[acoales]

---

I was host in a club evening on BBO

I was called by the North Player who thought she'd been damaged by East's 1♠ "psyche". Another director whom I consulted agreed that technically it was a psyche because the 2019 EBU Blue Book requires that at level 2 the partnership agreement for a one-level opening bid must be at least 11+ HCP, or, show 8+ HCP and satisfy the "rule of 19". And at level 4 the "rule of 18" is specified. East's hand would satisfy a "rule of 17". Choosing to open a weak 2♠ might preclude finding a ♥ fit. The hand has a very powerful distribution especially holding both majors. It hardly seems fair to preclude the partnership from making such bids in future because they might develop an understanding that an opening bid of one could be from such a hand. I believe that the EBU's revisions of their requirements for 2-level opening bids over recent years must have been based on similar considerations and that the provisions for agreements for one-level openings should also be relaxed.

Alan

[Vampyr]

The trouble with calling this illegal is that what is actually illegal is to have an agreement to open such hands at the one level. The partnership have likely not discussed this, so they probably do not have an agreement.

The other question is whether this hand is enough of a distortion for East to say that she simply psyched, which is of course legal.

Probably I agree with you that the EBUregulation should be changed, but if there is an agreement to open rule of 17 or fewer than 8HCP hands, the openings should have probably be alerted or at least given as part of the description of the system at the beginning of the round.

[sanst]

IMNSHO the EBU regulations deny the basic principle of bridge: making tricks. Bridge is not about distribution ond certainly not about HCP’s. Having said this and looking at East’s hand, I can only conclude that I fully condone his or her bidding. This is a hand with a great potential for making tricks in a majors contract and hardly any in the defense. Even ♠K is doubtful. Not having a possibility to open a weak hand with both majors, I don’t think waiting till you can introduce the suits at a higher level is wise, certainly not vulnerable.
North has been far to passive. A double was certainly called for after the 1NT. The 2NT after the passed 2♥ did show both minors, a double would probably do the same in this situation, it does in my book, but doesn’t give any idea about the strength of this hand. If NS are damaged, it’s mainly due to North being far too timid.
What this problem makes clear, at least to me, is that the regulations are based on distributions that result from shuffling, not on computer generated hands. Hands like East’s were much rarer in the past, but now these turn up every so many deals. And East didn’t psyche, but used sound bridge judgment in his or her bidding.

[Cyberyeti]

My experience is that a lot of things that are illegal to agree are still done by pairs claiming not to have agreed them. Also a psyche is a GROSS distortion of shape or values, and this isn't, it's a queen light with a couple of good 10s.

The laws here are a bit silly, but NS have been the authors of their own misfortune, a second double by N rather than 2N would net a small fortune at this vulnerability even if they don't bid 3N, N bidding his 20 count as a 10 count hasn't helped them.

[acoales]

Of course psyching isn't illegal and the result obtained at the table stood. I think this was barely a psyche. An opening bid by East of 1 of a minor with the intention of, if necessary, later retreating into a major contract could have released a cat among the pigeons. All at the table are experienced players but East's distribution is so rare, even with computer dealing, that I believe that thought at the table rather than partnership discussions resulted in East's opening bid.

Alan

[Cyberyeti]

acoales, on 2021-February-02, 07:28, said:

Of course psyching isn't illegal and the result obtained at the table stood. I think this was barely a psyche. An opening bid by East of 1 of a minor with the intention of, if necessary, later retreating into a major contract could have released a cat among the pigeons. All at the table are experienced players but East's distribution is so rare, even with computer dealing, that I believe that thought at the table rather than partnership discussions resulted in East's opening bid.

Alan

Actually that it's not a psyche or barely a psyche makes it worse. If this was a 2 count then it's clearly a psyche, that it's substandard by a little to a hard rule implies it's not a psyche, it's just bending the rules.

[mycroft]

Psyches are legal. Playing an illegal agreement is not. As Cyberyeti mentions, if you can convince the TD it was in fact a psychic, you're in much better shape. If you wouldn't dream of opening a 10-count that wasn't "rule of 20", and can prove it, then you'll probably get away with this. If you aren't, then it looks like this hand "should be" opened 1♠ in your system, and you aren't allowed to have that agreement.

