[DJNeill]

Hi,
The new ACBL charts are great, preserving principles to protect our game at the low levels, letting experts be experts at the high level, and defining everything as best as possible.

I'm playing TOSR (as most people do starting out), where:
1C = 15+ value any shape (17+ 3/4)
1D = 4+H 10-14 value (11-16 3/4)
1H = 4+S 10-14 value (11-16 3/4)
1S = 4+ 4+ minors, may have a 4/5M, 10-14 value (11-16 3/4)
1N = 12(11)-14 (14[13]-16 3/4)
2m = 6+crd 1suiter 10-14 value (11-16 3/4)

This is Open+ ACBL I think, only will be played in long team matches in top events, or BBO open room games.

In the new charts, can you still open with less than the prescribed range in 3rd seat tactically (is "tactically" still the term they use)? Or does the system mean tactical bids no longer exist, you must have your range/value 100% of the time or you are penalized?

Does the above system mean you cannot psyche (e.g. a couple times a year out of the blue) at all (open 1D [that is hearts] 3rd seat with QJTx hearts and nothing else? Or does the system mean that psyches do not exist and are immediate penalties?

[johnu]

DJNeill, on 2022-January-12, 10:45, said:

This is Open+ ACBL I think, only will be played in long team matches in top events, or BBO open room games.

You could also play this is in Open+ Swiss team matches of 6+ boards.

[mycroft]

So, I thought this was going to be the same as the other discussion. Silly me, this is DJNeill...

Note: I'm just reading the charts like you are. No matter what I may or may not do for the ACBL, my words mean nothing official here.

Start with:

ACBL Open+ Chart, Disallowed Openings said:

15. Psyching an Artificial opening bid.

It also says:

Quote

2. An Artificial 1-level opening bid in any seat that could contain less than Average Strength.

Note that this is very different from 1-level opening bids that are Natural or Quasi-Natural, which in third seat could be a zero-count by agreement. Note that this does not have to be Alerted or Pre-Alerted, or mentioned anywhere on the new convention card. How the poor opponents are going to know what this pair's agreements are is a question I don't have an answer to [yes, this is a reference to the other discussion].

The Open+ chart also has the bit in the beginning where:

Quote

If an Agreement would be disallowed unless it satisfies a specific High Card Point or shape requirement, a player may not use judgment to include hands with fewer High Card Points or a different shape.

The relevant definition is also in the charts:

Quote

"Average Strength”: A hand that has at least 10 HCP or meets the “Rule of 19”.

So, to my reading:

• 10-14 "value" had better be 10 actual Miltons, or 9-with-10-in-two-suits. Which probably doesn't fit with your preferred definition of "value".
  
• You can't cheat at all on ranges in third seat. You can't cheat at all in first seat. You can't cheat at all. (except with 1NT, I guess). Small deviations are "judgement" which is not allowed. Large deviations are "psychics" which are also not allowed.
  
• If you choose to not bid naturally, you have also chosen to put yourself under these restrictions.
  
• You also get the joy of pre-alerting your system and providing a "provisionally approved" defence to your transfer openings (official ACBL defence if possible). I'm told the process is different from before, but also that it hasn't yet been attempted. So you also get to find out how easy this is in 2022.

I'd wish you luck. But, you know, I'm not sure that "luck" is going to be enough.
I'd wish you joy. I know for a fact that the restrictions they have put in place will not bring you joy.
I wish I was reading this wrong. But I don't think I am, not enough for it to matter.

[DJNeill]

Good info thank you! Looks like a 3rd seat switch to naturalish openings would catch the sweetest spot for the very ability to open light or tactically. It's their hand, seems a shame to pass.

[olien]

Based on mycroft’s interpretation of:

“If an agreement would be disallowed unless it satisfies a specific HCP or shape requirement, a player may not use judgment to include hands with fewer HCP or a different shape.”

to mean that I cannot open a hand that would qualify as a psych on the current charts means that, on the Open chart, one cannot psych a (quasi)-natural opening in any seat as you must have at least “near average” strength to do so. Please note that they do not explicitly state an exception for psyching, nor that you can only psych natural opening bids.

[mycroft]

It is not intended to prohibit psyching in general. But a Psych is - as quoted in the other thread - a *gross* deviation from your agreement. The prohibition on judgement is intended to stop the slippery slope arguments to get to play a system that would be disallowed if honestly divulged, so we play "to the limit" and then "use judgement" to get what we actually want. Not flat-out psychs.

Well, of Natural (and Quasi-Natural) bids, anyway. And they're not very happy about you having ways in-system to say "I psyched" (although they caught themselves in a bit of a bind there, trying to avoid saying "passing a forcing bid is a psychic control" which would have been laughed out of even the ACBL. As a result, there are a bunch of psychic controls that aren't Psychic Controls and Disallowed - because they're doubles and redoubles).

I agree it isn't clear from the charts themselves. And I also agree that the issue raised in the other thread (of "how dare you call AKxxx and out third seat not a psych?" fame) is not helped by the examples, which do make it clear:

Open Chart, opening, examples, my emphasis said:

[Restriction 4] Hands with 9 or fewer HCPs cannot be upgraded into any NT range. This
does not apply to a psych. To be considered a psych, the hand must contain at least 4
HCP less the minimum.
4. [Restriction 5] An Agreement to open 1NT showing 11-15 is permitted, but actually
showing 10-15 is not. If your agreed NT range is 11-15, you cannot upgrade 10 HCP
hands or downgrade 16 HCP hands. This does not apply to a psych. To be considered a
psych, the hand must contain at least 4 HCP less the minimum.

I agree, it could be read (and has been read) as "less than the *allowed* minimum", as opposed to "less than the *agreed* minimum". Which, when it comes to weak third-seat 1M openers, well, my suspicion of any expert who tries to claim with a straight face that "our agreement is 11 minimum, and we never deviate from that in third seat" was expressed elsewhere. But if it were a 13-17 Blue Club 1NT, I would believe that 9 should be fine, even if it isn't for the 10-12 or the 11-15 folks.

The difference between your statement and DJNeill's is that your (quasi)-Natural 1D opener doesn't promise (solely) hearts. For some reason, the people on the committee think that's hard enough to deal with without having to worry about it being psyched. Or, in some cases (not anyone here's, but I've heard it, you've heard it, we've all heard it, whether anyone can actually point to a specific pair who does it), worry about "not completely explaining their complicated and Artificial agreements, hoping to win on the confusion".

But again - this is only my opinion from my discussions with other directors and the scribe of the committee that created and has revised the charts.

[blackshoe]

"Less the minimum" and "less than the minimum" are two different things. Since what they wrote is absolutely ridiculous, they didn't mean it. Does make me wonder what else they didn't mean.

I've just about come to the conclusion that these regulations have got to the point where they are too much for me. "No judgement" isn't bridge.

[mycroft]

You want to have judgement? Play an 11-13 NT. Use judgement all you like to upgrade 10-counts into it. Play that in third seat, you could open decent 9s. AKJxx and a singleton look like 9 to you? Great, have at it.

You want to play right to the line, and then "upgrade" some hands that wouldn't be legal if they were (what you admit to be) your agreement? And just put a smile on your face and say "of course partner would never expect *this*"...?

As I said earlier, give us your alternative that would solve both the committee's problem and your concerns. I don't care if it's got holes you can drive a truck through Coutts as long as they're "could be more carefully expressed" rather than "obvious loopholes that will immediately be exploited, because players have done so for 60 years". Or admit that there's no fair way to enact a regulation with a minimum floor. Which is fine, but you won't get much sympathy for that view, even if it is right, and it won't be good for the game.

Or we could go back to "minimums 'we all know and accept/play' can be cheated, and 'we all know that happens' (ignoring the 90% of players that don't. If they don't Know How To Play Bridge, they can learn. Or leave.) But these other minimums are hard lines that it's cheating to cross (which is fair, because 'we' would never do that, it's only those people trying to win by randomizing the results that would do that)." I mean, it worked for 60 years (except when it didn't, of course).

And that's not even getting into disclosure of these habits. Except for the "we all know" pairs (because they play against them all the time, and Are Experts. What about the rest of us), I guess.

I don't like some of the decisions the committee has made. I think they're being inflexible in ways that will come back to haunt them. But they saw a problem, knew it was a problem, and solved it in a really good, "bright line", "ruled the same in Peoria as in Poughkeepsie, Portland or Puerto Vallarta" way that even club directors can understand and that makes sense (when quoted) to even C players. It might be wrong occasionally (like the EBU 1M-p-1NTF-X auction). But this isn't "banning judgement", it's "avoiding having to accuse people of lying about their illegal system."

ETA: clearly "less the minimum" is a typo. One that either I quoted badly or nobody's noticed yet. We should get that fixed. I will be reporting that to my contact on the committee. Good catch.