Deviation from system

[shevek]

[hv=pc=n&s=sat85hkj9dj3cj973&w=s4hat8652d762ct86&n=skj973hq4dq5cakq5&e=sq62h73dakt984c42&d=s&v=n&b=15&a=p2h2sp3sp4sppp]399|300[/hv]

 

West opened a standard weak 2.

East cashed the top diamonds then a heart.

In with ♥Q, declarer cashed ♠K and another.

She looked at the EW system card and read "2♥ weak, 6-cd suit, 6-10 pts"

Looking at all the other points, she played for the drop.

 

There was no director call. NS were not strong players. If called, what would you DO?

If you ask EW about style, you might get "Usually 6-10, but the vul, stiff spade, a couple of 10s" YadaYada

That's just speculation.

[blackshoe]

I suppose I might ask what law they think was breached.

[aguahombre]

I don't know the exact reg, but somewhere something is written about the stated range of a weak two, and whether it is o.k. to have a wider range than such and such, or a wider range than stated.

 

Maybe not in Australia.

[blackshoe]

You're thinking of the ACBL's GCC.

[mrdct]

There was a time (about 10 or so years ago) when Australia had a regulation for weak twos whereby systemically they needed to conform to the Rule of 15 whereby the length of your two longest suits plus your high-card points needed to be at least 15 and you simply weren't allowed to have a partnership agreement to open a weak two with anything less. When this rule was introduced my usual partnership agreeement for non-vul weak twos was "5+ cards 0-9hcp", but that was no longer a legal agreement so I had to change to "less than an opening hand but conforming to the Rule of 15".

 

During the tenure of the Rule of 15, most players continued to employ "hand evaluation" and open hands from time to time which didn't conform to the Rule of 15 (but would never have a partnership agreement to do so of course) and eventually the regulators in Australia came to their senses and abandoned the Rule of 15, but I'm not sure when. There was an interesting appeal from the New South Wales state team trials in 2003 where the Rule of 15 was mentioned in the obiter dictum in relation to a first seat favourable weak two opening on:

 

[hv=pc=n&w=skj9874ht96d2c652]133|100[/hv]

 

I think the ABF scrapped the Rule of 15 not long after and today you are allowed to have any agreement you like for your weak twos; however, principles of full disclosure still apply and if your system card says 6-10hcp and your partnership agreement is to open on less when favourable, your are required to disclose that to your opponents. I think on the hand from the 2003 NSWBA appeal, it is such a blindingly obvious weak two that I can't imagine anyone ever getting into trouble with a 6-10hcp agreement and similarly for the hand in the OP, if you add the distributional points you get to 6 easily enough although I think I'd have a mild word to East-West about proper disclosure and ask that they make sure that their CC properly reflects their partnership understanding of the requirements for a weak two - especially at favourable vul.

 

I personally had a more extreme example that had a ruling and appeal back in the 2006 Australian National Open Teams where I opening 2♥ (described on the CC as "weak 6-10, can be 5 cards and shaded values nv") first seat favourable with:

 

[hv=pc=n&s=s8764h87543d86ck4]133|100[/hv]

 

The opponents had an auction with several hesitations, questions out of turn and gratuitous comments mid-auction including "if I'd known it could be that weak I would've doubled" and bid to a game which the TD took away from them but the appeals committee gave it back to them on the basis of inadequate disclosure, suggesting that if our partnership agreement is to open weak twos on such hands the bid should be alerted. From that day since I always alert weak twos and give the opponents a bit of a run-down on our partnership preempting style.

[sfi]

The relevant issue is misinformation. Law 20F.6 directs us to 47E which covers adjusted score after play based on misinformation.

 

Was it misinformation? If this bid falls within partnership expectation, then there appears to be a pretty good case for it.

 

That being said, if this was at the Association, you should know better than to trust any description of a weak two there. :)

[gerry]

The relevant issue is misinformation. Law 20F.6 directs us to 47E which covers adjusted score after play based on misinformation.

 

Was it misinformation? If this bid falls within partnership expectation, then there appears to be a pretty good case for it.

