Weak 2s

[barmar]

The regulation could mean what you suggest.  But that would require that they wrote something different than what they chose to write.  When they write the regulation differently it means something different.

Having been a programmer most of my adult life, I tend to be quite careful about the use of 'and' and 'or'. However, many people are quite sloppy about it, especially with respect to saying 'and' when they mean 'or'. I used to try to correct them, but I soon found I was beating my head against a brick wall - better to just understand what they really meant than what they actually said.

 

So I agree with you in principle, the rule could stand being rewritten. In practice I agree with David.

In this case, I think it's obvious that the person who was wording the regulation got confused by all the negations, and lost track of the grouping of the clauses. If you're not a logician, de Morgan's Theorem doesn't come naturally.

 

They'd have had a better chance of getting it right if they'd written it as a set of bullet points rather than a complex prose sentence.

 

What makes the strict reading "ridiculous" is that it's clearly inconsistent with the spirit of the other regulations.

[jnichols]

Read #7 under responses and rebids.

[Cascade]

How is one supposed to know whether the writer intended what is written or some other construction.

Because the literal interpretation is ridiculous in this instance? And because the first part of the same paragraph used 'or' to make the same point about a different bid, so you even have a comparison point? We all know you either can't or choose not to interpret anything differently from exactly how it is written even when that is obviously incorrect or ridiculous or false or open to interpretation, but for most of the rest of us it doesn't seem to be a problem.

i dispute that it is ridiculous. Or does ridiculous just mean something that you don't agree with?

You don't think, given that the rule sets forth constraints for people using conventional weak 2 bids, that it would be ridiculous to permit them if the weak-2 bid shows 4-10 HCP but could be made on a void?

As it happens I do not have the paranoia about such methods that some seem to have. If it is a good method then why not play it and if it is a bad method then most likely most will give it up quickly. And if not we will get good scores against them (on average).

 

However my understanding of the GCC is that there is an implicit licence given for 'natural' methods e.g. 5-card majors (natural) are not explicitly licenced in the same way that weak twos are not licenced. The method that you describe is not 'natural' and therefore there is no licence.

[Cascade]

The regulation could mean what you suggest.  But that would require that they wrote something different than what they chose to write.  When they write the regulation differently it means something different.

Having been a programmer most of my adult life, I tend to be quite careful about the use of 'and' and 'or'. However, many people are quite sloppy about it, especially with respect to saying 'and' when they mean 'or'. I used to try to correct them, but I soon found I was beating my head against a brick wall - better to just understand what they really meant than what they actually said.

 

So I agree with you in principle, the rule could stand being rewritten. In practice I agree with David.

In this case, I think it's obvious that the person who was wording the regulation got confused by all the negations, and lost track of the grouping of the clauses. If you're not a logician, de Morgan's Theorem doesn't come naturally.

 

They'd have had a better chance of getting it right if they'd written it as a set of bullet points rather than a complex prose sentence.

 

What makes the strict reading "ridiculous" is that it's clearly inconsistent with the spirit of the other regulations.

Why is this obvious?

 

What happens when someone thinks it is obvious and someone else doesn't? In this case the laws of bridge actually require that the director abide by the announced regulation not someone's interpretation that it is supposed to mean something different.

[Cascade]

How is one supposed to know whether the writer intended what is written or some other construction.

Because the literal interpretation is ridiculous in this instance? And because the first part of the same paragraph used 'or' to make the same point about a different bid, so you even have a comparison point? We all know you either can't or choose not to interpret anything differently from exactly how it is written even when that is obviously incorrect or ridiculous or false or open to interpretation, but for most of the rest of us it doesn't seem to be a problem.

i dispute that it is ridiculous.

LOL

Yet another compelling argument - not!

 

How many other uses of the words "and" or "or" do you think we should not read literally in the regulations?

 

I really think this is a ridiculous interpretation that we should assume that the regulators were incompetent and meant something different than what they wrote and they have left the regulation unchanged for years.

[Cascade]

Read #7 under responses and rebids.

What is the relevance of this:

 

"7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s

second call."

[pdmunro]

2. ACBL General Convention Chart

 

DISALLOWED

 

7. ... "and weak two bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and or do not show at least five cards in the suit."

 

http://www.danaharborbridgecenter.org/Conv...Conventions.pdf

 

***************************************************************************

 

ACBL GENERAL CONVENTION CHART

 

DISALLOWED

 

7. ... "and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five cards in the suit.

 

http://www.acbl.org/assets/documents/play/...ntion-Chart.pdf

[Cascade]

He said "under responses and rebids".

 

I suppose it is fitting in this discussion that he doesn't mean what he said.

[TimG]

He said "under responses and rebids".

 

I suppose it is fitting in this discussion that he doesn't mean what he said.

From the GCC RESPONSES AND REBIDS section:

 

7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP),

forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For

this classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be

within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards – See

#7 under DISALLOWED.)

 

Seems to me that he meant just what he said.

[TimG]

http://www.danaharborbridgecenter.org/Conv...Conventions.pdf

This link is not to a current ACBL General Convention Chart. In fact, it looks like a modified version of the GCC. Perhaps meant for use in the Dana Harbor Bridge Center?

[cherdanno]

When is the last time you played an ACBL tournament, Wayne?

[Jlall]

Is the general consensus that we think Wayne is serious in this thread (or the other ones like it)?

 

Adam, FWIW that is a ridiculous ruling and you should not tolerate being treated that way. I know from experience that you might get treated this way more than others based on your age.

[Cascade]

When is the last time you played an ACBL tournament, Wayne?

Within the last year.

[Cascade]

Read #7 under responses and rebids.

What is the relevance of this:

 

"7. ALL CONSTRUCTIVE CALLS starting with the opening bidder’s

second call."

Is there an alternative version of the GCC where this is numbered 7. I know all I did last night was copy and paste this.

[Cascade]

Is the general consensus that we think Wayne is serious in this thread (or the other ones like it)?

 

Adam, FWIW that is a ridiculous ruling and you should not tolerate being treated that way. I know from experience that you might get treated this way more than others based on your age.

Justin are you serious?

 

I mean do you think rules should mean something different than what is written down?

 

If so then this truely is a LOL.

[jdonn]

I mean do you think rules should mean something different than what is written down?

 

If so then this truely is a LOL.

Do you claim David Stevenson a LOL?

 

"I do not think it unreasonable to make certain assumptions when Laws or Regulations are unworkable if you follow them exactly and pedantically. In this case we know perfectly well it means 'or' so it is silly to assume otherwise."

[jnichols]

From the ACBL website - click Play, Then Charts, Rules and Regulations, then Convention Charts. Also in the ACBL Board of Director's Minutes from Detroit - Spring 2008

7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP),

forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For

this classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be

within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards – See

#7 under DISALLOWED.)

[Cascade]

I mean do you think rules should mean something different than what is written down?

 

If so then this truely is a LOL.

Do you claim David Stevenson a LOL?

 

"I do not think it unreasonable to make certain assumptions when Laws or Regulations are unworkable if you follow them exactly and pedantically. In this case we know perfectly well it means 'or' so it is silly to assume otherwise."

1. This regulation is not unworkable if you follow it precisely. It just means that for otherwise natural weak twos you are only limited in playing conventions if both your range is wider than 7 HCP and your suit is shorter than five-cards. This interpretation is very workable it just happens to be more permissive than what you and others think it should be. That in no way makes it wrong or unworkable.

 

2. The laws of bridge explicitly require tournament directors to be bound by the announced regulations "The Director applies, and is bound by, these Laws and supplementary regulations announced under authority given in these Laws.". As far as I am aware this is non-discretionary. At least that is my understanding of "bound".

 

3. If David Stevenson or Josh Donn or anyone else advocates ignoring the laws of the game then I think that is worth "LOL". If not it is something far worse.

 

4. Arguing that you will not rule according to the announced regulations is ignoring the laws of the game.

[Cascade]

From the ACBL website - click Play, Then Charts, Rules and Regulations, then Convention Charts.  Also in the ACBL Board of Director's Minutes from Detroit - Spring 2008

7. ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP),

forcing opening bids and after opening bids of two clubs or higher. (For

this classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be

within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards – See

#7 under DISALLOWED.)

This is truely weird since this is what I found on this computer this morning but when I checked what I had looked at from my laptop last night it was this page Convention Chart

 

I have no idea why or how I got to this link that has a different chart than the one you are quoting from.

 

Actually I have some idea it was a google search.

 

I don't know why there would be more than one different versions of the convention chart available from the ACBL website.

[cherdanno]

I think the IBLF forum needs an off-topic discussion section, and the moderators would need to move any flamewars or discussion not relevant to the original question into the off-topic forum.

[jnichols]

I don't know why there would be more than one different versions of the convention chart available from the ACBL website.

The convention chart was updated (or at least published on the website) in 2003.

It was updated in 2008, but if I didn't follow the Board of Director's minutes I would never have realized it. I don't recall ever seeing anything resembling an announcement.

[LH2650]

Clubs are allowed their own restrictions on what may be played ......

No. Clubs can regulate conventions. ACBL Handbook, Chapter 4.

Isn't that what he said?!

No. Bluejak is contending that a club can ban a low-range weak two-bid. That is a natural call, not a convention, and therefore cannot be regulated by clubs.

[TimG]

This is truely weird since this is what I found on this computer this morning but when I checked what I had looked at from my laptop last night it was this page Convention Chart

The link you provide is to:

 

http://www.acbl.org/documentLibrary/units/convChart12_03.pdf

 

which makes it look like this is a convention chart from December 2003 in some sort of document archive. I wouldn't know how to find it at the ACBL site, but it is nice that it exists.

 

Anyway, this chart contains the same item that has been quoted here a couple of time:

(For

this classification, by partnership agreement, weak two-bids must be

within a range of 7 HCP and the suit must contain at least five cards – See

#7 under DISALLOWED.)

it's just #6 instead of #7.

 

Notice the "and" (that I bolded). In this allowed section it says P and Q; in the disallowed section it says ^P and ^Q.

Edited July 19, 2009 by TimG

[peachy]

Clubs are allowed their own restrictions on what may be played ......

No. Clubs can regulate conventions. ACBL Handbook, Chapter 4.

Isn't that what he said?!

No. Bluejak is contending that a club can ban a low-range weak two-bid. That is a natural call, not a convention, and therefore cannot be regulated by clubs.

In ACBL, clubs actually _can_ regulate however they wish. They are granted a lot of freedom in restricting or expanding on allowed methods and they are not GCC or any other chart or regulation bound. All they need to do, as courtesy, is to announce what restrictions or expansions the club wishes to have in place.

[Elianna]

I think the IBLF forum needs an off-topic discussion section, and the moderators would need to move any flamewars or discussion not relevant to the original question into the off-topic forum.

Or just delete the posts.