[DrTodd13]

Matchpoints tourney. Pass - pass to me. I have a 4333 15 count that I don't particularly like so I decide to treat it as a 14 count. Pd and I play 12-14 NT's non-vul so I open 1N and explain as 12-14. We play the hand during which opponents hand me a couple tricks. Then after the hand is over, the opponents count my hand and discover I had 15. Then they accuse me of saying that I had 10-12. I point them to the bidding box review which is still there and shows the alert of 12-14. Then they accuse me of cheating for not telling them I had 15 when our agreement is 12-14. Yet another example of woeful ignorance of the laws and an attempt to gain through litigation what they gave up at the table. They call the director and you always wonder what director is going to rule, based on some of the ridiculous rulings we've seen documented on this site. Fortunately, the director (trtttt) got this one right. Good job.

Todd

[Free]

OMG, whining about 1 HCP, while almost everybody knows you can substract 1 HCP when having a 4333 distribution (same as adding 1 HCP with a decent 5 card suit).

[whereagles]

Lying about your HCP count is a sin and perpetrators will be cast into oblivion

[EricK]

Did they misdefend because they counted your hand and decided you couldn't have a certain honour?

Even if they did, they haven't got a case, but still I am willing to bet that they didn't!

Eric

[TimG]

DrTodd13, on Aug 17 2004, 11:55 AM, said:

Then they accuse me of cheating for not telling them I had 15 when our agreement is 12-14. Yet another example of woeful ignorance of the laws and an attempt to gain through litigation what they gave up at the table.

It is not ignorance of the Laws that your opponents exhibited: nowhere in the Laws is there any mention of high card points. Your opponents have been taken in by bridge organizations all over the world who create regulations based upon a single method of hand evaluation: Milton Work's 4-3-2-1 Point Count.

I might add, however, that since the regulations are written in a way which requires HCP evaluation, you should properly disclose using the same method. If that means describing 12-14 as 11+-15-, you ought to do it. You may suggest that the upgrades and downgrades are just playing bridge, but it is not to many.

(I do not know whether there were written regulations for the tournament where this took place, so maybe there were no regulations which used HCPs, but you get the idea. And, no, I don't think there should have been any adjustment.)

Tim

[epeeist]

I agree, of course, you were right and your opponents were wrong.

One suggestion, IF you're using a convention card, you might add a comment in one of the boxes that you will "adjust" point count, will upgrade/downgrade hand value, or something to that effect.

Another suggestion, and not that I encourage deception or lying, but if the tournament doesn't prohibit psyches (which I disagree with, by the way, they're part of the game and shouldn't be prohibited), you could say "in our system my bid showed 12-14 points, I PSYCHED by opening 1NT with 15 points".

Other responses, "Haven't you ever heard of someone MISCOUNTING the points in their hand?!" (doesn't actually claim you miscounted the points, but implies it... ) or "Haven't you ever heard of someone MISCLICKING?!" (not as desirable, since some players are under the mistaken impression that you are obliged to tell them about misclicks, which you are not -- though if the tournament allows undos, you might want to ).

[hrothgar]

epeeist, on Aug 17 2004, 10:28 PM, said:

I agree, of course, you were right and your opponents were wrong.

One suggestion, IF you're using a convention card, you might add a comment in one of the boxes that you will "adjust" point count, will upgrade/downgrade hand value, or something to that effect.

Another suggestion, and not that I encourage deception or lying, but if the tournament doesn't prohibit psyches (which I disagree with, by the way, they're part of the game and shouldn't be prohibited), you could say "in our system my bid showed 12-14 points, I PSYCHED by opening 1NT with 15 points".

Other responses, "Haven't you ever heard of someone MISCOUNTING the points in their hand?!" (doesn't  actually claim you miscounted the points, but implies it...   ) or "Haven't you ever heard of someone MISCLICKING?!" (not as desirable, since some players are under the mistaken impression that you are obliged to tell them about misclicks, which you are not -- though if the tournament allows undos, you might want to    ).

Why bother with any of this?

Exercising judgement is a completely legitimate part of the game.
I see no reason why players should feel obliged to lie in order to make a couple Walruses feel better about themselves...

The players who complained are trying to use litigation to get a result that they couldn't achieve at the table. They need to be slapped arround, NOT humored.

[hotShot]

Somewhere in the rules it says that +-1 HCP is Judgement and not a psyche. This kind of judgement is allowed, no need to war opps about it.

[Cascade]

hotShot, on Aug 18 2004, 08:07 AM, said:

Somewhere in the rules it says that +-1 HCP is Judjement and not a psyche. This kind of judgement is allowed, no need to war opps about it.

It doesn't say this anywhere in the laws.

A psyche is a gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length.

I cannot imagine +/- 1 hcp being a gross misstatement but it is not quantified as such in the laws.

[TimG]

Cascade, on Aug 17 2004, 04:59 PM, said:

A psyche is a gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length.

You left out an important word:

A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length.

[Cascade]

L75C

"When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience."

It is moot whether you need to explain your partnership experience of 1 hcp variations when you are volunteering an explanation rather than responding to an inquiry.

[Cascade]

TimG, on Aug 18 2004, 10:18 AM, said:

Cascade, on Aug 17 2004, 04:59 PM, said:

A psyche is a gross misstatement of honour strength or suit length.

You left out an important word:

A deliberate and gross misstatement of honor strength or suit length.

Sorry I was not intending to be complete but perhaps I should have been. I was just emphasising that +/-1 hcp is unlikely to be gross.

[TimG]

Cascade, on Aug 17 2004, 05:25 PM, said:

L75C

"When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience."

It is moot whether you need to explain your partnership experience of 1 hcp variations when you are volunteering an explanation rather than responding to an inquiry.

