Partnership Understandings on EBU BBO events
Can I ask what level of Partnership Understandings are allowed on virtual EBU events on BBO or are they determined by the hosting club
In particular would the opening bid of 1H allowed in 3rd seat but not in 2nd on the following hand as it only satisfies Rule of 17
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Usually it's level 4. But a club can vary that. One level opening have to by agreement have 8 HCP (and in 1st or 2nd seat rule of 18, this is a third seat opening). It's probably a better hand than most 8 counts but does fall just below this line.
As mentioned previously, there is no such thing as an illegal bid - merely an illegal agreement. It is not permissable to have an agreement to open this hand at the one level (why not open it with 2 hearts?) but if there is no agreement then South has merely deviated - and that is allowed. Of course if partner says "I would have opened it with 1 heart as well" then there is an illegal agreement (at level 4)
Players are not allowed to cheat by prearranged signals. The view you've expressed is that it is somewhat legal to cheat: the player can communicate their illegal agreement (even though that is strictly against the rules we find some way to legitimise it) but partner is stymied in some way, having been given the benefit of knowing that partner wanted to communicate their illegal agreement.
The mind boggles.
Jaded, what you've said doesn't make any sense to me. A player opening this hand 1H is not communicating an illegal agreement, they're communicating to the other players round the table that they have a hand that corresponds to an opening bid of one heart. What that is depends on their partnership agreements. If they push those agreements to the limits of legality it will be a hand with at least four hearts and at least 8 hcp.
That they don't have that hand is another matter; it means they have either deviated from their agreement (which is legal) or they have an agreement to open this hand 1H (which is not legal).
As Weejonnie says, agreements may be illegal, bids may not.
It’s the last point I was addressing, not the particular hand.
Bids can be illegal. The consequences of them “never” being illegal is not accounted for in the laws.
The 1H opening in the OP might be a deviation from agreement, but I am not rolling over and accepting such a plea from the South player without inquiring, and I start looking for evidence of a non-permitted agreement by asking South why he opened 1H. I am pleased that EBU advice has over the last couple of years seems to have been increasingly to put the onus on partnerships to demonstrate that they are not playing a non-permitted agreement when a player such as in the OP opens 1H with 7 HCP.
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
I agree with what SK says above. Note that if the TD decides there was an offence committed, it is that the pair had an agreement to open 1H on this hand, not that they opened 1H on this hand per se. The TD has to decide that the pair had an agreement (which may be implicit and born out of experience rather than explicitly agreed), and as SK says, the onus is on the partnership to demonstrate that they are not playing an illegal method.
I can recall someone saying in an EBU training seminar that you'd be more likely to get away with opening 1S on this kind of hand than opening 1H.
Apart from insufficient bids, calls out of rotation, bids above the level of seven (or below the level of one), is there any condition that would make a bid, rather than the agreed underlying meaning, illegal?
@VixTD
Insufficient bids and calls out of rotation are not illegal, they are irregular calls that the opposition have the option of accepting, or not. Bids above 7 or below 1 the level have no meaning within the game would not be legal, irregular or illegal calls. Such bids would most likely be dealt with as a conduct violation for experienced players and a training issue for new players.
With regards to the question, "is there any condition..."
Every call that comes after the original illegal bid would also be an illegal call because players do not have the authority to accept illegal bids. A technicality. However, the same idea can be found in the laws on inadmissible calls. So, for example, a player who bids when they have been forbidden to do so, would be making an illegal bid even if the underlying meaning was entirely reasonable, the bid wouldn't be.
As Vix says, if a player with the South hand in the OP were to open 1S, I would also be quite prepared to accept a claim by the player that he intended to psyche. Clearly the purpose of the EBU Regulations here is not to prevent psyching but to protect 4th seat players (particularly) against ultra-light aggressive natural openings of one of a suit
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
That depends on how you look at it. Some calls can be "inadmissible" or they can constitute a breach of the Laws. And so on and so on.
"Irregular" calls happen, and the Laws (and sometimes the Regulations) tell us how to proceed. That is surely what the "TD on the floor" is interested in.?
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
Inadmissible calls are a subset of illegal calls. Inadmissible calls differ in nature from a CPU because they are readily seen by the opposition (and TD).
