[straube]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-08, 10:13, said:

Fair enough, then I would view everyones vote for 1H as an act of civil disobedience lol. At some point if rules are so dumb where they stop the game being played (and I'm talking about disallowing opening 1H with AKQJ in third seat)....well.

So if I understand it right, in general chart in USA if you play 1C is 3+ you can open Axxx x x AJT9xxx NP. If you play it 2+, you have to play it as 4432 only when it's 2. Otherwise it is ILLEGAL. Similarly, if you play 3 or 4+ diamond you can open 1D with Axxx x AJT9xxx x, but if you play 0 or 1 or 2+ you cannot.

That is madness and giving an unfair advantage to what they deem as a natural system. I suppose this is why the directors ostensibly treat these 1C and 1D bids as natural even though they shouldn't.

In midchart or higher, possibly it's ok to agree that you can open artificial bids 8+ and have them not be a psyche? Or am I misreading. I'll feel pretty bad if that's not true since apparently I've been making illegal bids with some frequency.

There's a little wiggle room before something gets deemed a psyche. I can't recall quite what it is. More than one card deviation? More than one hcp deviation? I'm certain that you could open a 9 point hand with an artificial 1D because a 1 hcp deviation doesn't constitute a psyche..and hence there is no illegality. However, you can't have the agreement with your partner to open 9 hcp hands. So partner has to be expecting 10 and the wiggle room is thrown in there to allow for judgment and upgrades. Certainly Axxx x AJT9xxx x is worth an upgrade.

[nige1]

It's futile to try to discern logic in system-regulation unless you realize that, reasonably enough, its function is to permit all the methods favoured by the old guard but to stifle innovation that might disconcert them.

[JLOGIC]

nige1, on 2013-May-08, 10:28, said:

It's futile to try to discern logic in system-regulation unless you realize that, reasonably enough, its function is to permit all the methods favoured by the old guard but to prevent innovation.

Oh gosh, here we go again. It's not some big conspiracy. The fact that it is not perfect and there end up being some arbitrary distinctions before it's fixed does not mean that the old guard is doing it to protect themselves and stifle innovation lol.

[jeffford76]

SteveMoe, on 2013-May-07, 23:03, said:

So the Precision 1♦ is a treatment. The ACBL does not define it as artificial. Indeed I have not been allowed to play CRASH or similar strategies over a Precision 1♦ with the rationale that we cannot do that over a natural short ♣.

Rightly or wrongly, I have had several Sectional/Regional directors tell me a short ♦ promising 2 or more cards is natural. Go figure.

(Snipped some of the previous.)

This is definitely "wrongly". You can play any defense you want to a 2+ 1D as long as your defense isn't "destructive", and you can play any defense you want to a 2+ 1C as long as your defense isn't "destructive" except that if 1C is only 2 cards on exactly 4=4=3=2 shape you can't play artificial defenses unless they would also be allowed against a natural 1C.

[jeffford76]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-08, 08:45, said:

I wonder what would happen if someone called the director, I am sure that the top precision US pairs open 1D with less than 10 HCP fairly often against good opps (doubt we are "psyching" vs bad opps), but in my own case I know no one has ever called the director on me. If they do I will use this argument.

The problem with the "no one actually calls the director" argument is that if the method is illegal, then pairs who know this and follow the rules are at an unfair disadvantage. I wouldn't play something I knew was illegal even if I knew no one would call.

[JLOGIC]

jeffford76, on 2013-May-08, 13:22, said:

The problem with the "no one actually calls the director" argument is that if the method is illegal, then pairs who know this and follow the rules are at an unfair disadvantage. I wouldn't play something I knew was illegal even if I knew no one would call.

I totally agree. FWIW I mistakenly thought opening 8 point hands was ok. I didn't realize that precision 1D has to be 10+. I thought the argument presented earlier that it was treated as natural the same as 2+club was correct, I now realize only 4432 2+ club is natural.

I know ignorance is not a defense though and I have been violating the rules and as a bridge pro I should know the rules.

I am still unclear though, does the 10+ thing apply to midchart or is 8+ ok there? I cannot tell just by looking at the charts. If 8+ is ok in midchart I feel a lot less bad since I always play midchart except in 1 session swisses.

[nige1]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-08, 10:44, said:

Oh gosh, here we go again. It's not some big conspiracy. The fact that it is not perfect and there end up being some arbitrary distinctions before it's fixed does not mean that the old guard is doing it to protect themselves and stifle innovation lol.

