Agree with this ruling?

[JSilver]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s54hk954dakq63c32&w=skt93haq762dcjt84&e=sqj7hj3dj9872ck65&s=sa862ht8dt54caq97]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

As North, after two passes, I decided to open 2♦, which we play as weak, thinking to preempt the opponents out of a possible spade fit. Call it a psych, if you wish--I consider it a judgment bid. I was asked to explain and I said "preemptive." After two more passes, West reopened with a double, which ended the auction. East led the ♠Q; I won and led a ♥ and eventually took 10 tricks.

 

Alleging misinformation, East summoned the ACBL director, who agreed with him. The director stated, "First of all you should have opened 1♦." I said I can open however I please. The director agreed with this, adding "but you can't misinform the opponents." I said I told them what our agreement was, in accordance with what I understand to be the requirements. I asked what I should have explained instead, but got no response. The director adjusted the board to average- for us, average+ for the opponents.

 

Do you agree with the ruling? If so, what should I have responded to the opponents' query?

[Walddk]

The ruling is wrong. You explained what 2♦ was according to your partnership agreement. You are not supposed to tell what you actually have in your hand.

 

Does anyone really think that you should have said: "According to our methods it's a weak 2 in diamonds, but not this time. Now I have a 12 count with 2452 shape". The opponents are not entitled to get that info. EW took a chance and were punished. They can't claim damage, because the explanation was correct.

 

I am very surprised, to put it diplomatically, that an ACBL director made a ruling like this.

 

Roland

[scoob]

I am very surprised, to put it diplomatically, that an ACBL director made a ruling like this.

you shouldn't be.

[DrTodd13]

If your description of events are accurate then I would say:

 

1) "Preempt" is not the best way to describe your bid. One could argue that any bid that consumes room (i.e., more than 1 step) preempts the opponents from making at least one bid and is in that sense "preemptive." You can have weak preemptive bids and strong preemptive bids. Likewise, you can have very preemptive bids and slightly preemptive bids. Having said that, just saying "preemptive" is normally interpreted as "weak" and so your description of your hand matches your agreements close enough.

 

2) The opponents don't know the rules and are sore losers.

 

3) The director doesn't know the rules and is such a quack that they should immediately be banned from directing until they can demonstrate a better mastery of the rules.

[the hog]

I totally agree with Roland's comments. Your explanation was correct and the ruling was extremely poor. This is an elementary decision.

[Elianna]

You are REQUIRED according to ACBL to explain your partnership agreements, no more, no less. You fulfilled this obligation, it seems (if you frequently psych and your pard knows this, of course, that should be disclosed to opps, but I wouldn't even call this a psych, you have not grossly distorted your shape, nor even your HCP according to what I've seen many people play.

 

I am extremely shocked that EW got anywhere with this appeal. You could have a worse hand (and more diamonds) and still made 2dx based on what it seems that their defense went (I still don't really see how you got T tricks without a little help).

[hrothgar]

[hv=d=s&v=b&n=s54hk954dakq63c32&w=skt93haq762dcjt84&e=sqj7hj3dj9872ck65&s=sa862ht8dt54caq97]399|300|Scoring: MP[/hv]

 

As North, after two passes, I decided to open 2♦, which we play as weak, thinking to preempt the opponents out of a possible spade fit. Call it a psych, if you wish--I consider it a judgment bid. I was asked to explain and I said "preemptive." After two more passes, West reopened with a double, which ended the auction. East led the ♠Q; I won and led a ♥ and eventually took 10 tricks.

 

Alleging misinformation, East summoned the ACBL director, who agreed with him. The director stated, "First of all you should have opened 1♦." I said I can open however I please. The director agreed with this, adding "but you can't misinform the opponents." I said I told them what our agreement was, in accordance with what I understand to be the requirements. I asked what I should have explained instead, but got no response. The director adjusted the board to average- for us, average+ for the opponents.

 

Do you agree with the ruling? If so, what should I have responded to the opponents' query?

As you note: You are obligated to explain your agreements, not describe the hand that you actually hold. The Director's comment "You should have opened 1♦" is ludicrous and suggests that the Director doesn't understand the basics. The Ayatollah's Correct Bidding Lessons should not have an impact on this type of ruling.

 

With this said and done, you note that you judge the hand in question suitable for a third seat 2♦ opening. In this case, I'm not sure whether "preemptive is a suitable description. The claim can be made that individuals making such judgement calls should explain that your third seat openings can be extremely undisciplined. From my perspective, this should be general bridge knowledge, but its not.

 

I'll note in passing this is another classic example where the notion of mixed bidding strategies is more appropriate that the hoary notion of a "psyche".

[Rebound]

I've lost count of how many times I've seen posts describing this very problem, i.e. players, and more particularly directors, who do not understand this very basic rule of the game regarding calls and their explanations. I just groan every time I see a post like yours, JSilver. Sorry that you, too, have become a victim.

[JSilver]

(I still don't really see how you got T tricks without a little help).

Well, it went like this: West ducked the heart to my K, and I led another. East won and led the ♠J, West overtaking and continuing. I ruffed, finessed in clubs, cashed the ♣A and ruffed a club. Now I led a heart. East ruffed with the jack, but that was the last defensive trick, since the ♦T took care of the last heart. Somewhere in there, I suppose East should've led trump.

[luke warm]

some of the acbl tds are friends, and i don't know which one this was... still, this was not a good ruling... the statement, "you should have opened 1d" only makes it worse

 

i wonder what would have happened had your alert read 'we play 2D as weak'?

[jillybean]

Hi,

There seems to be agreement that the ruling was wrong but also the alert/explanation was poor. How should the TD have ruled?

 

ty

jillybean2

[Elianna]

Well, it went like this: West ducked the heart to my K, and I led another. East won and led the ♠J, West overtaking and continuing. I ruffed, finessed in clubs, cashed the ♣A and ruffed a club. Now I led a heart. East ruffed with the jack, but that was the last defensive trick, since the ♦T took care of the last heart. Somewhere in there, I suppose East should've led trump.

 

Well, I still don't really understand. if you trumped with the ♦T, Doesn't that leave East with 98xx of trump, and you with AKQx (and the J and T gone)? They should still get another trick. Did he attempt to ruff the third heart and you ruffed with the dT?

 

And to answer Jillybean's question: The tournament director should have ruled "There was no misinformation, so no adjustments will take place", or something of the sort.

[shoeless]

I think the director made an error - assuming he truly believes he has the power to tell you how to bid your hand - I think a more apprpriate ruling would have been "East is my buddy so you should have opened 7 diamonds and when they doubled you should have redoubled" Sheer lunacy this time by the director - this is such a basic problem. You play weak 2's and weak 2's are pre-emptive - as far as I know your explanatiion clearly describes your partnership understanding and that's all that matters here. 2 minutes in the penalty box for this director. Game misconduct if they do it again.

[JSilver]

Well, it went like this: West ducked the heart to my K, and I led another. East won and led the ♠J, West overtaking and continuing. I ruffed, finessed in clubs, cashed the ♣A and ruffed a club. Now I led a heart. East ruffed with the jack, but that was the last defensive trick, since the ♦T took care of the last heart. Somewhere in there, I suppose East should've led trump.

 

Well, I still don't really understand. if you trumped with the ♦T, Doesn't that leave East with 98xx of trump, and you with AKQx (and the J and T gone)? They should still get another trick. Did he attempt to ruff the third heart and you ruffed with the dT?

 

And to answer Jillybean's question: The tournament director should have ruled "There was no misinformation, so no adjustments will take place", or something of the sort.

After 9 tricks I had ♦AKQ and a ♥. Dummy had ♦ Txx. East was all trump. So he was forced to underruff.

[epeeist]

I'm surprised by the ruling. Especially given the discussion in another thread about whether 1NT bids may have a singleton or void, etc.

 

To the best of my recollection, I've only had one occasion to seriously disagree with an ACBL TD ruling, and at the time I was asked by Gweny to send her (privately) the name of the TD. I would suggest you send a private message to the "yellow" ACBL. THe ACBL TDs deal with many tournaments, and both for your own sake and others' this error should be corrected.

 

I'm assuming, of course, that it was an error and everything happened exactly as presented here, no other things took place/were asked/etc.... :rolleyes:

[keylime]

The ruling was very poor and should be appealed strongly.

[helene_t]

This kind of attitude, "you should have opened 1♦", threatens to make the game un-interesting. You may draw the conclussion that whenever you make a bidding decision that the director wouldn't have made, you are violating the rules. If the director believes in ZAR points, you must use ZAR points, otherwise you are violating the rules. If the director believes in diciplined preempts (even in 3rd seat .... sigh) you must preempt with dicipline. Next time you may get a director who punishes you for not preempting with the hand given.

 

The director would do better to program a computer to do all the bidding according to his own style, and send the players home.

[cherdano]

Of course this ruling is bad, but I also have some sympathy for the director. His problem is to find out whether your explanation of your partnership agreements is actually correct, or whether your partner routinely expects full openers (with extras for many) for this bid. This is hard to do online IMO.

Maybe you could add an "undisciplined" or "wide-ranging" next time you are asked to explain a 3rd seat weak two or preempt? I don't like the common reasoning "But this is just bridge". It maybe just be bridge judgement to open your specific hand as weak two in your partnership or among the players you play against, but maybe it would be out of the question to open this 2♦ in France or Poland (just guessing here)? Your partner would allow for this kind of hand, but your French or Polish opponents might not. (Of course, they could ask in more detail when given "preempt" as explanation, and should do so if it's important.)

[Walddk]

Of course this ruling is bad, but I also have some sympathy for the director.

I lost all respect for that TD when he/she said: "You should have opened 1♦". It is completely beside the point what the TD would have bid; the only thing that matters is what 2♦ is according to the NS agreement.

 

That was explained. Case closed.

 

Roland

[epeeist]

Actually, having had a request for a fuller explanation of one of my own "weak 2" bids in a tournament has caused me to think more charitably of the TD. That is, the explanation of the bid as "preemptive" was not necessarily clear, as another poster noted. Especially since they asked for an explanation, I think you had to give a better description.

 

I will generally alert weak 2 bids as just that, "weak". But if asked for an explanation, I specify e.g. "usu. 5-11HCP 6+♥" for a 2♥ opening. Sometimes what I have is different, but that's the partnership agreement and I expect my partner to be as surprised as the opponents if I don't have what I should... :lol:

 

Also, the TD may have thought there was a partnership agreement, or understanding, or unconscious inference by your p, whatever, that your 2♦ bid might be different from the norm (for one thing, your p, with 3-card support for a 6-card preempt in a minor and two aces didn't raise to 3♦, or considering it was matchpoints try NT despite ♥ situation, etc.) Not saying he/she should have, just another bit of information which might have made it appear to the TD that you underexplained/misexplained your bid.

 

Also, so many other factors, how well or poorly you explained yourself to TD, what your convention card said, etc. For all you know, your p might have sent a private message to the TD which made the TD's ruling correct (insulting TD, or stating that your bid was understood as strong e.g. "I am compelled by ethics to admit, having played with JSilver before, that at matchpoints with all vulnerable I expected the 3rd seat 2♦ opening to have a 5-card ♦ suit and opening values...). A bit extreme, but you get the idea... :)

[Walddk]

I will generally alert weak 2 bids as just that, "weak". But if asked for an explanation, I specify e.g. "usu. 5-11HCP 6+♥" for a 2♥ opening. Sometimes what I have is different, but that's the partnership agreement and I expect my partner to be as surprised as the opponents if I don't have what I should... :)

Very kind of you, but the bottom line is that the opponents are not entitled to all that info. "Weak (2)", "pre-emptive" is adequate. You are not supposed to write a novel about what you may hold!

 

The only thing the TD has to do is to find out what the partnership agreement is. If that is "weak 2", that is the end of it.

 

If I have agreed to play a 12-14 NT and I open 1NT with a 16 count, I do not need the TD to tell me that I should have opened 1 of a suit. I am entitled to open 1NT as I see fit, so long as it is not based upon a partnership understanding.

 

Roland

[cherdano]

I will generally alert weak 2 bids as just that, "weak". But if asked for an explanation, I specify e.g. "usu. 5-11HCP 6+♥" for a 2♥ opening. Sometimes what I have is different, but that's the partnership agreement and I expect my partner to be as surprised as the opponents if I don't have what I should... :)

Very kind of you, but the bottom line is that the opponents are not entitled to all that info. "Weak (2)", "pre-emptive" is adequate. You are not supposed to write a novel about what you may hold!

Well, certainly opponents are entitled to know whether, by partnership agreement, weak twos are 6= cards, 6-10 hcp or 5+ cards, 3-13 hcp or 6+cards, 0-7 hcp? Whether "weak 2" as a first explanation (you certainly have to be more detailed if they ask more questions) is adequate is a different story.

 

Of course it is inexcusable for the TD to give bidding lessons, whether they are right or wrong.

 

Arend

[helene_t]

I would expect a third-seat preempt to mean nothing more than "I want to play 2♦". It may mean 4-8 diamonds, 0-13 HCPs. It may be more specific. However, that is a question of judgement more than agreement.

 

Of course, if you have the agreement that partner should never support with 3 diamonds because you may have only 4, the oponents are entitled to that information. Also if you have the agreement that partner should make a game try with a flat 10-11 HCPs.

[Walddk]

Of course it is inexcusable for the TD to give bidding lessons, whether they are right or wrong.

 

Arend

I dare say! Unfortunately too many TDs have very little knowledge of bridge. They may be in a position to interpret the laws, but that doesn't make them good bridge players.

 

Roland

[david_c]

It certainly looks like the TD got it horribly wrong. One thing that hasn't been commented on yet: it seems odd to me that the TD adjusted to ave-/ave+. As I understand it, if you rule that there was misinformation then you should adjust to the result that you think would have occurred without the misinformation (unless that would be worse for the non-offending side). Please correct me if I'm wrong (I may try to become a TD in future but I'm still learning!) Do TDs routinely give out ave-/ave+ when they think an adjustment is deserved, if they don't have time to work out what it should be?