[Fluffy]

So I have this client who is really terrible, and I found recently an opponent lecturing her partner because he had instructed her not to reopen when my partner was declarer, is this allowed? what about makingsoem doubles penalty because he is declarer?

[mycroft]

It depends on NBO regulation, but the first ("avoid balancing when the client is going to play it") is legal - that's a judgement issue; changing the meaning of bids depending on the opponents (as opposed to the system; "We play Fishbein against weak 2s that are frequently worse than Qxxxx" is just fine, even if only one pair is playing EHAA), or depending on which opponent is bidding, is less likely to be. Regulations are based on Law 40B2a:

Quote

The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow, disallow, or allow conditionally any special partnership understanding. It may prescribe a system card with or without supplementary sheets, for the prior listing of a partnerships understandings and regulate its use. The Regulating Authority may prescribe alerting procedures and/or other methods of disclosure of a partnerships methods. It may vary the general requirement that the meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made. Such a regulation must not restrict style and judgment, only method.

[bluejak]

Changing your tactics against specific opponents is normal bridge, so is obviously legal without agreement. I tend to bid dubious games, also overcall and pre-empt on rubbish, and various other things against poorer opponents.

But specific agreements to do so are more interesting. I fancy they are probably considered style, so disclosable but may not be barred.

[hrothgar]

mycroft, on 2012-December-28, 09:56, said:

It depends on NBO regulation, but the first ("avoid balancing when the client is going to play it") is legal - that's a judgement issue; changing the meaning of bids depending on the opponents (as opposed to the system; "We play Fishbein against weak 2s that are frequently worse than Qxxxx" is just fine, even if only one pair is playing EHAA), or depending on which opponent is bidding, is less likely to be. Regulations are based on Law 40B2a:

I think Mycroft has hit the nail right on the head.

From my perspective, the partnership is going far enough that they are changing the systemic definition of various bids.

With one player declaring a reopening bid means foo
With the other player declaring, a reopening bid is undefined.

[gartinmale]

I'll bite. This is a theoretical question, so please no "Get a new partner, WTP" posts.

You and your partner, in ACBL-land, have agreed that your weak 2s have a 5-10 HCP range and may be on a bad five-card suit. You pre-alert the latter, as you must.

Suppose you know your partner has (silently) labeled everyone in the room as 'good' or 'bad'. Against good pairs, he likes creating confusion, so his weak 2s have consistently been no better than Jxxxx with enough quacks to get to five or six points - regardless of seat or vulnerability. Against bad pairs, he wishes to bid descriptively and double them when they go wrong, so his weak 2s have been no worse than AKxxxx and a guarded outside Q - regardless of seat or vulnerability. Sure, this means partner doesn't think AQJxxx x Jxxx xx is a weak 2 bid at any colors - I didn't say his likes and dislikes were winning bridge. You've never discussed these facts, but it's become very apparent to you (perhaps you met partner at the desk at the beginning of a long tournament and are now stuck with him?)

1. Legal or not? (Not as interested in the awful ethical implications - I wouldn't play with a partner who did this, which would solve them for me, but that's not the point of the problem).

2. A pair unknown to you sits down. Partner opens 2H red on white in first seat and RHO asks you about your general preempting tendencies. How do you disclose?

3. Same as #2, but now the pair is known to you (such that you are confident you know which bin partner puts them in). How do you disclose?

[bluejak]

Your partner is pushing the "it's only a style thing" a long way. I think it is ok, but it is close to being different agreements against different opponents rather than style.

#2 and #3 are easy: tell the opponents what you have discovered and let them decide.

[Vampyr]

bluejak, on 2012-December-31, 15:11, said:

Your partner is pushing the "it's only a style thing" a long way. I think it is ok, but it is close to being different agreements against different opponents rather than style.

Is this against the regulations where Fluffy plays?