When you say, "That depends on how you look at it..." you're making the self-same point I am making, albeit with different words. There should be no "depends" about it. Each law should have a clear and unambiguous meaning that is not contradicted elsewhere in the laws.
I have two comments, one frivolous and the other more serious:
There's a further class of illegal bids - any non-integer bids, e.g. 1.5, 2.5, 3.67. Obviously impossible online but easy if spoken, written or using bidding cards.
Seriously, from experience playing against them, professional players when playing with clients or in teams for prestige and/or prize money are far more likely to psyche. TDs who are closely associated with host competition organisers do not usually entertain any suggestion of fielding or concealed/illegal understandings and nor do they maintain any record of psyches/deviations. Justifications have included 'it should have been obvious to the opponents' after bidding 3S with a singleton (last board of the event and one of the last tables in play) and 'it's normal' after a 3rd in hand 1 level opening with 5 HCP by a European international player (with their regular partner). Reported to TD, no action taken, no record.
I don't agree with anything Jaded has said on this topic, but I quite admire his line of reasoning:
Me: "There's no such thing as an illegal bid."
Jaded: "Yes, there is - every bid subsequent to an illegal bid is illegal."
Roger, I did think of wording it something like "Any bid that includes a number that is not a positive integer from 1 to 7 inclusive and one of the five denominations of the standard suits and no trumps..." but I didn't think that would be appreciated.
I'm sure what you say about condoning fielding happens, and I think more cases should be recorded than are at the moment. Fielded cases are the easy ones for TDs to deal with - it's the ones that are not fielded but are happening all too frequently that are the difficult ones.
I appreciate the rip-take :-)
Unfortunately (for the believers of every bid is a legal bid), means and method are indivisible. A bid that is informed by an illegal agreement is an illegal bid. This is a matter of simple construction: without the illegal meaning, the bid has no meaning and would not be used (or would be used with a legal meaning, but that's a story I've already covered).
Perhaps you could explain what this law means, if it doesn't mean a bid which is informed by an illegal agreement is an illegal bid...
LAW 40 - PARTNERSHIP UNDERSTANDINGS
A. Players’ Systemic Agreements
...
3. A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding (see Law 40C1).
You might see this as meaning calls based on 'undisclosed partnership understanding' may not be bid, which is defined as just short of the strongest meaning, 'must not'. Or you can see that the intention is that such bids must not be bid. Either way, such a bid is a serious breach and is counter to the 'all bids are legal' position: there is a bar on bids that are informed by undisclosed partnership understandings.
.
Or you could read that the partnership is required to alert (based on the alerting rules) and subsequently fully explain these bids, so that the understanding is not undisclosed.
Perhaps such a misreading of what Law 40A3 says contributes to the view that 'all bids are legal':
It doesn't say:
3. A player may make any call as long as partner alerts it as appropriate.
Forgetting to alert doesn't automatically make i) a bid illegal or ii) the system being played an undisclosed partnership understanding.
Of course, if you only play online, you might believe that alerting your own call is the norm and so could be forgiven for misunderstanding the wider implications: The law pre-dates the rise in popularity of online bridge.
Thanks for the insight.
Excluding bids made on online platforms with self alerting and explaining where the meaning of a bid should be available to the opponents immediately, all legal bids when tabled potentially comply with Law 40A3. It's only when there is a subsequent failure to alert/announce the meaning of the bid that the irregularity occurs.
Roger, if you explained what you believe Law 40A3 means, then it might be possible to point out where you have gone wrong.
This phrase within Law 40A3 is about the 'action' of the bidder, 'provided that such call... is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding'. It does not say anything about the actions of partner. There is no suggestion of any dependence on partner's subsequent actions. Your apparent assertion that, "It's only when there is a subsequent failure to alert/announce the meaning of the bid that the irregularity occurs" is without foundation, and wrong.
The consequence of the only requirement, to find a breach of Law 40A3, is to prove the bid was based on the existence of the undisclosed partnership understanding is that there is no requirement to prove either that partner was influenced by the undisclosed partnership understanding or that the partnership gained or lost by such an undisclosed partnership understanding. Once the case is made out that the bid was based on an undisclosed partnership understanding, there are no further elements required to establish a serious breach has occurred.
