Weak 2s

[matmat]

i think the forums just need a /dev/null

[Cascade]

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 section it says "and"; in the other section is says "or". They can't both be right. No amount of vituperation on your part is going to change the intent of the rule or the application of the rule in practice.

1. Which other section?

 

2. How do you know the intent of the rule?

[Lobowolf]

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.

What's the difference between an "implicit license" and an unwritten rule?

[Cascade]

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.

What's the difference between an "implicit license" and an unwritten rule?

In this case without the "implicit licence" there would be no licence to play any natural bids.

 

That is the "implicit licence" is what the convention chart is built upon.

 

An "unwritten rule" is something additional to the rules.

 

In this example the "implicit licence" is to allow natural weak twos and the "unwritten rule" that is being claimed is that "and" really means "or".

 

Clearly the "unwritten rule" is nonsense.

[TimG]

In the RESPONSES AND REBIDS section (allowed):

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.)

Following directions and looking at #7 under DISALLOWED:

7. CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than 10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have two non-consecutive ranges) 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.

Sorry, it doesn't say "or" in either section. P and Q in one section, ^P and ^Q in the other section.

 

Seems to me that a strict reading of the GCC would result in a conclusion that conventional responses are permitted over weak two-bids which show a range of at most 7 HCP and contain at least a five card suit. This is specifically allowed by the first cited rule above.

 

The second cited rule makes reference to some things which are disallowed, it does not specifically allow any methods. One cannot look at the second cited rule and conclude "they did not specifically disallow it, so it must be allowed". Early on the chart is the rule "Unless specifically allowed, methods are disallowed". So, you cannot conclude a method is allowed by its failure to be disallowed.

[blackshoe]

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.

I'll let Bluejak respond to your first sentence, if he likes. I will respond to the second one.

 

The Laws leave to the Regulating Authority (RA) the authority to designate "special partnership understandings". The RA for club games in North America is, de jure, in Canada the Canadian Bridge Federation, in Mexico the Mexican Bridge Federation, and in the US the US Bridge Federation. In practice, however, in the US the ACBL is the NBO, and hence the RA for club games.

 

The Laws also allow the RA to delegate or assign its responsibilities to Tournament Organizers(TOs). Clubs are TOs. The ACBL has not, to my knowledge, formally done that, but in practice the ACBL has demonstrated that it essentially does not care what clubs do, so long as they pay their sanction fees on time.

 

So while the legal situation is muddied by the ACBL's 500 pound canary stance and failure to address regulatory changes necessitated by (or at least desirable based on) the new laws, technically it appears your assertion is correct, but practically you will have no luck getting the ACBL to enforce it.

[blackshoe]

Hm.

 

P=="within a range of 7 HCP"

Q=="the suit must contain 5 or more cards"

 

Assert: P&Q -- if the assertion is true, the agreement is allowed.

 

Assert: ~P&~Q -- both must be false for conventional responses and rebids, and conventional defenses to opponents' defense, to be disallowed.

 

Opening bids at the 2 level which do not meet the criteria of the first assertion have not]/b] been designated by the ACBL as special partnership understandings. Therefore natural 2 level openings which do not meet the criteria of the first assertion are not illegal, and in fact not regulated at all by this assertion. They are, however, regulated by the second assertion, which requires that if both conditions are false, conventional responses, etc. are disallowed.

 

Note that nowhere does any law or regulation specify a minimum point count for any of these 2 bids. The range could be 0-5 and 5+ cards (allowed by assertion 1, conventional responses, etc. allowed by assertion 2). It could be 0-8 and 5+ cards (not disallowed by assertion 1, but conventional responses, etc. disallowed by assertion 2).

[Gerben42]

Silly question: Is it allowed to play 2 - 6 HCP white vs red, 7 - 11 HCP otherwise, for example? And 0 - 13 in 3rd seat, but playing no conv. responses.

 

(in ACBL)

[TimG]

(1) Assert: P&Q -- if the assertion is true, the agreement is allowed.

 

(2) Assert: ~P&~Q -- both must be false for conventional responses and rebids, and conventional defenses to opponents' defense, to be disallowed.

 

Opening bids at the 2 level which do not meet the criteria of the first assertion have not been designated by the ACBL as special partnership understandings. Therefore natural 2 level openings which do not meet the criteria of the first assertion are not illegal, and in fact not regulated at all by this assertion.

The opening itself is not regulated, just the conventional responses and rebids.

 

If the opening bid does not meet (1), then conventional responses and rebids are not permitted. It is the conventional responses and rebids that are being regulated, not the opening bid. There is no need to designate the opening bid a special partnership method in order to regulate conventional responses and rebids.

 

If the opening bid meets (2) then conventional responses and rebids, and conventional defenses to opponents' conventional defenses are not permitted. If the opening bid meets (2), it does not meet (1), so this is partially redundant -- there was no need to disallow conventional responses and rebids based upon (2) because they were already not permitted by (1). (2) further disallows conventional defenses to opponents' conventional defenses.

 

So, I guess if you want to play a 0-10 HCP weak two-bid promising 5+ in the suit named, you cannot play conventional responses and rebids. But, you can play conventional defenses to opponents' conventional defenses.

[TimG]

Silly question: Is it allowed to play 2 - 6 HCP white vs red, 7 - 11 HCP otherwise, for example? And 0 - 13 in 3rd seat, but playing no conv. responses.

 

(in ACBL)

I believe the answer is "yes". Similarly, if you play 10-13 NTs in 1st and 2nd seat NV, 15-18 otherwise, you are not subject to the restrictions of DISALLOWED #7 (which would apply if your NT range were 10-13 or 15-18).

[Mbodell]

Silly question: Is it allowed to play 2 - 6 HCP white vs red, 7 - 11 HCP otherwise, for example? And 0 - 13 in 3rd seat, but playing no conv. responses.

 

(in ACBL)

I'd say yes. You are allowed in practice to play different nt ranges in different seats and vulnerabilities and allowed the conventional followups even if the union of all your nt ranges in all your seats is greater than the 5 point limit (so long as any given 1nt opening is within the limit).

 

Likewise, nearly everyone plays a 4th seat 2 level bid with a different range than 1st-3rd.

[bluejak]

I think it is strange how some people assume the laws and regulations mean something different from what they actually say.

 

How on earth anyone with the inside knowledge is supposed to know that the regulation means something completely different than what is written I have no idea.

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.

 

Our intention is to run a game of bridge, not win brownie points for pedantry.

It is impossible to run a game of any sort with any credibility if the rules do not mean what they say.

Certainly untrue. All games, sports and mindsports have rules: all games, sports and mindsports have rules which are not clear. Yet they all manage to be played perfectly well. Bridge is no exception. The vast majority of people running the game of bridge use commonsense, and that includes people making sensible interpretaions of Laws and Regulations.

 

Credibility? All bridge players apart from a very pedantic few have a belief in the rules generally, and the game survives happily as a result.

 

:ph34r:

 

Further the law requires the director to rule according to the announced regulation.

 

It is entirely improper for a director interpreting a regulation that says 'and' to interpret it as if it said 'or'.

Wrong. It is not the TD's job to interpret: it is his RA's or TO's job. Everone knows what the ACBL means, so over-pedantic attempts to spoil the game are unnecessary, and certainly do not add credibility.

[bluejak]

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.

I think this is a dubious assertion. Until the current Law book, natural bids could not be regulated, and I expect that is why the statement in the ACBL handbook is as it is. Now they can be regulated by designating them as a special partnership agreement.

 

But it does depend on whether the RA allows the TO to regulate them. The ACBL's stance on this is not very clear, probably because they have not bothered to make it clear. If you think that they have not delegated or assigned any powers to clubs except as that statement in the ACBL handbook then clubs cannot appoint TDs, take entries, and so forth. As a matter of custom & practice, the ACBL certainly allow some clubs as TOs to make some decisions, but do not really say what.

 

So you may be right that a club cannot regulate natural bids, but it is not clear, and I very much doubt that Memphis would do anything to a club that told its members that weak twos were only permitted in the range 8-10.

[hrothgar]

Everone knows what the ACBL means, so over-pedantic attempts to spoil the game are unnecessary, and certainly do not add credibility.

Everyone knows what the ACBL means?

 

Care to explain the ACBL's position on either of the following:

 

1. Suppose that I am playing a 2♠ opening that shows 5+ Spades, 4+ cards in either minor and ~6-10 HCP. Is this bid sanctioned at the GCC level, the Midchart level, or neither (the Limited Chart, the Superchart, some such)?

 

2. Suppose that I am playing a 2♣ opening that shows ~ 9 -14 HCP and either 6+ Clubs or (5+ Clubs and a 4 card major). Is this bid sanctioned at the GCC level, the Midchart level, or neither.

 

Official chapter and verse would be appreciated...

[TimG]

Everone knows what the ACBL means, so over-pedantic attempts to spoil the game are unnecessary, and certainly do not add credibility.

Everyone knows what the ACBL means?

Surely you knew that this was in reference to the weak two discussion.

Care to explain the ACBL's position on either of the following:

 

1.  Suppose that I am playing a 2♠ opening that shows 5+ Spades, 4+ cards in either minor and ~6-10 HCP.  Is this bid sanctioned at the GCC level, the Midchart level, or neither (the Limited Chart, the Superchart, some such)?

Mid-chart. #12. I believe it is reasonable to conclude from its inclusion on the mid-chart that it is not permitted in GCC events.

2.  Suppose that I am playing a 2♣ opening that shows ~ 9 -14 HCP and either 6+ Clubs or (5+ Clubs and a 4 card major).  Is this bid sanctioned at the GCC level, the Midchart level, or neither.

This one ACBL admits is insufficiently covered. There are plans to address the problem in Washington, DC later this month.

[bill1157]

I play weak 2 bids as 5 card+ suit, 6-12 hcp with 1 partner. The directors in the local clubs want us to alert the bid when we do it. Is this appropriate?

 

Bill

[bluejak]

Seems correct. Local clubs can modify alerting regulations, I presume, and even if [incredibly, in my view] the ACBL does not permit this, I am sure they are not going to interfere in a local club's private alerting rules.

 

Mind you, I am not saying that I necessarily approve. Any club that has different alerting rules from the ACBL will cause a lot of grief for members who do not play solely at that club.

 

Compare an English problem: we have introduced announcemnets, based on my personal experiences in the ACBL and South Africa. This includes announcing natural opening 1NT ranges [and whether a singleton is permitted]. Quite a large minority wanted us to exclude players playing a 12 to 14 1NT, which is as common in England as the 15 to 17 1NT in the ACBL. We decided this was wrong, partly becasue of advice from the ACBL. One or two clubs however [and one County, I understand, thouhh they may have changed their mind since] decided to not announce 12 to 14 1NTs. Their players are confused, except the ones who only ever play in a single club. Apparently those particular clubs are losing players and they do not know why! :P

[jeffford76]

I play weak 2 bids as 5 card+ suit, 6-12 hcp with 1 partner. The directors in the local clubs want us to alert the bid when we do it. Is this appropriate?

You haven't said where you're from. The ACBL alert chart includes these as alertable:

 

Natural 2D, 2H or 2S, if intermediate or better

Natural weak or intermediate 2C

 

The interpretation here is that what this really means is if the bid includes intermediate hands that the bids should be alerted. So if you're there you should be alerting these everywhere, not just the club.

[Cascade]

Further the law requires the director to rule according to the announced regulation.

 

It is entirely improper for a director interpreting a regulation that says 'and' to interpret it as if it said 'or'.

 

Wrong. It is not the TD's job to interpret: it is his RA's or TO's job. Everone knows what the ACBL means, so over-pedantic attempts to spoil the game are unnecessary, and certainly do not add credibility.

 

I was rereading this thread and found this inaccuracy in David's final response.

 

The law clearly states that the director's responsibility is to interpret the regulations:

 

Law81C2. to administer and interpret these Laws and to advise the players of

their rights and responsibilities thereunder.

[blackshoe]

You haven't said where you're from. The ACBL alert chart includes these as alertable:

 

Natural 2D, 2H or 2S, if intermediate or better

Natural weak or intermediate 2C

 

The interpretation here is that what this really means is if the bid includes intermediate hands that the bids should be alerted. So if you're there you should be alerting these everywhere, not just the club.

6 to 12 is not "intermediate".

[mycroft]

Assertion: clear from context that it is sloppy clausing, and that what is intended is:

 

DISALLOWED: conventional followups...after [] 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".

 

Which, without the proper use of parentheses (quotes in English) to bind order of operations, is readable both ways. Those who read it the obviously wrong way for any reason other than amusement at the ACBL Laws Commision's sense of priority in writing manuals (which, mind you, are still better than "translated into English from the Chinese by people from Seoul" typical of computer manuals - even those written by U.S. corporations, on U.S. soil, solely) are being annoying. Note: in amusement I am including "trying to get changes made through ridicule" - a valid tactic, with unfortunately little more chance of success than any other way.

 

My opinion of the GCC is public and well-known, but griping about ambiguous order of operations is *way* down the list.

 

Related to clubs: since September 2008, for "conventions", read "special partnership understandings" throughout. As I have said before, eventually, sometime around 2015 or so, the ACBL's relevant committees will get around to fixing the documentation to the new rulebook. As I have said before, as well, I dread the day, as I strongly expect that other changes will come as well; and they won't be liberalizing the GCC.

 

On a side note, I had a club tell me that we couldn't open a 1-7 weak 2, "it has to be 5 and 5 in this club". "Okay", we said, and changed it to deal with a hole in our system. Two pairs later, 2S "Alert". "12-16, at least 6 spades."

[nige1]

The law clearly states that the director's responsibility is to interpret the regulations:

Cascade is obviously correct: The director must not make up his own rules. The director's task is to enforce the rules, as written. It is the law-maker's responsibility to correct faulty rules or scrap them. If the fault is a simple typo, then it is easy to do that, immediately, in place.

[mgoetze]

Certainly untrue. All games, sports and mindsports have rules: all games, sports and mindsports have rules which are not clear.

 

I invite you to point out the unclear parts of the following rules: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp/rules.htm

[mrdct]

I invite you to point out the unclear parts of the following rules: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~barryp/rules.htm

Why does the black player get an extra stone?

[mgoetze]

Why does the black player get an extra stone?

 

It's more a traditional thing, but the general idea is that this gives enough stones for 361 moves (since black plays first), that being the number of intersections on the (standard-sized) Go board. An average game takes about 200 moves, so you will likely have plenty to spare. The number of unplayed stones each player has has no effect on the result.