I'm not sure this is true. Why is an explanation given by the bidder allowed to be less accurate than an explanation given by the bidder's partner? If the accepted way to disclose agreements to the opponents is to self-alert and self-explain, then the explanation should include partnership experience.

I'm playing devil's advocate here, I think 12-14 should be enough even if it really means 12-14 plus some super 11's and some terrible 15's. But, I can understand the position that these things need to be made explicit. Especially in places where the regulations make use of HCP in defining alert procedures. There are some people who would never consider upgrading or downgrading.

Tim

[DrTodd13]

There has to be some commonality shared amongst players or one would never make any progress bidding. The fact that experts adjust what they feel a hand is worth based on shape, honor concentration or location should be common knowledge. If it isn't then the problem is that these people have never heard of anyone exercising bidding judgement. Common procedures are never alerted or explained and upgrades/downgrades are in this class of common procedures.

[epeeist]

hrothgar, on Aug 17 2004, 02:35 PM, said:

Why bother with any of this?

Exercising judgement is a completely legitimate part of the game.
I see no reason why players should feel obliged to lie in order to make a couple Walruses feel better about themselves...

The players who complained are trying to use litigation to get a result that they couldn't achieve at the table. They need to be slapped arround, NOT humored.

Calling the director was, at least by inference (and the subtopic), compared to vexatious litigation; it consumes time, energy, though (fortunately) doesn't cost money, and is stressful and annoying even if you win. I assume most people prefer to play bridge, rather than contest director rulings and argue points (actually, given some of the posts on this board, that may be an unwarranted assumption... ).

If one sarcastic sentence (my examples were not intended to humour opponents, but as sarcasm, and/or arguably misleading but not actually lying, though that's a legalistic argument... ) prevents a director call by pointing out to the opponents how idiotic their complaint is (without actually being "rude"), doesn't this benefit you?

If (assuming you have the space) in your cc you have some brief mention of upgrading/downgrading (though I _AGREE_ there's no need for this with normal/rational people) and this allows you to tell opps "it's in my convention card", and this avoids a director call, doesn't this benefit you?

Lastly, I think it's unfair to suggest that these opponents were Walruses; though Walter certainly didn't like/understand bidding which violated a point count, I don't recall reading any Menagerie stories in which a formal complaint was made for this reason...

[luke warm]

in romex, rosenkrantz played his nt at 18-19 hcp... 2nt was 21-22... regarding 20 point hands, he said they don't exist.. either downgrade and open 1nt or upgrade and open 2... use judgment, iow

alerting 1nt as 12-14 with a 15 count is fine, regardless of your reason... the point is, your partner counts you for 13... you can open a 12-14 nt with 18, or with 6 (yeah these might be psyches, but they're ok)...

what do you do in 3rd seat with 7 diamonds after 2 passes? i'm sure you've at one point or another opened that 1nt (i know i have)... and when you did, i'm sure you alerted it (properly) as whatever range you play... i can't imagine someone complaining about the... well, that isn't true, i can imagine it... i've seen it

[hotShot]

We need to read Law 40 here

Quote

A.  Right to Choose Call or Play
A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call — such as a psychic bid — or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.

This means you are allowed to judge the value of your cards

Quote

D.  Regulation of Conventions
The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership’s initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility.

Here a King or more is specified as a limit to what your hand might be weaker than the usual range you agreed with your p.

So having +-1 HCP more is no problem at all.

[TimG]

Quote

We need to read Law 40 here

Quote

A.  Right to Choose Call or Play
A player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call — such as a psychic bid — or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding.

This means you are allowed to judge the value of your cards

As long as your partner knows you deviate from strict HCP evaluation, you must disclose this to the opponents. For instance, if you use Losing Trick Count to evaluate hands for thepurpose of raising partner's suit, you must disclose this. Or, translate your evaluation into HCP.

Quote

Quote

D.  Regulation of Conventions
The sponsoring organisation may regulate the use of bidding or play conventions. Zonal organisations may, in addition, regulate partnership understandings (even if not conventional) that permit the partnership’s initial actions at the one level to be made with a hand of a King or more below average strength. Zonal organisations may delegate this responsibility.

Here a King or more is specified as a limit to what your hand might be weaker than the usual range you agreed with your p.

It doesn't say "a King or more below agreed upon strength", is says "a King or more below average strength." It has nothing to do with deviation from agreement. This is generally considered to mean the average strength of all bridge hands and is where the ACBL (and other SOs) get their right to regulate opening bids (at the one level) which may contain fewer than 8 HCP. The SOs have determined that the average hand has 10 HCP, a King less than that is 7 HCP, so they have the right to regulate opening bids with fewer than 8 HCP. The leap from "a King" to 3 HCP is dubious at best, as far as I am concerned. But, those in authority haven't asked for my opinion.

Tim

[hotShot]

TimG even a novice has learned that a double queen or any single honour is not worth its full hcp.
They also learned that a long suit has a value beside hcp's. So it is common bridge knowledge that the sum of your hcp's and those you show in your bid might differ a bit.

I would concider this basic bridge knowledge.

[TimG]

hotShot, on Aug 18 2004, 01:39 PM, said:

TimG even a novice has learned that a double queen or any single honour is not worth its full hcp.
They also learned that a long suit has a value beside hcp's. So it is common bridge knowledge that the sum of your hcp's and those you show in your bid might differ a bit.

I would concider this basic bridge knowledge.

It may be general knowledge that "HCP" is not equivalent to "points". But, convention charts often have reference to "HCP". The ACBL Geneneral Convention Chart is riddled with them:

http://www.acbl.org/...vChart12_03.pdf

Especially where NT opening bids are concerned, many people think that something like "12-14" means "12-14 HCP".

I'm not saying this is the way it should be, or defending the practice of regulating by HCP. But, it's done.