then they aren't worth a plugged nickle.

Why do you think naive? I am a TD that logs every psyche reported to me as to date, time, tourney, who and which hand. I also report it to all the other TD's. I also say , "Thank you for reporting it, but psyches are allowed by law 40". True, I do not consider it my top priority to review all psyches unless one name raises a red flag and then I review more or report it to those that have the online tools to do massive reviews.

[TimG]

Cascade, on Jul 5 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

What "old guideline/rule"?

See page 4 of this thread.

[Cascade]

TimG, on Jul 6 2009, 06:19 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 5 2009, 11:59 AM, said:

What "old guideline/rule"?

See page 4 of this thread.

That's not very precise page length depends on number of posts per page which is a custom setting

[FrancesHinden]

hrothgar, on Jul 5 2009, 01:03 AM, said:

Sadie3, on Jul 5 2009, 02:31 AM, said:

The difficulty comes in knowing when a pair has crossed over into the implicit agreement stage.  That is why it is important to report all "psyches" even though you will get the stock answer that psyches are allowed per law 40.  If a pair is reported every time they psyche, a pattern emerges.  ...and the decision that a pair has crossed over is open to interpretation by the TD involved as well.

How delightfully naïve...

Pray tell: What do you think happens when you go off and report a psyche?
Do have some bizarre notion that the director goes and files this information somewhere?
Do honestly believe that this information will ever see the light of day again?

Best case scenario: The director will come over to the table, listen to your tales of woe, look concerned, and pretend to care. 10 minutes later, he'll have forgotten this ever happened.

I recommend trying a little experiment: Next time you're at an event, ask the director whether he he has any ability to actually look at any of these recorder forms. Simply put, if the directors don't have the ability (and inclination) to consult these forms, then they aren't worth a plugged nickle.

It's not the most exciting job, but every psyche recorded in the EBU event is reviewed by the L&E. Partly to check on the classification, but also to keep an eye on any pair that is repeatedly psyching in the same position.

Of the frequent tournament players, I certainly know who psyches a lot. They are kept an eye on. Pairs have been told they are psyching a particular bid too often before now.

(Have I already said this once? This thread has gone on for so long that I have lost track)