Blue Book 5F3
A couple of years ago I posted - https://www.ebu.co.uk/forum/discussion/comment/8186#Comment_8186 - about light opening bids i.e. below 7A3.
As far as I could see it would usually be very difficult to establish that there had been an agreement to breach that condition. If the offender said it was a deviation, you would be hard pressed to prove otherwise.
Does the introduction of BB 5F3 alter that?
And how would they "demonstrate otherwise" to justify their bid? Is ignorance of 7A3 sufficient? Or, how about "I've got lots of 9s and 10s"?
Comments
It would be for those who seek to demonstrate otherwise to find a way to do it. I can't see why ignorance of 7A3 would demonstrate that: on the contrary, it makes it more likely that they had an agreement to do what they hadn't previously known they were not allowed to do.
Regrettably 'lots of nines and tens' doesn't cut the mustard. If a player wants to open on 7 points they should consider the options of 2-level bids - there are plenty - weak 2s (which can be bid on 5-cards), Lucas/ Muiderberg 2s (5-4 with the suit being bid) and even (level 4) the dreaded Multi 2D. The cynic in me thinks that opening on 7 points at the 1 level is basically the same as opening with a 'strong hand' at the 2 level when the actual aim of the bidder is to try and browbeat opponents into thinking they have more defensive assets then they actually do.
Yes this is a version of the sorites paradox, (there are 7 point hands and 7 point hands) but the EBU made a decision what is a weak hand.
There are so many ways of evaluating a bridge hand (many of them subjective) that I think it would be impossible to provide full guidelines. "7 points" may be a blunt axe, but it is an understandable blunt axe. (We have this problem with defining 'strong hands' - We are now on our third definition since I became a club TD and actually took notice of such things.)
As for proof that there is no agreement - two completed convention cards specifying the point range for a 1 level bid would probably suffice (with no comment that bids in third might be shaded!)
So, does 5F3 become a law of the "haves versus the have nots"?
Those who have a system card would be foolish to state that they play illegal openings and so can always claim that they do not have it as part of their partnership understanding and their bid was merely a deviation, and so is acceptable. However, those who do not have a system card are automatically guilty?
This would spare the haves from a procedural penalty. But, surely, they would still be subject to an assigned score of no more than 40%? The White Book 2.8.3.2 speaks about using an illegal method, without questioning whether it is a deviation from a partnership understanding.
The last pair to be 'done' for opening at the 1-level on 6 or 7 points had a card which said something "like third in hand can be very light." It took them some time to come up with 'psyche' or 'not our agreement but that was not in time for the Appeals Committee to believe them
But even if it is not an illegal agreement - and cannier players will be more careful with their system cards and have the word deviation or psyche on the tip of their tongue - is it still USE of an illegal method and therefore subject to an assigned score of no more than 40% ?