[bluejak]

jallerton, on Jun 12 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 12 2010, 05:53 AM, said:

I just got an email from Rick Beye at ACBL HQ on the subject of opening on 9 HCP when your agreement is 10-12. He said "Our position has not change on 10-12 NT = NO deviations.  Once instance deserves a harsh procedural penalty." That only applies in the ACBL, of course.

With a new partner I agree to play 10-12 NT.

Case (a). On the first hand I pick up an excellent 9-count which I judge to be a better hand than the average 10-count. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

Law 40B2A.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on Jun 14 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

jallerton, on Jun 12 2010, 08:54 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Jun 12 2010, 05:53 AM, said:

I just got an email from Rick Beye at ACBL HQ on the subject of opening on 9 HCP when your agreement is 10-12. He said "Our position has not change on 10-12 NT = NO deviations.  Once instance deserves a harsh procedural penalty." That only applies in the ACBL, of course.

With a new partner I agree to play 10-12 NT.

Case (a). On the first hand I pick up an excellent 9-count which I judge to be a better hand than the average 10-count. Which Law does he claim has been violated?

Law 40B2A.

How is a 10-12 HCP 1NT a special partnership understanding?

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Jun 13 2010, 01:35 AM, said:

It is interesting, though, that the ACBL took the opportunity to designate only one agreement as a "special partnership understanding", and this one ain't it.  

What have they designated as a special partnership understanding?

[blackshoe]

Any one level opening, in a suit or NT, which could by agreement be on fewer than 8 HCP. It's in the elections at the back of the ACBL version of the lawbook.

[mjj29]

Cascade, on Jun 14 2010, 03:34 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 14 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

Law 40B2A.

How is a 10-12 HCP 1NT a special partnership understanding?

The RA may designate any partnership understanding as a special partnership understanding even if it is not conventional (L40B1(a)), although the list by default just contains conventional meanings (L40B1(b)). Implicit agreements are also included (L40B1(b)).

However, the ACBL do not seem to have so designated it:

blackshoe said:

It is interesting, though, that the ACBL took the opportunity to designate only one agreement as a "special partnership understanding", and this one ain't it.

blackshoe, on Jun 14 2010, 04:15 AM, said:

Any one level opening, in a suit or NT, which could by agreement be on fewer than 8 HCP. It's in the elections at the back of the ACBL version of the lawbook.

[Cascade]

mjj29, on Jun 14 2010, 10:11 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jun 14 2010, 03:34 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jun 14 2010, 11:04 AM, said:

Law 40B2A.

How is a 10-12 HCP 1NT a special partnership understanding?

The RA may designate any partnership understanding as a special partnership understanding even if it is not conventional (L40B1(a)), although the list by default just contains conventional meanings (L40B1(). Implicit agreements are also included (L40B1().

This is not what the law says.

There is nothing that says "any" agreement can be classified as a special partnership understanding.

The limits imposed are "...may not be readily understood and anticipated..."

It seems to me to outside the law to disallow agreements that are simple to understand and easy to anticipate.

[campboy]

Cascade, on Jun 14 2010, 11:35 AM, said:

The limits imposed are "...may not be readily understood and anticipated..."

No, the limits imposed are "in the RA's opinion, may not be readily understood and anticipated". It doesn't matter (legally) if that opinion is wrong

[blackshoe]

I suspect that, if the CandC committee had their act together, the "Kamikaze NT" would already have been designated a "Special Partnership Understanding", and banned on the GCC (possibly moved to MidChart).

FWIW, I disagree completely with what Rick Beye says is the current ACBL policy (see upthread). Not that my opinion means anything to the ACBL.

[awm]

Many locales have rules which bar certain agreements. There's a general problem when a pair's announced methods are right up against the permitted agreements, and then they use their "judgment" to deviate from their announced methods and dip just below the allowed line.

For example, supposing that 1NT=10-12 is a permitted agreement but 1NT=9-12 is not (which is basically the case in ACBL), what happens when a pair announces 10-12 but the bidder holds only 9 points? It seems like if the upgrade is so frequent that most 9-counts qualify, they are really playing 1NT=9-12 and just claiming the slightly stronger range to get around the rules. Of course, if the upgrade is very unusual and only on hands which "really look like 10" then perhaps it should be okay, but people have differing opinions on which hands would qualify and attempting to enforce the regulation would then be a huge mess. This isn't just a problem in ACBL -- virtually all regions seem to have a rule barring one-level openings on less than 8 hcp, and the same problem comes up when a pair agrees to play 1M = 8-14 hcp and then opens 1M on a "nice seven count."

While I agree in principle that deviations should be allowed, it's quite tricky to deal with ones that slide into the range of "illegal agreement." You can't just tell them to disclose that they upgrade frequently and thus open many 9s with their 10-12 notrump or many 7s with their 8-14 1M (which is the usual remedy) because those agreements aren't permitted. The approach which ACBL seems to take is that "upgrades" of hands which are below the limit for legal agreements are just banned. In my opinion this is a practical way (perhaps the only practical way) to address the issue. Of course, outright psychs (which are nowhere near the agreed point range) aren't problematic. So it's okay to open 1NT on your nine-count playing 1NT=15-17, but not okay to open 1NT on your nine-count playing 10-12. In the first case it's a psych and it's usually easy to tell if partner "fields it" (making it a CPU) but in the second case it's hard to tell whether this is an isolated incident on a "really good" nine or something that happens a lot (meaning you really play 9-12).

[peachy]

Cascade, on Jun 14 2010, 03:34 AM, said:

How is a 10-12 HCP 1NT a special partnership understanding?

Questions such as this are best addressed to the people in the RA who designated 10-12NT as special partnership understanding. As far as I know those folks are not posting here.

The Law is clear and leaves it up to the RA. When "in the RA's opinion" 10-12 NT is a special partnership understanding, then under that RA, *it is* a special partnership understanding, and its use can be regulated.

This is where we are and I personally have no problem with that.

[bluejak]

Cascade, on Jun 14 2010, 11:35 AM, said:

This is not what the law says.

There is nothing that says "any" agreement can be classified as a special partnership understanding.

The limits imposed are "...may not be readily understood and anticipated..."

It seems to me to outside the law to disallow agreements that are simple to understand and easy to anticipate.

But the RA gets to decide what is and is not covered by those limits. So effectively anything can so be treated. The fact that you or I might think otherwise is irrelevant.

Furthermore, the ACBL has some feeling that a 9-count 1NT is not fair or something. So it is perfectly logical that they can thus decide that a 1NT opening that could be on a 9-count is "...not be readily understood and anticipated..." by ACBL members.There is no point in saying that it is outside the Law if an RA decides something is a special partnership agreement.

Yes, I know the ACBL have not yet said so, but that is because it has not occurred to them to bother to make sure their regulation is currently legal. But if it does, it is trivially easy for them to do so.