I won't be going round the houses with you Roger, so apologies in advance if you come up with a genuine law-based analysis.
It appears you have overlooked 'disclosure' can be made on a partnerships convention card and that forgetting to alert/announce is in no way comparable to making a bid based on an undisclosed partnership understanding.
Having looked throught the law book and the White Book for references to legal and illegal calls, I think it's clear that any call conforming to Laws 18 and 19 is a legal call. Such a call may however be based on an illegal agreement or understanding.
Some illegal calls may be accepted and become part of the legal auction, but Law 35 lists those that may not.
How do you reconcile the explicit right to use both authorised and unauthorised information gained from a legal call (Law 16A1(a), with your assertion that a legal call is not determined by the quality of the information it conveys?
LAW 16 - AUTHORIZED AND UNAUTHORIZED INFORMATION
A. Players’ Use of Information
1. A player may use information in the auction or play
if:
(a) it derives from the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted) and is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source; (emphasis added)
Well that's not what it says and that's clear from what you have quoted. You might also have emphasised:
is unaffected by unauthorized information
@gordonrainsford
To paraphrase yourself, you might want it to say that, but it doesn't.
You have selectively edited the quote to change the meaning of what the clause actually says:
is unaffected by unauthorized information from another source
Based on your interpretation of what a legal bid is, a player is entitled to use authorised and unauthorised information that flows from the legal bid. The caveat is that the player may not use unauthorised information that arises from a source other than the bid.
https://www.ebu.co.uk/documents/laws-and-ethics/laws/law-book-2017-ebu.pdf
I haven't said that. You are the one who thinks that there is an "explicit right to use both authorised and unauthorised information gained from a legal call".
I re-iterate that Laws 18 & 19 describe which calls are legal. Where do you get your definition from?
Earlier you seem to have said, unless I misunderstand, "players do not have the authority to accept illegal bids" and yet Law 16 says "the legal calls and plays of the current board (including illegal calls and plays that are accepted)", so they clearly can be accepted.
You also say "without the illegal meaning, the bid has no meaning and would not be used (or would be used with a legal meaning". Have you really never seen anyone make a call with no meaning?
The comment 'Based on your interpretation' indicates a line of thinking that flows from you point of view. It is not a literal quote of what you said.
You are debating in bad faith. I have simply quoted the what Law 16A1(a) says.
Your personal opinion of what Laws 18 and 19 describe is not Law. Those laws deal with the process of bidding and doubling, not what constitutes legal, irregular or illegal bids. If those sections were intended to define what constituted a legal bid, they would say so.
Law 40A3 - A player may make any call ... provided that such call .. is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding...
Read or re-read my comments above for a fuller description, but the essence is that bids that are based on undisclosed partnership understandings may not be made. Again, that is not my opinion, that is what the law literally says.
As has already been established, you are not shy in misrepresenting a position to further your own argument.
My position is that your definition of what constitutes a legal bid is not supported by the laws. I have also further commented that the laws are a mess because irregular and illegal meanings have been conflated, which has resulted in ambiguous and contradictory laws.
You gain nothing by ignoring the context within which my comments are made. In contrast, I get to witness your attempt to obfuscate.
The context of my comment is that a bid made under the influence of an undisclosed partnership agreement is an illegal bid, because it falls foul of Law 40A3.
My comment was made to answer the opinion which is unsupported in law, that all bids are legal...
The effect of that claim is that the TD is forced to tell a player that their bid has no meaning because that meaning is illegal.
So, to answer your question, I have seen bids that had no agreed meaning, but I have never seen a bid that had no meaning at all: Such a bid would be frivolous.
If you can find it within yourself to respond in good faith, please do so. Otherwise, thank you for proving my points.
Enough.
Players use the term 'illegal bid' when the TD will be ruling under law 40 on permitted agreements and (concealed) .partnership understandings. It is not important to the TD whether 'illegal bid' means anything in law.
Moderator notice
This forum aims to provide guidance for TDs to deal with practical problems they encounter (in clubs): through questions, and discussions, and hopefully answers.
It is all too easy to get into legal arguments about issues that will not help the average or new TD. Such arguments are not helpful and (in the past) they have overwhelmed other TD forums and mailing lists, so as to drive people away.
To avoid this, it may become necessary to close discussions, and edit or delete posts.