Its a funny old world but It's less funny now that so many professionals are part of the establishment and need to protect clients with limited time to learn how to play better methods or how to combat them.

[straube]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-08, 14:10, said:

I totally agree. FWIW I mistakenly thought opening 8 point hands was ok. I didn't realize that precision 1D has to be 10+. I thought the argument presented earlier that it was treated as natural the same as 2+club was correct, I now realize only 4432 2+ club is natural.

I know ignorance is not a defense though and I have been violating the rules and as a bridge pro I should know the rules.

I am still unclear though, does the 10+ thing apply to midchart or is 8+ ok there? I cannot tell just by looking at the charts. If 8+ is ok in midchart I feel a lot less bad since I always play midchart except in 1 session swisses.

http://www.acbl.org/...ntion-Chart.pdf

The way I read it is that the 1C and 1D multipurpose bids still are required to have 10 hcps. These bids are allowed in the Midchart since they are allowed in the GCC. What are specifically disallowed in the Midchart (and I think GCC too) are openings that by partnership agreement could be fewer than 8 hcps. So basically you can open a natural bid with 8, but the 1C and 1D multipurpose bids still require 10.

Btw, this version of Michart references the 4432 natural club exception near the top.

[straube]

jeffford76, on 2013-May-08, 13:18, said:

(Snipped some of the previous.)

This is definitely "wrongly". You can play any defense you want to a 2+ 1D as long as your defense isn't "destructive", and you can play any defense you want to a 2+ 1C as long as your defense isn't "destructive" except that if 1C is only 2 cards on exactly 4=4=3=2 shape you can't play artificial defenses unless they would also be allowed against a natural 1C.

I think I stand corrected on this point. Not sure that anyone would want to play transfers (for example) against a Precision 2+ diamond, but it might come in handy to play that against a Polish Club.

[Vampyr]

rhm, on 2013-May-08, 02:58, said:

But I admit I do not like it, nor do I like that psyches in the bidding are generally frowned upon, unless name players like Zia make them, when they may be praised in newspaper columns. Rainer Herrmann

LOL recently he psyched twice in the same auction against me.

[SteveMoe]

Much confusion because the logical inconsistencies in the Laws are many.

Nevertheless, ACBL defines a treatment as "A natural call that, by partnership agreement, carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand. Such bids are not conventions and therefore not regulated by the ACBL Convention Chart. Consult the ACBL Alert Chart for those treatments which require Alerts and/or Announcements."

1♦ nonforcing, promising 2 cards is indeed a treatment by this definition. If it were forcing, it would be artificial.

[blackshoe]

SteveMoe, on 2013-May-07, 23:03, said:

ISo the Precision 1♦ is a treatment. The ACBL does not define it as artificial. Indeed I have not been allowed to play CRASH or similar strategies over a Precision 1♦ with the rationale that we cannot do that over a natural short ♣.

That a 4=4=3=2 1♣ opening is now defined as natural is a recent occurrence, and was done specifically to preclude artificial strategies over such openings (like CRASH). Prior to the change, that 1♣ opening was by definition artificial. The similar 1♦ opening is still by definition artificial. The fact that both require an announcement is not evidence that either is natural, since the 1♣ opening was not natural until the ACBL specifically defined it as such. If you have been disallowed CRASH over a Precision 1♦ opening, the director erred. If a director told you that 1♦ opening is natural, the director erred. This assumes that the words of the General Convention Chart mean what they say, which is chancy at best in the ACBL.

Put it another way: the recent redefinition of this 1♣ bid as natural is an exception to the general rule that such bids (on 2 cards) are by definition artificial. The exception for 1♣ does not apply to similar 1♦ openings, and if some director tells you it does, ask him to show you the regulation that says so.

Added: in effect the rule against psychic controls is this: if you have a conventional agreement in response to a natural bid that might make allowance for the possibility that partner has psyched that natural bid, then he may not psych it. This contravenes law 40C1 and is therefore an illegal regulation. Another interpretation of the rule is that you cannot deliberately agree to control psychs. This interpretation would allow a third or fourth seat psych of a major opening, even if you play Drury. It would make more sense to me to interpret it this way (at least the regulation would be legal) but I don't think the ACBL interprets it this way.

[blackshoe]

SteveMoe, on 2013-May-08, 18:47, said:

Much confusion because the logical inconsistencies in the Laws are many.

