They shouldn’t be allowed to play that!

A pair at the recent Autumn Congress was playing a system whereby 1 showed , 1 showed , 1 was a balanced hand and 1 was a strong and forcing opening. The pair concerned had well completed convention cards, were as co-operative as they could be about disclosing and had a suggested defence to help their opponents. There was some discussion over the weekend about whether this sort of system ought to be allowed or not. In a club it is up to the members to decide. The club can play at Level 3 which would not allow this or at Level 4 and prohibit such systems if they want but I guess they are very rare anyway at most clubs.

Virtually all EBU tournaments, however, are played at Level 4 so this system and others that include transfer openings at the one level can be played. I know that the Tournament Committee have discussed this recently and the next Laws & Ethics Meeting will feature an item on the agenda concerning such systems.
One view expressed is that players should, with very few exceptions, be allowed to play what they want in a tournament setting but others feel that these systems ought to be more tightly restricted than they are. Is it, for example, reasonable to have to consider a defence for a two board round? Should these types of system perhaps be restricted to longer rounds, say 16 boards and not permitted in two or three board pairs rounds or short Swiss matches? Are players put off entering the NICKO or going to Brighton for fear of meeting such a system or don’t they care.

I asked a number of top players what their view was about these types of system being played in the Autumn Congress and about 80% would favour being more restrictive than current practice in short rounds. Any views on this topic would be welcome in advance of the next L&E meeting coming up early in the New Year.

In an earlier blog the web address of the International Bridge Laws Forum was given. Recently it has moved to the BBO site and the address is now http://forums.bridgebase.com/

Regulating agreements. Good or Bad?

Whilst at Brighton recently I was buttonholed, at reception whilst checking in, at the bar, on Preston Street whilst finding a restaurant, in the Gents and before during and after sessions. The conversations started along the lines of “You’re chairman of the L&E and I think you ought to understand that…………………” They were all friendly enough but fervent.

One topic that came up more than once was that of regulation of agreements. There’s too much, there’s not enough, it is not enforced, it’s too difficult for many were amongst the views expressed.

Why does the EBU regulate what agreements players can have? Several reasons and they are all, perhaps, a matter of degree. First there is a need to protect beginners and inexperienced players from the full armoury that some like to employ. That is the reason for having a simpler level that might apply in the Really Easy Congress at Brighton, the County Newcomers Pairs or the gentle duplicate that some clubs offer. At the other end of the spectrum some want to play more complex methods and the L&E view is to accommodate them within reason although some will disagree with the boundaries. One reason to restrict is that their opponents may not be able to cope with everything thrown at them and in some cases the system played can affect what you do. For example if your opponents play a forcing pass so that pass by opener is a hand of at least 12 points then what is 1 from you? An opening bid? An overcall? Even when players take part in trials for their national team there are still restrictions. One pair play that 2 is a pre-empt in any suit, not legal even at level 4. They provide a suggested and complete defence to assist which they bring to the table. This is also done in USA congresses and sometimes it is suggested that it would be a good method here also but too many times people spend an inordinate amount of time studying a defence to something that doesn’t come up slowing down the game and adding what I think would be an unwelcome additional dimension.

Most tournaments are played at what is known as Level 4 and for the most part that works out well but some clubs feel that unfamiliar agreements don’t have a place in the weekly duplicate and restrict to Level 3. Clubs, of course, can do as they wish so a few have their own set of restrictions. The principle disadvantage of this is perhaps the difficulty experienced if their players go to other clubs or perhaps strangers come to theirs.

The L&E also regulate to keep the playing field level. It is a condition that what you play must be able to be explained properly to opponents and it must be fair. If you choose to play odd-even discards whereby you play an even card to encourage then that’s up to you but in the area of signals there has long been a problem whereby players with an absence of even cards cannot play their odd card in tempo thus giving information to partner to which he is not entitled. So common was this when they were allowed that this signalling convention had its licence withdrawn many years ago. You don’t have to agree with this reason but be aware that there is one rather than it just being a capricious decision. Similarly you can agree that if you overcall and then double 3NT it calls for another suit to be lead but you can’t do this in conjunction with a psychic overcall.

