[Phil]

I still think that the crux of the problem is the unreliability of point ranges with weak 2's.

If I open QT9xxxx x xx xxx 3♠, no one is going to say anything about it. If my RHO opens 3♠, I will probably get a funny look from my LHO if I ask, what is the point range of this bid? A better response is something along the lines of, "I expect five tricks at this vulnerability". This is a classic, "light" preempt, and there is a place on the CC where I can mark this. My own CC is marked "light" at NV, and "sound" at V.

On the other hand, if an opponent said, "we preempt soundly. Even at these colors, I expect seven, maybe eight tricks", I can justifiably expect something more like a KQJTxxxx x Kxx xx and I would feel they violated their agreements if they commonly opened QT9-7th and out a preempt.

If my opponent makes a wide ranging preempt in certain seats, I expect this to be disclosed, and maybe even alerted. When I ran a club four years ago, during one session I kibitzed a local pro that preempted in 3rd seat vul with a 14 count, and then did it the next round with a 4 count, and then did it a 3rd time with a 12 count. I told her that its clear that her partnership's style was to open very wide ranging preempts and the opponents have a right to this information.

Accordingly, what is so sacred about point ranges and weak 2's? If there was as section where you could mark, sound, or light, or wide ranging, or "5 cards" it seems like that would be a better form for disclosure than point range.

[TMorris]

phil_20686, on 2012-March-19, 09:04, said:

No, I don't see it this way at all. You have agreements about how to bid particular classes of hands. Hands are the fundamental starting point.

If you write a bidding agreement like 1N=12-14, you are committing to opening 12-14 balanced hands 1N. If you do not open 1N I am fully entitled to assume that you do not have 12-14 balanced. If you routinely do not open balanced 1N 12 counts, but write 12-14 balanced. You are committing the same Mis-information as if you routinely open 11 counts 12-14 balanced.

Well we seem to have a fundemental disagreement here . As far as I am concerned my agreement is that when I open 1NT I have 12-14 balanced. It is not, when I have 12-14 balanced I open 1NT.

If I routinely don't open balanced 12 counts I would agree that 12-14 is misleading, but that is not the case. I have no idea what proportion of balanced 12 counts that I don't open 1NT but it won't be that high; low single figure percent I would guess. It will of course vary by position and vulnerability and shape.

To widen the discussion. With a weak 2 bid my agreement is 5-9. There are significantly more hands in the range 5-9 with a 6 card suit that I don't open a weak 2 than there are bad 12 counts that I don't open 1NT. Usually this is due to suit quality eg I don't open with 987654 as my 6-card suit & probably not with slightly stronger suits than that. Perhaps I should state that I have a minimum suit quality requirement. I have never seen anyone do this, or even suggest it for that matter, but I am quite prepared to be convinced that it is something I should do. I would of course happily explain, if asked, that this is the case but perhaps that is insufficient.

There is a well known quote that is consistent with my view - I just wish I could remember it, from some very well known UK player - something like, " an agreement with partner not a promise to my opponents" but it is phrased much better than that.

[bluejak]

Hmmm. I have seen some posts that seem somewhat unfortunate.

However, let me make one thing clear. If I write

Quote

Percy Popplewell makes illegal bids deliberately

I have really called him a cheat, but only because I said that he did, and that it was deliberate, and named him.

If I write

Quote

I do not approve of bids of this sort which are dubious

then I have called no-one a cheat.

If then Percy Popplewell writes

Quote

By saying I have made illegal bids of this sort he has called me a CHEAT.

then only Percy Popplewell has called himself a cheat.

Having read what was written there was no accusation of cheating aimed at MrAce except by himself. I think it better if these posts were not continued.



If you object to a post by another person and want Ed or myself to deal with it, the normal approach is to send one of us a private memo, and it will not be dealt with in public. This is better than public complaints because they really need to be dealt with in public.

[bluejak]

I believe point ranges are a poor idea with weak twos and cause trouble without much gain. No-one asks for point ranges for weak threes.

Since there are no restrictions in England there is no need to find ranges out. Sure, everyone does, but I never see why.

Since the ACBL has a regulation which is clearly out of date then they need players to name point ranges. However, it is time they looked at the regulation and the approach.

[gordontd]

TMorris, on 2012-March-19, 09:55, said:

There is a well known quote that is consistent with my view - I just wish I could remember it, from some very well known UK player - something like, " an agreement with partner not a promise to my opponents" but it is phrased much better than that.

Edgar Kaplan said something like:

Quote

A partnership agreement is an agreement between partners, not an undertaking to opponents

[aguahombre]

I wonder what makes a regulation out of date. Is it when someone in a different jurisdiction disagrees with it?

I can imagine if a WBF interpretation or ruling is binding on everyone, and some NBO has not recodified, then a regulation would be out of date. Is that the case, here?

[TMorris]

That's the one, thanks.

[bluejak]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-19, 11:32, said:

I wonder what makes a regulation out of date. Is it when someone in a different jurisdiction disagrees with it?

Most hilarious.

When the game of bridge changes but the regulation does not keep up with the change, it is out of date.

[MrAce]

So with this logic, if i make a post, quoting someone, and starting with IF, BlueJack sjould not be offended

Watch...

Admin A, on 2012-March-19, 11:15, said:

Bla Bla Bla...Quoting a specific admin !

IF admins make decisions , in order to protect their peer, especially when they just made big words about a famous player (Chip Martel) and how laws should be equally applied, but can not even apply the rule in a small forum that he moderates then he is a "insult-accusation" with double standarts. It sickens me to see admins with this attitude bla bla more insult, accusation....

Can you see where i am coming from BlueJack ? Please dont tell me there was nothing offensive the way he wrote his post and it was me, myself who made a huge deal out of it.


Wonderful technique indeed. When i want to insult or accuse someone, i should just quote him and make sure i use the word "IF" and then say whatever i wanna say. And claim that "hey if you dont fit in the description that comes after IF, then u are not supposed to be offended"

Cmon, seriously, we are not in Federal Court here.

And please NOTE that, in ACBL, we all know there are A LOT OF players who fit in the description that was written by Cascade which started with his famous "IF", but still innocent. As i listed, those who disagrees with the definition of accurate disclosure (just like some replies in this topic), those who are just ignorant of law and regulations, those who just sits and plays with a pd and a CC that is filled by pd. He put all t hese people in 1 category, and he assigned blame to their intentions. And that is "Deliberately Cheating "

Also, his incident was reported privately to Inquiry. His reaction to the words, taste and accuracy of his post was totally different than you. But he convinced me that if any action taken, such as editting, moving, deleting, that would result with changes in my reply too (since i quoted him) , which he believed my reply was worth reading. And he also mentioned that this forum is moderated by you and another admin, not himself.

[MrAce]

@ Cascade : I didnt intend to say i rarely open this QJTxxx x xxx xxx because it comes rare, i meant " i rarely open with those hands " If you read my post i mentioned things like "State of match, strategy etc "

Again, if this was explicit or implicit agreement, why would i talk about "Taking Risk" when i do that ? Why would i talk about "We have no protection when things go wrong "

We have no protection because thats not what pd expects from me. I take risk when i bid this hand because thats not what pd expects me to have.

You want me to fill the CC with 3-9 anyway. I would be more than happy to fill it 3-9 when my pds NEVER open this hand i gave, and when i open it VERY rarely regardless of how frequently i hold it. It is hell of an advantage for me to lead my opponents to the process of placing cards in my hand that are 3-9 range while i actually hold 5-10 % 99 of the time. Is this how you describe "accurate disclosure" ?

[aguahombre]

Disagree. The risk is in what the opponents will do to you, whether you have an implicit agreement or not.

[MrAce]

aguahombre, on 2012-March-19, 12:56, said:

Disagree. The risk is in what the opponents will do to you, whether you have an implicit agreement or not.

If one thinks only RISK by opening a hand that pd DOES NOT EXPECT you to have is what opponents will do to you, then this means this person have never been punished by CHO. A lucky one !

I didn't know there are players who has not been punished by partner when they take an action that pd is not expecting.

[Vampyr]

MrAce, on 2012-March-19, 13:17, said:

If one thinks only RISK by opening a hand that pd DOES NOT EXPECT you to have is what opponents will do to you, then this means this person have never been punished by CHO. A lucky one !

I didn't know there are players who has not been punished by partner when they take an action that pd is not expecting.

