Director!

[jillybean]

[hv=d=w&v=n&n=s943hjt4d53caj953&w=skt62h9863dj82c84&e=sj7haq75dkq6cqt62&s=saq85hk2dat974ck7]399|300|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

 

West North East South

 

 2♦!   Pass  3♥    3NT

 Pass  Pass  Dbl   4♦

 Pass  Pass  Pass 

 

 !weak both majors

 

Here's a mad player from my tournament, West opened "2♦ weak with both majors" but did not disclose majors were 44. South cried foul, EW did not fully disclose their (unusual) agreements. How do you rule?

[Cascade]

Table result stands.

 

I think this player is clutching at straws.

 

He bid 3NT which is at least semi-reasonable and caught RHO with the majority of the points. Bad luck the opponents' pre-empt and methods worked on this hand.

 

Not disclosing 4=4 is a minor infraction and on this occasion I do not believe caused the damage.

 

I would tell the west player to be more specific in future.

 

In some jurisdictions a two-level bid showing a weak hand with two four-card suits would be an illegal agreement (goodness knows why). If that was the case then you may (probably will) need to make an adjustment.

[jdonn]

What does south think would have happened differently if he had known, that wouldn't have happened if west could be 4-5 or 5-4? Nothing, and even if he comes up with something I wouldn't believe him. If it would have really mattered to south in the bidding whether west could be 4-4 or not he should have asked the minimum length. The worst you could say east/west did was give a description that wasn't completely specific, big freaking deal. South just got annoyed about a bad result, so he found something irrelevant and cried and cried and cried.

 

If I was the director I'd rack my brain trying to come up with a way to penalize south for wasting my time.

[inquiry]

results stands as long as 2♦ was legal bid.

[Echognome]

Given this was one of Kathyrn's tourneys, I presume ACBL rules were NOT in effect.

 

I rule sour grapes.

[jillybean]

I was running the tourney under 'WBF rules' , multi 2♦ is legal

This was the conversation;

 

player: explanation weak with the majors

player: he had 4-4

player total unfair play

*Me: what would you have done differently if you had known they were 44?

player thats beyond the point; never thought it could be 4-4; but a pair cant use highly sophisticated conventions and dont explain them

*Me: Im trying to establish if there was damage

player i believe there should be an adjustment to 60% -40%

*Me: why? Failure to alert does not automatically mean an adjustment, there must be damage

player (Lobby): i know that, but i believe that an adjustment is worth to penalize when they didnot explain at all their convention

player (Lobby): even more, they won the event

*Me: there is no basis in the laws to give adjustments as punishment

player (Lobby): not fair at all

player (Lobby): so you are saying, i can use highly unusual methods, do not explain to opps and get away with it?

*Me: not at all, I am saying they must explain their agreements and when playing unusual methods take extra care to explain them fully

player (Lobby): exactly; and they did not do that

player (Lobby): and they got away with it

*Me: however a failure to alert does not automatically result in an adjustment, damage must have occurred

player (Lobby): and i am sure they will continue doing that

*Me: not in my tournaments they wont

 

I did ask EW to be more careful to fully disclose their agreements in future.

[matmat]

and i want an ice cream sundae... but the friggin store is closed.

[inquiry]

i think you handled that very well jilly.

[TimG]

I think you handled it well. The non-offending side was certainly not entitled to any adjustment. If anything (and I don't think there should have been) was done, it should be a procedural penalty against he offending side.

[jtfanclub]

Two Suiter seems to be defined in American General Convention Chart as 5-4 or better. So I think there was misinformation. I just don't see any damage during the bidding. Dunno if knowing that opener had only 4 spades would make a difference in play.

 

 

http://web2.acbl.org/documentlibrary/play/convchart2005.pdf

cf. Opening bids #6, competitive responses #3a, #4a and #4b.

 

But of course that only applies to people following ACBL rules anyways.

[Cascade]

I think you handled it well. The non-offending side was certainly not entitled to any adjustment. If anything (and I don't think there should have been) was done, it should be a procedural penalty against he offending side.

I wouldn't penalize for this sort of offense unless there was a history of poor explanations.

[Cascade]

I was running the tourney under 'WBF rules' , multi 2♦ is legal

<snip well handled TD dialog>

This is not a multi.