You can do some things that are just bad bridge. I’ve come across a pair who played that a double of a three level pre-empt asked partner to show how many points he had. You can just imagine how easy it is to find your fit when you double an opening of 3 and partner responds 4 to show any 12+ points! Although it is a terrible method you can employ it if you wish. Bridge merit is not a criterion for allowing something to be played although some think it ought to be.

One of the least popular restrictions of recent times has been the banning of agreeing to open an artificial two level bid with a hand with lots of playing tricks and few points. It was made even less popular because at first it was perhaps pitched too severely but since August 2007 you can agree to open an artificial two bid provided you have 16+ points OR you meet the Extended Rule of 25 (add your high card points to the sum of cards in your two longest suits) OR you have EIGHT clear-cut tricks and the values normally associated with a one level opening. A hand sent to me in the last few days which was opened 2 Benjamin at a local club was:

9

K Q 8

A K Q J 10 9

8 7 4

It’s not legal as it would fail all three tests. The opponents might be intimidated from coming in initially when hearing it described as strong. It is also bad bridge but that is not why it is disallowed to agree to do this. It does make you wonder what the pair concerned would consider a suitable hand for a 1 opening and a jump rebid of 3 though.

Some players are very resistant to anything new and/or unfamiliar. They don’t see why they should be removed from their comfort zone. If their decision is to play a very simple system then no-one has a right to stop them but they can’t reasonably foist that on everyone. Sometimes the complexity is imagined rather than real. Suppose your left hand opponent opened 1NT and right hand opponent bid 2H announced as spades then nearly all players would be familiar with this and know what it meant if they bid 2 or if they doubled 2 but if you change the familiar setting to an opening bid of 1 showing spades then the idea of the methods being the same for both is lost in a tirade against people who play unfair methods. Frances Hinden has written an excellent series of articles recently in English Bridge on defending against unfamiliar methods and this is one situation covered. One convention which is genuinely difficult to defend against is the Multi 2 and when that came along in the 1960’s there were many who foresaw the end of civilisation as we know it yet 20 years after this when some restrictions on allowing it were suggested the majority of players thought that it was an outrage to even suggest it let alone do it. This was, in my view, because they had got used to it.

One comment I got at Brighton was an objection from a player who modestly described himself as a below average tournament player. He felt that opponents who came along with complex systems and reams of paper to describe them were making his game difficult and less enjoyable and he was not alone. I agree with him but I don’t think it is a reason for regulating agreements. In any congress you need to be able to put your agreements down on a standard convention card and if there isn’t room you shouldn’t be doing it. If someone arrives at a table and offers you a ream of A4 then not only have you not got time to read it but there is no reason that you should. Tell them to put it away. In my experience even if you have lots of agreements most opponents don’t want to know or read about them but they do appreciate being told the basics so I sit down and always say “Weak NT, 5 card majors, Weak Twos in the majors and you might want to look at our 2 opening.” Many more players seem to do this now compared with three or four years ago which is good.

So next time you think there should be more restrictions or even fewer bear in mind that there will be players who have the opposite view and there is room to cater for both sets.

Why did I lose my appeal?

I see a number of rulings after hesitations or system forgets after which the pair adjusted against feel aggrieved and upset. Some of the most passionate letters to the L&E are on this subject.

In all these cases, there has either been a long think by someone, or there has been a misbid/system forget together with an alert and explanation which tells partner about it. With a hesitation, partner of the hesitator is absolutely certain either that their choice of action was not affected by the time spent thinking or that they had so many good reasons for their action that there was no alternative to it. A typical comment is "but I was always going to bid/double here". With a misbid/misalert, the bidder either says "I knew as soon as I did it that I had got the system wrong, partner's alert told me nothing I didn't already know", or they say "it's obvious from partner's bidding that we've had a system accident, the alert/explanation was irrelevant".

