Deviation from agreement
As I understand it VERY rare deviations from partnership agreement are legal as long as not fielded by partner, eg upgrading a hand and opening 1NT with 11 HCP, announced by partner as 12-14 (the partnership agreement).
Playing online with self alerting it is the bidder who alerts “12-14” (the partnership agreement) knowing that the hand has 11 HCP. Essentially the same situation but somehow doesn’t feel quite right. Any views?
Comments
The agreement is still 12-14, and that's what the opponennts are allowed to know. You are not reuqired to have your bid (with a few rare exceptions). As long as the fact that it is 11 points is as much a surprise to your partner then it's OK. Be warned though, such deviations do have to be very rare if they are not to become a part of the agreement by "custom and practice".
Even if they are implicit agreements, it doesn't generally mean they are not allowed. You are allowed to play an 11-14 NT if you disclose it as such.
I think the "VERY rare deviations" phrase in the original post is surplus. The law actually says:
L 40 C. Deviation from System and Psychic Action
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 [but see B2(a)(v) above]. 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.
Disclosure (online and face-to-face) varies widely.
Some players or partners refuse to recognise that they open many 11HCP and always (self-)explain/announce "12-14"
Other players take a very different approach: self-explaining "12-14" when that is what they've got; and "11-14" or "12-14(ish)" when they don't have 12-14. They know that opponents can break this code!
Dealer, not vulnerable, opens 1NT on KJ102,AQ7,J8,8762. Regular partner announces 12-14. At the end of the hand opponents ask about the 1NT opening with only 11 HCP and are told by opener that the partnership agreement allows NV openings in 1st & 2nd seats with 11 HCP.
Playing TD was later informed during a break in play but said that it's a deviation so ok.
Comments in this thread support my view that it's a concealed understanding and to prevent this continuing 1NT NV openings should be announced as 11-14, certainly in 1st and 2nd seats.
I'm interested in views on this.
You are allowed to deviate from your agreements, but that doesn't mean you can present your de facto agreement as though it were a deviation.
Thank you Gordon. I now have a follow-up question:
What recourse is available to opponents damaged by this unannounced agreement given the TD in question will have the de facto final say in whether there is any score adjustment or whether the Laws of bridge (and relevant guidance) will be applied in this or any other situation where they are the TD in charge? This includes rulings and pronouncements at their own table that are clearly wrong, e.g. Declarer told that a card is played when detached from other cards in the hand and then put back, never going near the table. On this basis sorting the hand when on play might mean having played several cards.
I realise that in theory an appeal could be made to the relevant Club authority but the reality is no appeal will be considered. There is even precedent that appeals against rulings or formal complaints about behaviour of other players instead lead to action against the appellant or complainant and this action is then supported by the Club despite the complete failure to follow any proper appeal or formal disciplinary process.
I would be interested in your advice for affected players that falls short, in the most serious cases, where disciplinary action is wrongly taken, of having to consider legal action for libel and/or slander.
If both opponents understand that they will open 1NT with most 11HCP hands in some positions and vulnerabilities, but 1NT is not announced as 11-14 HCP in those positions and vulnerabilities, then this is misinformation. If your side was damaged because they would have bid or defended differently with the correct explanation, Law 21B3 and Law 47E2(b) will allow an adjusted score.
> If both opponents understand that they will open 1NT with most 11HCP hands in some positions and vulnerabilities, but 1NT is not announced as 11-14 HCP in those positions and vulnerabilities, then this is misinformation. If your side was damaged because they would have bid or defended differently with the correct explanation, Law 21B3 and Law 47E2(b) will allow an adjusted score.
I was about to post the same...
If the players damaged in this or other equivalent situations appeal to the apparent relevant authority at the Club, copied to manager/Secretary/Committee, and the appeal is either not considered or summarily refused other than on the basis the facts are not agreed or the appeal was out of tine, can those players appeal to the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee for an alternative ruling?
I > @RogerPratt said:
I have answered this in a separate discussion
https://forums.ebu.co.uk/discussion/1536/law-93c-further-possibilities-of-appeal/