[jillybean]

Correct Wayne, Multi 2♦ is specifically

1.Weak two in a Major 2. Strong balanced or 3. Strong three-suited hand ?

 

Is this allowed under WBF rules as it promises at least 4 in a known suit, in this case showing 44 in majors.

[Cascade]

Correct Wayne, Multi 2♦ is specifically

1.Weak two in a Major 2. Strong balanced or 3. Strong three-suited hand ?

 

Is this allowed under WBF rules as it promises at least 4 in a known suit, in this case showing 44 in majors.

Anything is allowed under WBF rules.

 

From memory bids from 2♣ up to 3♠ require an anchor suit (4+ card suit) otherwise they are Brown Sticker. That does not mean you are not allowed to play them unless the conditions of contest specifically disallow Brown Sticker conventions.

 

The 2♦ bid in question has two anchors suits so there is no problem whatsoever playing that method in WBF events.

 

We have similar regulations in New Zealand and some two-level bid showing both majors (4-4 or better) seems to be very much in vogue. Especially with our youth players. I was involved in a training weekend with the NZ youth teams that are travelling to Beijing a couple of weekends ago and they all seem to have this gadget or a variation of it in their bag.

[peachy]

[discussing the quality/completeness of explanation]

I wouldn't penalize for this sort of offense unless there was a history of poor explanations.

There is history now:) If I were a TD, and poor explanation by this pair or player happens again, I would penalize them even if there were no damage and no reason for score adjustment.

[jkdood]

In a short mini with many casual or pick-up partnerships and a clock, it would have much merit if you allow this convention to require the players to provide a defense.

[david_c]

The explanation seems adequate to me. OK, if I played this convention I would say "at least 4-4" in the explanation. But is a failure to do so actually misinformaion? This is a judgement for the TD to make. Bear in mind that you can never include all the information about a bid in the initial explanation, as that would just be too long: if an opponent wants more detailed information then he has to ask. So is this something that it is actually misleading to leave out? I would say no. But this is not an easy decision, and in a face-to-face game the expectations might depend on what systems are commonly played in that area.

 

Oppo is at fault for assuming that the bid promised more than 4-4. If he has come across a "both majors" pre-empt before he would know 4-4 was possible. If he has not seen it before, then why on earth would he assume he knew what it promised?

[Cascade]

[discussing the quality/completeness of explanation]

I wouldn't penalize for this sort of offense unless there was a history of poor explanations.

There is history now:) If I were a TD, and poor explanation by this pair or player happens again, I would penalize them even if there were no damage and no reason for score adjustment.

I agree with the sentiment but possibly not the practice.

 

Even I have probably given two sloppy explanations in my life. Online I may even have occasionally forgotten to give an explanation or mistyped and not noticed.

 

I would want to be much more sure they were trying to be not helpful before penalizing.

 

I make notes online when a player gives a bad explanation for which I am called. I have yet to be called to someone a second time for whom I already have a note about a bad explanation. This suggests that most bad explanations are probably due to sloppiness rather than malicious intent.

[hotShot]

Jilly, you handled that well.

 

A proper disclosure of any bid should state strength and and length of the involved suit(s).

 

So the given explanation "weak both majors" is far from perfect but it isn't wrong.

But it's hardly a missinformation.

 

The OS should be informed to give a better disclosure.

 

Note that East did not bid 2♥ but jumped to 3♥. South did not ask if that was weak or strong! South obviously assumed that it is not strong.

 

Of cause if you assume that the bid needs 5-5 in the majors the player will expect his partner to be longer in the minors. Stopping both majors he can hope for 7 minor tricks, but if his judgment depends on the length of openers suits, he should have asked (since 5-4 was likely). So bidding 3NT with 16 HCP opposite a passed partner is very close to be a gambling action, if you don't consider it one from the beginning.

 

But knowing that opener can be 4-4 discourages bidding, so there is an argument for damage. But in that case the gambling action from South would have forfeit any chance of a score adjustment.

[TimG]

Two Suiter seems to be defined in American General Convention Chart as 5-4 or better.

Jilly has stated this this tournament was being run under WBF rules.