 

That being said, if this was at the Association, you should know better than to trust any description of a weak two there. :)

 

OP says that "NS were not strong players". This to me is the relevant point. Why are they supposed to know that the description of weak twos is 'wink wink' 6-10 when many good players would routinely open 2H on this 4 count.

 

Why are they writing 6-10? is this just a tactic to confuse bunnies? NS know perfectly well that pard might open 2H on A sixth and out but they write 6-10 on heir card?

 

No wonder that so many less experienced players think that they are having the wool pulled over their eyes.

 

Come on, against weaker players be a bit honest about what you really preempt on...

[gnasher]

I don't think you have to be a weaker player to be misled by this, and I think you should be honest with all of your opponents. I would have played exactly as declarer did, for exactly the same reason. If EW have an agreement (explicit or otherwise) to open 2♥ on a 1633 4-count, why should anyone be expected to understand that from the description "6-10"?

 

I suppose I might ask what law they think was breached.

40A1b, 40A3 and 40C1, if they had an agreement that this was a 2♠ opener. Or none, if they didn't.

[barmar]

Do you think EW really have an agreement to open a weak 2 on a 4 count? I suspect not. Rather, West judged this particular 4-count to be exceptional, and worth upgrading -- it's an Ace in the trump suit, and it's supported by the 108.

 

Can someone calculate the odds of a 6331 4-count having A109 or A108 in the long suit? Maybe also count 6430 and 6421 hands as well, I imagine they'd also open these.

[aguahombre]

I could have sworn the word "if" appeared twice in Andy's post, without an opinion about what actually was or was not their agreement.

[gnasher]

Do you think EW really have an agreement to open a weak 2 on a 4 count? I suspect not. Rather, West judged this particular 4-count to be exceptional, and worth upgrading -- it's an Ace in the trump suit, and it's supported by the 108.

It would be unusual to consider this worth a two-point upgrade. If the partnership had an agreement to do that, I think that the description "6-10" would be misleading.

 

Can someone calculate the odds of a 6331 4-count having A109 or A108 in the long suit?

I don't think this is particularly relevant, but I make it 22%:

 

Given that we have Axxxxx:

Probability of holding the ten = 5/9

Probability of also holding 9 (with or without the 8) = 4/8

Probability of also holding 8 without 9 = 4/8 * 4/7

P(A10Sxxx) = 5/9 * (4/8 + 4/8 * 4/7) = 43.7%

 

Axxxxx and KJxxxx are equally likely (because one splits the small cards 5=4 and the other splits them 4=5). Hence the probability of A10Sxxx given a 4-HCP 6-card suit is

43.7 / 200 = 22%

[Cascade]

It would be unusual to consider this worth a two-point upgrade. If the partnership had an agreement to do that, I think that the description "6-10" would be misleading.

 

 

I don't think this is particularly relevant, but I make it 22%:

 

Given that we have Axxxxx:

Probability of holding the ten = 5/9

Probability of also holding 9 (with or without the 8) = 4/8

Probability of also holding 8 without 9 = 4/8 * 4/7

P(A10Sxxx) = 5/9 * (4/8 + 4/8 * 4/7) = 43.7%

 

Axxxxx and KJxxxx are equally likely (because one splits the small cards 5=4 and the other splits them 4=5). Hence the probability of A10Sxxx given a 4-HCP 6-card suit is

43.7 / 200 = 22%

 

You seem to have assumed the 4 hcp are in the long suit and made no calculation of the fact that there are no high cards outside the long suit.

 

Therefore I think the probability is considerably lower.

[campboy]

I'm sure this pair wouldn't open x, Txxxxx, Axx, xxx, but I don't suppose they would open x, Txxxxx, Axx, Kxx either, so the problem with the first hand is not one of pointcount. If you are going to open most 4-counts that meet the other requirements of the bid (a decent 6-card suit) when NV then your range includes 4.

[Vampyr]

Do you think EW really have an agreement to open a weak 2 on a 4 count? I suspect not. Rather, West judged this particular 4-count to be exceptional, and worth upgrading -- it's an Ace in the trump suit, and it's supported by the 108.

 

It's a one-time thing. It just happens a lot. -- Suzanne Vega

[bluejak]

In England there were a lot of regulations when weak twos arrived, and you were limited as to range and so forth. One effect of this is that lots of people nowadays ask the range, get told 5 to 9, and ignore it totally.

 

If you open 3♥ not one opponent in 100 will ask the range or expect you to have one. My partner and I always make it clear that the range is a vague guide and not guaranteed. If we said 0-10 it would be unhelpful because we know that most weak twos are in the 5 to 9 range.

 

I think that ranges should be done away with. They only confuse people, and basically people look at a hand and think it worth a weak two or not, same as a weak three.

 

I have always liked the way the ACBL card has usually or approx or something on their ranges for overcalls. Because of that no-one expects the exact range to be followed. In my view the same should be printed for weak twos, or better still get rid of the ranges.

 

The ruling it self is impossible really. Why does it say 6-10 on the card? Probably because people have got used to this range idea. But inexperienced opponents do not understand this.

[Vampyr]

I have always liked the way the ACBL card has usually or approx or something on their ranges for overcalls. Because of that no-one expects the exact range to be followed. In my view the same should be printed for weak twos, or better still get rid of the ranges.

 

The same will not be printed, because the ACBL have strict regulations concerning the range of weak twos.

[blackshoe]

Only in that if the range is greater than 7 points, you can't use artificial or conventional calls after the weak two opening.

[Vampyr]

Only in that if the range is greater than 7 points, you can't use artificial or conventional calls after the weak two opening.

 

I guess 7 is not too strict...somehow I thought it was 5.

 

If you have the full 7-point range are you not allowed to deviate from it?

[aguahombre]

If you have the full 7-point range, they won't buy your statement that the deviation is outside your agreements.

[Zelandakh]

"Usually 5 to 9 but a litle more or a lot less is possible", for example? In my first partnership we used to describe our jump overcalls as 0-11 and a 6+ card suit, but then we really did overcall pretty much anything, even with 0 points, even red against white. I think simply saying 0-10 for normal weak twos would be misleading as well as unhelpful.

[mgoetze]

She looked at the EW system card and read "2♥ weak, 6-cd suit, 6-10 pts"

 

if your system card says 6-10hcp

It doesn't, apparently. Not everyone considers "pts" to be the same thing as "hcp".

[Phil]

When it comes to preempts, hand evaluation is very subjective. Regardless of the ACBL's 7 point rule, I really see nothing wrong with opening a hand like QT9xxx x xxxx xx w/r in 1st seat, and also opening KJ9xxx Qx KJx Jx r/w as well, but marking "5-10".

[blackshoe]

Doing so is perfectly legal - provided you use no conventions afterwards. If you do use conventions afterwards, you are using an illegal method, and if called, the TD should rule accordingly.

[gnasher]

When it comes to preempts, hand evaluation is very subjective. Regardless of the ACBL's 7 point rule, I really see nothing wrong with opening a hand like QT9xxx x xxxx xx w/r in 1st seat, and also opening KJ9xxx Qx KJx Jx r/w as well, but marking "5-10".

You don't believe in accurately disclosing your methods then? You might treat the first hand as being worth a 3-count, but calling it a 5-count is ridiculous.

 

If it's systemic to open QT9xxx x xxxx xx in some positions, the opponents are entitled to know that. If you claim to be playing "5-10", some opponents will be decieved by that. If they are, your breach of the rules will have gained you an advantage. Is that what you want? And do you know what we call someone who knowingly breaks the rules, knowing that it may bring him an advantage?

 

It sounds as though you play your weak two bids as approximately 3-9 first at favourable, and 5-10 first at adverse. If so, you should say so on your convention card.

[keeper2]

Wasn't there a case discussed on these forums some time ago where Chip Martel, a prominent member of the relevant ACBL committee, playing with his wife, opened a 3HCP weak two (outside their stated range, which was limited by the regulation), claiming it was simply a deviation from the agreement and the ruling went in his favor...