When you get ruled against, it feels very much as if you are being accused of lying and/or deliberate unethical behaviour. I remember getting very upset indeed years ago when we were ruled once to have fielded a psyche and I absolutely knew that we hadn't. When the appeals committe rule against you, it's natural to think that either they haven't understood your arguments, or they think you are making them up after the fact.

However, much of this has really very little to do with the ruling. In cases of this type, the AC are not trying to divine whether or not you are telling the truth. They are merely addressing a standard set of questions using (what passes for) their bridge judgement:

1. Was there some action that gave you information you aren't supposed to have (e.g. a break in tempo, an incorrect alert, an alert which shows that you have got the system wrong)?
2. If so, what action(s), if any, does that information suggest?
3. Are there logical alternatives to that action (bearing in mind all the authorised information available)?
4. If the answers are 1.Yes, 2.{the action chosen at the table} and 3. yes: would an alternative, not suggested, action have been less successful? If so, adjust the result.

Everyone has an opinion about bridge hands. It's really no different to discussing how to bid a hand in the pub after the game. You give an argument to the AC as to why there's no real alternative to your choice of action, and those who rule against you don't agree with it. You need to approach rulings with the same frame of mind that you do when a team-mate disagrees with your line in 3NT - it's purely a bridge judgement, nothing to do with your ethics.

It's quite possible that the AC won't know you, particularly at a national event. So they answer the questions above purely in the only context they have - by thinking about what pairs playing in the same event and (possibly) coming in a similar position would do. They may not know your individual style very well, if at all. And quite often there may have been some table 'action' from the opponents which you think tipped you off. Perhaps the AC are wrong - when discussing table action it's often the case that you really have to be there - but the way the appeals process works means that it is normal for ACs not to know the appellants well, as we try and get people who will give objective rulings.

I want to make one other, slightly tangential, point.TD John Probst sometimes uses the concept of the "Probst Cheat" to explain rulings: as a very general rule, if a pair take actions that a cheat would take, and they gain from them, then for the Laws to work at all they must get ruled against. This is not a suggestion that the pair in question really were unethical, but rather that the ruling has to be this way or else cheats would prosper. Is it fair that the innocent may get ruled against in order to ensure the guilty don't gain? Maybe not, but one way to avoid that is, if possible, to avoid giving partner these difficult problems in the first place. Don't think for ages then pass when partner might have a problem himself, and don't forget the system (easier said than done, of course) - then partner won't be under any constraints.

Club Matters

At our recent meeting we discussed a number of items that are of interest and relevance to those who play mainly in clubs.

Doubling and Alerting

The L&E have had a number of comments about alerting of doubles since the last set of changes in August 2006. We decided to ask the Club Committee what it thought of the present arrangements and a number of possible changes. They consulted amongst the clubs and the message came back loud and clear that:

1. Further change would be unwelcome.
2. The current regulations are not perfect but the club committee would like an effort to be made to help educate players as to what they are.

The L&E accepted the recommendation to leave the regulation alone and will be producing some material to help in the coming months.

The Orange Book

It’s long and, in clubs where most players play a simple and similar system, it can be over complicated. The L&E have started work on what is being provisionally called the "Tangerine Book". This will be a drastically shortened book for clubs and club players and will be available by April 2010 (to coincide with the introduction of pay to play). This will give time for the Club Committee to be consulted on the draft content.

Rather than print large numbers of copies it will be available electronically. Those who want to see the full detail can continue to look at the Orange Book.

The Law

A new law book comes along approximately every 10 years. It’s a common misconception that the Laws are produced by the EBU. They aren’t. It is the World Bridge Federation that does this job and the game we play is regulated by these Laws. There is a small element of choice in the latest version so the EBU decided, for example, to permit players to ask their partner the question they used to ask: "No hearts, partner". It is legal to do that now but must be done in a neutral voice to avoid giving information to partner. A shocked tone indicates it was a touch unexpected, for example. The next set of laws will not be produced for another decade or so. I’ve been given a number of laminated cards which explain common laws (revokes, leads out of turn etc) to help club directors. These are now out of date but the L&E is looking at updating and producing them for clubs. Any opinions on the most valuable ones to be done first are welcome.