 

I think you handled it well.  The non-offending side was certainly not entitled to any adjustment.  If anything (and I don't think there should have been) was done, it should be a procedural penalty against he offending side.

I wouldn't penalize for this sort of offense unless there was a history of poor explanations.

I agree. But, in the case of a short online tournament, I would consider a first offense as establishing a history and seriously consider a PP for the second offense.

 

I don't think PPs are a particularly strong motivational factor, especially for those who are trying to practice full disclosure. I was once assigned a PP for an insufficient explanation in a situation very similar to this case in that I wrote "may bypass a major suit" which some would assume to mean a "4-card major suit" when in actuality the bypassed major could have been longer than 4 cards. I had already taken care to improve my descriptions when the appeal committee assigned a PP. And, when the committee did assign the PP, I didn't think "oh, I better be even more careful now".

 

I do think PP are beneficial in establishing an environment in which full disclosure is expected. And, in this way is probably more useful as a signal to those who are not directly involved in the decision. That is, they are a way to demonstrate that the sponsoring organization and directing staff are serious about the Laws and regulations and expect the players to also be serious about them. Failure to assign PP can be seen as the opposite.

[hrothgar]

Hi Kathryn

 

For what it’s worth, I think that you did an exemplary job handling this incident.

 

You focused the discussion on the crucial issue (damage) and explained that adjustments are not designed to punish players for infractions.

 

Nicely done

 

(You might want to contact the aggreived party and point them at this thread)

[helene_t]

Correct Wayne, Multi 2♦ is specifically

1.Weak two in a Major 2. Strong balanced or 3. Strong three-suited hand ?

My impression is that "Multi" always includes a weak two in either major, but what (if any) strong variants it includes varies between cultures. FWIW if a Dutch club player alerts his opening as "Multi" it probably includes a semi-GF minor one-suiter.

 

Agree with david_c that it is questionable if there was misinformation at all but in any case I think you did the right thing by asking South if he saw damage. As long as he wasn't able to explain damage it is not necessary to discuss whether there was misinformation.

[rigour6]

It looks to me like a very standard Ekren 2♦ pre-empt. Whether one agrees that is "highly unusual" is a matter of opinion. ACBL doesn't to the best of my knowledge, but it does require the range be restricted from true Ekren, which is 3 to 10 High, to some 5 point range (I think typically just raise the floor from 3 to 5).

 

I think the box and time constraints and typing skills are sometimes responsible, so you get people typing in "weak, both majors" or something to that equivalent, because it takes longer to go "3 to 10 high, at least 4-4 in the majors". I'm not saying that's an excuse, I agree with your action. If you're going to play Ekren, you need to recognize that it is not a particularly widely-known convention, so it behooves you to make the extra effort, not expect your opponents to. At the same time, a convention that would allow you to use it only when you're weak with 5-5 in the majors, how many ahnds would it come up? The "victim" should use some common sense.

 

I also agree with your viewing of the results and the reason why. Pre-empts are by nature destructive, and this one worked. Which is annoying for sure but part of bridge. The not-entirely-complete explanation isn't what caused the poor result here.

[TimG]

It looks to me like a very standard Ekren 2♦ pre-empt. Whether one agrees that is "highly unusual" is a matter of opinion. ACBL doesn't to the best of my knowledge, but it does require the range be restricted from true Ekren, which is 3 to 10 High, to some 5 point range (I think typically just raise the floor from 3 to 5).

ACBL has deemed weak openings that could be made on 4-4 hands to be destructive. Changing the lower limit from 3 to 5 does nothing to change this. (I'm not offering an opinion on whether this is good or bad, just stating what current ACBL policy is.) I'm sure you can find somewhere on the mid-chart a note that such weak openings must promise at least 5-4.

[hrothgar]

ACBL has deemed weak openings that could be made on 4-4 hands to be destructive. Changing the lower limit from 3 to 5 does nothing to change this. (I'm not offering an opinion on whether this is good or bad, just stating what current ACBL policy is.) I'm sure you can find somewhere on the mid-chart a note that such weak openings must promise at least 5-4.

I was always kind of miffed that this wasn't called the "Richard Willey rule".

 

Marty Bergen got the "Marty Bergen rule". Seems vaguely unfair...