The problem with making regulations is that these obvious outliers get used as "how dare the regulators not let us make a bid everybody would make" (never mind the thousands of players who would pass this automatically and expect to get back in with a two-suiter call next round, even at the 4 level), but no matter where the boundary is set, someone will push it, if pushing is allowed. I know that's a slippery slope argument, but it's happened every time a boundary has been set in the last 30 years. So they don't, any more; they put a "no judgement required" floor down, at a reasonable place a ways away from where they think the floor should be, and shrug at those very few outliers as a cost of doing business.

[PeterAlan]

acoales, on 2021-February-02, 07:28, said:

... but East's distribution is so rare, even with computer dealing ...

The frequency of 6-5 in the majors (6-5-2-0 or 6-5-1-1) happens to be exactly one-third of the frequency of 5-5 (5-5-3-0 or 5-5-2-1) in the majors (or minors for that matter), which may give some context: uncommon but not really that rare.

6-5-2-0 or 6-5-1-1 shape occurs in 1.3564% of all hands, and so 6-5 in the majors in 0.226% (1/6 of all such; 1 in 442 hands); you might expect to hold one per 16-20 normal pairs sessions on average.

[lamford]

Law 40A3 states:
A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding. However ...

Law 40C1 states:
1. A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings, provided that his partner has no more reason than the opponents to be aware of the deviation. 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 assess a procedural penalty.

So, if the partnership would always open this hand, then there is an implicit understanding. Of course, everyone who says "I would normally pass, but this time I decided to open." is ok, as there is no record of the previous time that the player had a 6-5 six count. It would be better if the player was allowed to disclose "usually 8 points, but sometimes with 6-5 or 6-6 less than that." He is not.

[barmar]

sanst, on 2021-February-02, 04:35, said:

IMNSHO the EBU regulations deny the basic principle of bridge: making tricks. Bridge is not about distribution ond certainly not about HCP’s.

Isn't that the point of the "Rule of N" regulations? They reflect that you need either high cards or long suits to take tricks, and extreme length can make up for lack of high cards.

Once you accept this, the only question is where you draw the boundary. EBU chose rule of 19, you seem to think rule of 17 would be appropriate. Or maybe you think that 6-5 hands are so extreme that we shouldn't include them in the same formula, and just allow players to exercise their own judgement.

That said, rule of N doesn't take into account the value of shortness, which is addressed by Losing Trick Count. A 6520 hand is better than a 6511 hand, but rule of N considers them equivalent.

[sanst]

barmar, on 2021-February-05, 10:25, said:

Isn't that the point of the "Rule of N" regulations? They reflect that you need either high cards or long suits to take tricks, and extreme length can make up for lack of high cards.

Once you accept this, the only question is where you draw the boundary. EBU chose rule of 19, you seem to think rule of 17 would be appropriate. Or maybe you think that 6-5 hands are so extreme that we shouldn't include them in the same formula, and just allow players to exercise their own judgement.

That said, rule of N doesn't take into account the value of shortness, which is addressed by Losing Trick Count. A 6520 hand is better than a 6511 hand, but rule of N considers them equivalent.

You’re right. I think a player should use her or his judgment and not be restricted by rules like the Rule of N. Actually, the president of the WBFLC wrote me not so long ago that counting HCP’s should not have precedence over hand judgment. Therefore I think that the HUM part of the WBF Systems Policy should be revised where it states that an opening bid at the one level may not be made with values a king or more below average strength.

[mycroft]

So, the "a king below average strength" doesn't involve counting HCP. If you can convince them that your hand is not a "king below" an average hand, because of shape of otherwise, more power to you. Some organizations had interpreted that Law (that said that they could regulate 1 level openers with a king below average strength) to mean "ban 7HCP openers". I didn't think that was 100% legal, but the Endicott Interpretation applied, and the new Law says, effectively, "an RA can regulate special partnership understandings, and they get to define what is a special partnership understanding" - and the fact that it doesn't say that literally doesn't mean the WBF Laws commission intends anything else (for instance, how else do you legally allow "one card" events?)

"A player's judgement" is fine. "We don't want non-pro players to meet forcing pass, or 0+ openers, or 8-whatever 1NT openings. That's our judgement. Your judgement is that they should be bid. You pay us to play, so we win. If you don't like it, open your own forcing pass club."

I, and the EBU, are quite happy letting you use judgement to open shapely hands that are effectively 10 counts, that don't necessarily have anything near 10 HCP. We are willing to let you open 8 counts straight up as long as you announce and explain it properly, but in exchange, you don't get to "use judgement" to cheat out the "this looks like 8 to us". Especially when it's not "judgement", it's "we want to bid this way, but you say it's illegal to have that agreement, so we'll just 'use judgement' to upgrade the non-legal hands." Because if you won't do that, somebody will.

