[mycroft]

Okay, this one isn't a ruling - at least not one involving me :-) The good news is that we changed the Laws to avoid this whole problem. Just for fun - and a little Lamfordesque SBing.

But, from another site (not my usual Other Site):

Is blind opening 1♦ as dealer - without looking at your cards - a psychic call? What about a "cloister club" 0-40 pass (after all, I know without inspection that my systemic call for this hand is "pass"!)?

Also, given the wording of L7B2:

Quote

Each player counts their cards face down to be sure there are exactly thirteen; after that, and before making a call, must inspect the faces of the cards.

is "pull the cards out of the board, fan them in front of eyes, immediately bid 1♦ deliberately without comprehension" a violation? A psych? I mean, it doesn't say I have to take in what I "inspected", does it?

I mean, I know how we'd *rule it*; I'd go full-on Kaplan if I had to. But SB-ing it, do the Laws as written lead to those conclusions? If they do, or do not, in ways we "don't want", is this something the Lawmakers should try to tighten up (or is this just more "making the Laws harder to understand just to confuse" for Jillybean and others)?

[barmar]

I think it's clearly a psychic call. You deliberately made a call that does not describe your hand, unless you have a very lucky coincidence (someone could probably calculate the probability that this is an accurate bid).

I think the point of L7B2 is to indicate the expectation that players not just bid randomly, it's supposed to be a a reasonable representation of their hand.

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2024-April-11, 10:49, said:

I think the point of L7B2 is to indicate the expectation that players not just bid randomly, it's supposed to be a a reasonable representation of their hand.

Weren't you the one with the footnote that liked to think the lawmakers meant what they said, not what it might indicate, or something similar?

[helene_t]

If the agreement is that pass (or 1♦) shows 0-40 points then it's not a psyche. It may be an illegal agreement, though.

[pescetom]

 helene_t, on 2024-April-11, 13:20, said:

If the agreement is that pass (or 1♦) shows 0-40 points then it's not a psyche. It may be an illegal agreement, though.

I doubt there is an LA where that is a legal agreement.
Having established that, we still elude mycroft's provocation however.
Is it a violation of the letter or the spirit of the Laws to "inspect" your hand but not evaluate it in terms of promised length and strength under your agreements?
If not, then how can this be considered an intentional gross deviation?

Just to confuse the issue, there was an English player (don't remember the name ?) notorious for always opening 1♠.
But he didn't always bother to inspect his cards, he would often just head towards the bar saying "I bid 1♠".
He apparently scored very well

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2024-April-11, 10:35, said:

Is blind opening 1♦ as dealer - without looking at your cards - a psychic call?

No. It's an illegal call, as it violates Law 7B2. If you have a systemic 1♣ call that shows "any distribution, any strength", I suspect — and would be looking for — a violation of the system regulations. If there isn't one, well, you get away with it once. In the meantime, I'd be lobbying the RA to close that loophole.

 mycroft, on 2024-April-11, 10:35, said:

Also, given the wording of L7B2:is "pull the cards out of the board, fan them in front of eyes, immediately bid 1♦ deliberately without comprehension" a violation? A psych? I mean, it doesn't say I have to take in what I "inspected", does it?

Yeah it kinda does. Here's the definition of "inspect" from my dictionary:

inspect | inˈspek(t) |
verb [with object]
look at (someone or something) closely, typically to assess their condition or to discover any shortcomings: they were inspecting my outside paintwork for cracks and flaws.
• examine (someone or something) to ensure that they reach an official standard: customs officers came aboard to inspect our documents.

Clearly glancing quickly without comprehension is not "inspecting". So again, a violation of 7B2.

The laws do not provide a rectification for violation of 7B2, but such violation is "a serious matter indeed". So the first thing I'd do is issue a PP. If he does it again, or I get a sense he's deliberately fooling around, I might just send him home. In the ACBL I might report it via a Player Memo (or other method required by the CDR).

[axman]

 pescetom, on 2024-April-11, 15:28, said:

Just to confuse the issue, there was an English player (don't remember the name ?) notorious for always opening 1♠.
But he didn't always bother to inspect his cards, he would often just head towards the bar saying "I bid 1♠".
He apparently scored very well

Try Adam Meredith

[Cyberyeti]

 pescetom, on 2024-April-11, 15:28, said:

I doubt there is an LA where that is a legal agreement.
Having established that, we still elude mycroft's provocation however.
Is it a violation of the letter or the spirit of the Laws to "inspect" your hand but not evaluate it in terms of promised length and strength under your agreements?
If not, then how can this be considered an intentional gross deviation?

Just to confuse the issue, there was an English player (don't remember the name ?) notorious for always opening 1♠.
But he didn't always bother to inspect his cards, he would often just head towards the bar saying "I bid 1♠".
He apparently scored very well

I think it's a legal agreement for pass but not for 1♦ in many jurisdictions. A pair at the Cambridge uni bridge club when I was there played their pass throughout system and scored 60% IIRC. They were a pair of junior world champs, so probably defended the spots off the cards.

There was also a case in the mindsports olympiad final where a player was upset with his partner and opened a strong 1N blind.

[pescetom]

 Cyberyeti, on 2024-April-12, 02:33, said:

I think it's a legal agreement for pass but not for 1♦ in many jurisdictions. A pair at the Cambridge uni bridge club when I was there played their pass throughout system and scored 60% IIRC. They were a pair of junior world champs, so probably defended the spots off the cards.

Under our regulations (which are almost a cut and paste of WBF policy in these respects) 0-40 is clearly a HUM for 1♦ (8-40 HCP would be ok with Pre-Alert).
Pass is unfortunately subject to interpretation, as I see it: if the agreement was "10-40 or 0-9" it would be a HUM. You may or may not agree with me that 0-40 is effectively the same thing.