Nevertheless, ACBL defines a treatment as "A natural call that, by partnership agreement, carries a specific message about the suit bid or the general strength of the hand. Such bids are not conventions and therefore not regulated by the ACBL Convention Chart. Consult the ACBL Alert Chart for those treatments which require Alerts and/or Announcements."

1♦ nonforcing, promising 2 cards is indeed a treatment by this definition. If it were forcing, it would be artificial.

Conclusion does not follow from premises.

[blackshoe]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-08, 08:39, said:

From a precisioners standpoint it seems dumb that 1C either natural or could be short would not be a psyche, but 1D precision would be a psyche.

One of the hands in this article was actually a hand I held and "psyched" 1D. Qxxxx Axx xx Qxx. It seems silly to me that if the hand was Qxxxx Axx Qxx xx and I opened 1C could be short, that would be fine but since I opened 1D precision it's illegal.

I think that 1D precision should be treated the same as 1C could be short (maybe it already is).

It may well be in practice, but that's not what the regulation says. Note that it's a matter of agreement. If you might open 1♣ by agreement on QJxxx Axx QJx xx (I admit I find this an unlikely agreement, but that's not relevant to my argument) then (a) partner must announce "could be short" and (b) this agreement is not natural, because it is not limited to 4=4=3=2 distribution. If your agreement is that 1♣ "could be short" is the natural meaning, then you can psych it. The similar 1♦ opening is, however, not natural, even if your agreement is "only on 4=4=2=3", and therefore cannot legally be psyched. It may be silly, but that's what the regulation says.

[blackshoe]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-08, 09:58, said:

Ah so people who open 1C 4342 etc play an artificial club?

Yes.

ACBL regulations don't always make sense. So we have players and directors who think "this can't possibly mean what it says, so I'll interpret it as meaning something else". They're wrong, but they get away with it.

[blackshoe]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-08, 10:00, said:

ALso apparently according to your OP 8 points is an illegal agreement for a precision diamond and I never knew that. That seems crazy, so I can't open in first seat with Ax xxx AJTxxxx x?

If that is the case, they should just do away with the 10 point rule, some 9 counts are normal openers to deem them an illegal psyche is just nuts. That goes for 0+ 1+ 2+ 3+ whatever.

You are allowed to use judgment to upgrade a hand, with only one exception in North America: you cannot upgrade a good 9 point balanced hand and open it 1NT if your agreement is 10-12 or 10-13 or whatever and you play any conventional responses (including Stayman) to 1NT. Opening on 9 HCP is considered prima facie evidence that you have an agreement to do so, even the first time you do it. While the regulation that you may not play conventional responses if your agreement on 1NT includes hands with fewer than 9 HCP is legal, I'm not at all certain that the prima facie evidence thing is legal. I am sure it's not in the spirit of the game, as I understand that spirit.

[blackshoe]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-08, 10:44, said:

Oh gosh, here we go again. It's not some big conspiracy. The fact that it is not perfect and there end up being some arbitrary distinctions before it's fixed does not mean that the old guard is doing it to protect themselves and stifle innovation lol.

In fact, I suspect that if the recent change redefining 1♣ on 4=4=3=2 as natural is designed to protect anybody, it's designed to protect the "perpetual novices" who have no clue, and will never get one, about what to do when the opponents CRASH over their "could be short" opening.

[blackshoe]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-08, 14:10, said:

I am still unclear though, does the 10+ thing apply to midchart or is 8+ ok there? I cannot tell just by looking at the charts. If 8+ is ok in midchart I feel a lot less bad since I always play midchart except in 1 session swisses.

The way I read it, there's nothing in the midchart itself that changes the 10+ requirement, so it's still in effect.

[SteveMoe]

Thanks blackshoe. Like others I was unaware of the 10 HCP limit and never thought this as much more of a deviation than opening any other 9 HCP hand in 3rd seat 1 of a suit. At least I am less confused, even if I don't agree.

[rhm]

JLOGIC, on 2013-May-08, 10:44, said:

Oh gosh, here we go again. It's not some big conspiracy. The fact that it is not perfect and there end up being some arbitrary distinctions before it's fixed does not mean that the old guard is doing it to protect themselves and stifle innovation lol.

Agreed, but something is rotten if rules are arbitrarily enforced.
Sometimes everybody laughs at you, if you protest when the rule was broken, because all the good players would do it, and sometimes you get in trouble when you break the same rule.
Claiming rules are not perfect are no answer at all. We could just as well establish a rule, allowed is what the best established players might do.

Rainer Herrmann