And if it means that the odd freak gets caught in the wash, blame the people who for 50 years[1] have played that game every time they weren't given a line in the sand, not the regulators who have finally realized they have no choice but to say "this far and no further. No cheatsies."

[1]Note, I get caught in the backwash of this as well. I had three people go to the TDs and warn them that someone was playing EHAA in a National Event, because *before I could talk*, never mind play bridge, people were "using judgement" to upgrade 9 counts into the EHAA 10-12 (that was 9-12 until the ACBL "banned" it.) Basically all 9 counts, that is - their judgement was pretty good, neh?

[Zelandakh]

mycroft, on 2021-February-06, 09:09, said:

So, the "a king below average strength" doesn't involve counting HCP.

No, you are actually wrong here (unless they changed it back anyway). As was made clear at a BB a few years back, any reference to average strength refers specifically to 10hcp. This caused some issues for a few pairs that wanted to play some specific conventions that became Brown Sticker on some of the hands that they thought were available because the shape made them much stronger than an average balanced hand.

[mycroft]

I believe you, but I never saw that (a few years back or otherwise). Do you have a report on that, so I can understand (as much as anyone can understand the WBFLC) what they think of the regulations?

[pescetom]

mycroft, on 2021-February-11, 10:55, said:

I believe you, but I never saw that (a few years back or otherwise). Do you have a report on that, so I can understand (as much as anyone can understand the WBFLC) what they think of the regulations?

The preamble of the WBF Systems Policy states: "In the following ‘Weak’ means 9 points or less and ‘Strong’ means 16 points or more."
That would seem to indicate that 'Average' is 10-15 points, although the Policy never does refer to 'Average'.

[mycroft]

Wow, I have not read the systems policy in years. It's much more walrus'ed than I remember. Zelendakh, while I wouldn't mind the information on what actually happened there, it's obvious that they changed the rules completely; no need for more evidence of that.

Which may not be a bad thing, but might show the influence of some people.

I don't have an issue with Walrus for the regs as you see above; I hate having to argue over fuzzy lines. Where they've drawn the lines is - interesting.

So, in response to sanst above, who also is discussing the old systems policy - sorry, you lose, I guess. "a king below average strength" is now "agreement...with 7 HCP or less".

[Zelandakh]

mycroft, on 2021-February-11, 10:55, said:

I believe you, but I never saw that (a few years back or otherwise). Do you have a report on that, so I can understand (as much as anyone can understand the WBFLC) what they think of the regulations?

The only BBF thread I can find on the convention (Alder 3♠) is this one but I am sure there was another focused more specifically on an upcoming Bermuda Bowl. There are also several other threads discussing what this term "average hand" means such as this one. Note specifically the post from bluejak, one of the world's most senior and experienced TDs. Average hand at this time meant, for good or bad, 10hcp. This is the case for the WBF, for the EBL, and for many others as well.

So you cannot, by agreement, open 3♠ to show a solid minor on AKQxxxx and out but you can have the agreement to show that plus at least an outside jack. Is it completely logical? Clearly not (and in ACBL Midchart it is allowed). But those are the rules as laid out by the WBF and thus exported to various other RAs around the world.

[pescetom]

Zelandakh, on 2021-February-11, 15:34, said:

So you cannot, by agreement, open 3♠ to show a solid minor on AKQxxxx and out

Could you please explain why not? It always shows at least four cards in a known suit and so is not a Brown Sticker.

[Zelandakh]

pescetom, on 2021-February-11, 15:47, said:

Could you please explain why not? It always shows at least four cards in a known suit and so is not a Brown Sticker.

The strong suit could be clubs or diamonds, so there is no known suit. If you played it as a specific minor, AKQxxxx would be legal.

[sanst]

mycroft, on 2021-February-11, 14:31, said:

So, in response to sanst above, who also is discussing the old systems policy - sorry, you lose, I guess. "a king below average strength" is now "agreement...with 7 HCP or less".

You’re right, I used an old one, thanks to Google. Besides, the Dutch union usually follows the WBF and hasn’t changed the regulations accordingly, and I know these. But there’s a provision, “by partnership agreement”, and it’s quite unclear that in the case at hand there was any agreement about opening a hand like East’s. Probably not. And it’s still my opinion that the damage to NS is due to the bidding of North.