[Cyberyeti]

 pescetom, on 2024-April-12, 06:39, said:

Under our regulations (which are almost a cut and paste of WBF policy in these respects) it's clearly a HUM for 1♦ (8-40 HCP would be ok with Pre-Alert).
Pass is unfortunately subject to interpretation, as I see it: if the agreement was "10-40 or 0-9" it would be a HUM. You may not agree that 0-40 is effectively the same thing.

For pass, I don't think there is any prohibition on a pass unless it "shows values" - "may have values" is not the same thing

[pescetom]

 Cyberyeti, on 2024-April-12, 06:41, said:

For pass, I don't think there is any prohibition on a pass unless it "shows values" - "may have values" is not the same thing

Correct, but "shows values" is "prohibited" (more precisely, a HUM) even if it includes a weak alternative. And "any 0-9" is a weak alternative to showing values "any 10-40".

[mycroft]

Not sure you're going to run into the same "problem" with that regulation the "3+ spades" people have (violating the "length (4+) or shortness (3-)" provision): the intent was to bar a "this or that" (2 or fewer, or 5 or more, but not 3 or 4), not a continuous range.

Might not - I know neither the FIGB regulations nor how they have been interpreted in the past.

Interesting that several people come down where I do, both on "is it psychic" (and "because it happened in the past, and we couldn't stop it, now it's illegal") and "would it be a legal agreement, and if so, would it be either psychic or pass usable UI" (without 7B2) - and difference between "autopass" and "autofert".

I expected I would get more of a fight. But then again, because the pattern is unLawful, it doesn't matter, so, good.

Thanks, blackshoe, for making clear the implication that "inspect" implies comprehension. I believe that was the intent of the Lawmakers (it certainly would be the way I'd rule it, except in the midnights) - and as such, probably okay for 2027.

[pescetom]

 mycroft, on 2024-April-12, 09:41, said:

Not sure you're going to run into the same "problem" with that regulation the "3+ spades" people have (violating the "length (4+) or shortness (3-)" provision): the intent was to bar a "this or that" (2 or fewer, or 5 or more, but not 3 or 4), not a continuous range.

Might not - I know neither the FIGB regulations nor how they have been interpreted in the past.

The regulations are basically the WBF systems policy in this case and so there might be useful case law at World level rather than just national - I'm not aware of either however. Probably because nobody yet turned up to Bermuda Bowl and tried to play "pass any hand" (I'll be playing national pairs in Salsomaggiore at the end of the month, if things go badly on the first day I might just try it for fun and see what the Directors have to say ).

Sure, there is an obvious problem of discrepancy between what the rule actually says and what the probable real intentions were ("we don't want you passing a whole bunch of hands that any normal player would open"). Whether or not "pass any hand" was intended to fall foul of the rule, the rule should have been written differently IMO.

[hrothgar]

Slightly different take on matters

Unless 1!D has a very particular meaning, the very act of opening 1!D without looking at one's cards is an out of band signal to partner.

[barmar]

 hrothgar, on 2024-April-13, 05:14, said:

Unless 1!D has a very particular meaning, the very act of opening 1!D without looking at one's cards is an out of band signal to partner.

There's no law against sending UI, just using it. So partner must ignore the fact that you didn't look, and respond as if you have whatever 1♦ shows.

And if you're playing online or with screens, partner can't tell that you didn't look.

[pescetom]

 barmar, on 2024-April-15, 14:38, said:

There's no law against sending UI, just using it. So partner must ignore the fact that you didn't look, and respond as if you have whatever 1♦ shows.

It is no infraction to unintentionally send UI whilst attempting to follow the Laws, but doing so via an infraction of 7B is an infraction of 72A and some appropriate part of 73.
And if partner has the information that you did not look, his obligation under 73C is to carefully avoid taking any advantage, not just ignore and respond as if.

[hrothgar]

 barmar, on 2024-April-15, 14:38, said:

There's no law against sending UI, just using it.

Laws 73 and 89 were changed significantly a few months back

http://www.worldbrid...-Amendments.pdf

[mycroft]

Yeah, I think blind bidding would be not be considered "incidental UI". In fact, it would be pretty obviously "communicating or attempting to communicate". So yes.

But still, "no law against making UI" (as long as there is a bridge reason for it).

[sanst]

I would consider blind bidding a serious breach of Law 74, especially Laws 74A2 and 3.

Quote

LAW 74 ‐ CONDUCT AND ETIQUETTE
A. Proper Attitude
[...]
2. A player should carefully avoid any remark or extraneous action that might cause annoyance or embarrassment to another player or might interfere with the enjoyment of the game.
3. Every player should follow uniform and correct procedure in calling and playing.

There's no way you can play serious bridge if an opponent is blind bidding, which would completely spoil the enjoyment of the game to me. If somebody does that, I would call the TD and tell that I would leave if this happens again. And it's certainly not 'correct procedure '.

[barmar]

 sanst, on 2024-April-18, 07:09, said:

I would consider blind bidding a serious breach of Law 74, especially Laws 74A2 and 3.

There's no way you can play serious bridge if an opponent is blind bidding, which would completely spoil the enjoyment of the game to me. If somebody does that, I would call the TD and tell that I would leave if this happens again. And it's certainly not 'correct procedure '.

Doing it regularly is definitely against the whole point of the game, just like randomly bidding 7NT would be. If someone does this frequently, this should be handled through the organization's Conduct and Discipline process, not by the TD, like deliberate cheating.

But if it's done once in a blue moon, and in a way that the player's partner can't tell, then I'll reiterate my original response: it's effectively like psyching.