I don't think anyone said that. Yes, you can be punished by partner, and also you can misinform opponents. The former is not anyone else's business, but the latter is what this thread is about. To wit, if you have specified a range for a bid, that should be your range.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-March-19, 11:37, said:

Most hilarious.

Agree!

Quote

When the game of bridge changes but the regulation does not keep up with the change, it is out of date.

But this phrase strongly implies that the ragulation has actually been supplanted by something else. Although "outdated" seems on the surface to have the same meaning, it feels a lot more like something that is still in force, but is hopelessly old-fashioned.

[MrAce]

Quote

C. D eviation from System and Psychic Action
1. A player may deviate from his side’s announced
understandings always, provided that his partner
has no more reason to be aware of the deviation
than have the opponents. 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 award a procedural penalty.
2. O ther than the above, no player has any obligation
to disclose to the opponents that he has deviated
from his announced methods.
3. (a) U nless permitted by the Regulating Authority,
a player is not entitled during the auction
and play periods to any aids to his memory,
calculation or technique.
(b) R epeated violations of requirements to disclose
partnership understandings may be
penalized.

Here is the ACBL laws. In my understanding, in order to talk about an "imlicit agreement " a repeated deviation from the system MUST ALSO form a pdship METHOD. Not JUDGEMENT or STYLE" And EVEN if it becomes an implicit agreement, TD's action will be based on the damage, and that damage has to be done by the pdship undisclosed METHOD.

It is not clear tho, how many times it needs to be repeated in order to form a pdship method which makes it a implicit pdship agreement. And how they file these repeats.

Quote

2. (a) T he Regulating Authority is empowered
without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow
conditionally any special partnership understanding.
It may prescribe a system card
with or without supplementary sheets, for the
prior listing of a partnership’s understandings
and regulate its use. The Regulating Authority
may prescribe alerting procedures and/or
other methods of disclosure of a partnership’s
methods. It may vary the general requirement
that the meaning of a call or play shall
not alter by reference to the member of the
partnership by whom it is made. Such a regulation
must not restrict style and judgment,
only method.*

[MrAce]

Vampyr, on 2012-March-19, 13:31, said:

But this phrase strongly implies that the ragulation has actually been supplanted by something else. Although "outdated" seems on the surface to have the same meaning, it feels a lot more like something that is still in force, but is hopelessly old-fashioned.

Yes, i agree.

[mgoetze]

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.

It never ceases to amaze me how ACBLers can hijack any thread which originally did not mention the ACBL at all with their ridiculous (or even non-ridiculous) regulations.

Come on guys, if the original poster is explicitly asking about some other jurisdiction than the ACBL then just keep your fingers away from the keyboard if ACBL is all you know, please.

[aguahombre]

I think I am a bit more tolerant, and interested in the views of, UK etc posters who have their opinions about ACBL regs.

Even those who believe following the ACBL regs on disclosure is unethical.

[gnasher]

mgoetze, on 2012-March-19, 16:03, said:

It never ceases to amaze me how ACBLers can hijack any thread which originally did not mention the ACBL at all with their ridiculous (or even non-ridiculous) regulations.

Come on guys, if the original poster is explicitly asking about some other jurisdiction than the ACBL then just keep your fingers away from the keyboard if ACBL is all you know, please.

Almost all of the discussion has been about whether it's OK to write a range like "x-y" on your convention card when in fact the range is "x-y, together with some hands which are x-2, x-3 or x-4 in some positions and vulnerabilities". Isn't that relevant to the original post?

I know it's surprising that we have generated such a large amount of discussion about a question to which the answer is blindingly obvious, but I don't think we've gone very far off-topic.

[MrAce]

gnasher, on 2012-March-19, 17:10, said:

Almost all of the discussion has been about whether it's OK to write a range like "x-y" on your convention card when in fact the range is "x-y, together with some hands which are x-2, x-3 or x-4 in some positions and vulnerabilities". Isn't that relevant to the original post?

I know it's surprising that we have generated such a large amount of discussion about a question to which the answer is blindingly obvious, but I don't think we've gone very far off-topic.

I didnt understand it either, i also didnt understand where OP is explicitly seeking other juristrictions than ACBL.

I dunno if the regulation about range x-y in a cc differs in ACBL from WBF, but the law about " Deviation from system " is exactly the same.

http://www.worldbrid...lcode/Law40.asp