Re: An incredible hand

On 8 December 2017 at 15:21, Robert Geller <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes, but nothing in the Laws allows the RA to mandate that players use a
> 4321 point count (or quick tricks or LTC or anything else) to evaluate
> their hand.
>

I am not completely sure that is the case. At least explicitly there is
nothing
stopping the RA writing regulations in terms of the 4321 point count.

Nevertheless I have stated for a long time that any rule that restricts
judgement is going to be problematic. Rules that use any sort of point
count are going to restrict judgement.

In one sense bridge is a game of judgement. If you restrict that judgement
by decree then you are potentially not only stopping the good player from
using expert judgement but also the palooka from using their poor
judgement. Neither seems desirable.

Moreover if we strive for the optimum methods, and some do, then it is
uncontroversial that the optimum will either occur at a point inside the
boundary,in which the boundary (regulation) is unimportant or on the
boundary. When the optimum is on the boundary or even perceived to
be then players will develop methods that are close to that boundary.

The latter is especially problematic when the boundary is not well defined,
as is so often the case with our regulations.

Take for example a regulation that prohibits agreements to open with fewer
than 8 hcp. Does this mean strictly 4321 points? Could I add a point for a
doubleton or a five card suit or a couple of tens (or even treys)? As
Robert
suggested if I do not use the 4321 point count do I have to check each
time in case in my judgement (whatever it may be) I happen to be violating
the 4321 rule?


>
> Let's face it, rules like this are of questionable legality in a strict
> sense, but probably most countries (Japan is one) have some rules like
> this in ordinary events open to all players. Such rules should be
> eschewed in top flight events, but are probably an unfortunate necessity
> to keep the punters coming back.
>

I wish they were of questionable legality. They certainly are of
questionable
practicality.

Questionable legality is certainly the case when as Richard notes below
that the RA denotes something as simple as 3 hcp with 7 spades
something that may not be readily understood and anticipated.



>
>

> On 2017/12/08 9:57, Richard Hills wrote:
> > "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow,
> > disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership
> > understanding."  Law 40B2(a)(i).
> >
> > The Regulating Authority may designate a partnership understanding to
> > open 1S with 3 hcp to be a special partnership understanding if its
> > "meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily
> > understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the
> > tournament." Law 40B1(b).
>





> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> > Richard Hills, significant number
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Peter Smulders <[email protected]
> > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >      >From: Herman De Wael <[email protected] <mailto:
> [email protected]>>
> >      >Precedence: list
> >      >MIME-Version: 1.0
> >      >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected] <mailto:
> [email protected]>>
> >      >References: <[email protected]
> >     <mailto:[email protected]>>
> >      >         <[email protected]
> >     <mailto:[email protected]>>
> >      >         <[email protected]
> >     <mailto:[email protected]>>
> >      >         <[email protected]
> >     <http://svenpran.net>>
> >      >In-Reply-To: <[email protected]
> >     <http://svenpran.net>>
> >      >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:14:36 +0100
> >      >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected]
> >     <mailto:[email protected]>>
> >      >Message-ID: <[email protected]
> >     <mailto:[email protected]>>
> >      >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >      >Subject: Re: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: An incredible hand
> >      >Message: 4
> >      >
> >      >Sven Pran wrote:
> >      >>I don't understand how any jurisdiction may forbid for instance
> >     opening bids
> >      >>at the one level with less than 8 HVP.
> >      >>
> >      >>What they can do (and what I assume most have done) is to have
> >     restrictions
> >      >>on agreements which implies opening such weak hands at the one
> level.
> >      >>
> >      >>There is a difference.
> >      >
> >      >There is, a theoretical one.
> >      >
> >      >But in practice, when a player opens a particular hand with a
> >      >paticular bid (or more general, makes any bid with that hand), then
> >      >the Director will ofte have to assume that the particular bid is
> >     systemic.
> >      >So in many cases the difference is only theoretical.
> >      >
> >      >In the current case, the opening bid of 1Sp certainly has the
> >      >meaning "I think I can make a majority of tricks in this strain,
> >      >partner, if you have three more tricks, you can bid 4Sp.
> >      >Certainly a systemic meaning.
> >      >So under the old "rule of 18", this opening must be prohibited.
> >      >Which only shows that the rule of 18 is not optimum.
> >      >
> >      >Herman.
> >
> >     Most players don't have agreements on freak hands like this.
> >     Apparently you consider ideas such as "bid what you think you can
> >     make" or "use common sense" a concealed understanding.
> >     The hand has 6 solid tricks, and with a partner who is not completely
> >     bust but has less than opening values a part score is possible but
> >     game is very unlikely.
> >     I would not call a call of 1S a psyche, and even if it s, it is
> >     certainly not artifcial. Thus it does not meet the condition of Law
> >     40B2:
> >     The RA "v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls".
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Blml mailing list
> >     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> >     http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> >     <http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Blml mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>



-- 
Ngā mihi

Wayne Burrows

Te Papaioea
Aotearoa

Palmerston North
New Zealand

_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml