Agree with this ruling?

[epeeist]

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

I'm glad I'm kind...

 

Looking at a (paper) copy of the ACBL "Standard Yellow Card" Convention Card, it describes 2♦, 2♥ and 2♠ bids as "weak" and "5 to 11 HCP Normally a good 6 card suit". That's on the convention card itself. Which is what I expect my partner to understand it as, and what, in a face-to-face game, my opponents would be able to read off our convention card.

 

If asked for an explanation, am I not, therefore, obliged to give this same information (which is essentially what my fuller explanation, in response to a request for info, gave)? If not, that suggests that in an online ACBL game the duty of disclosure is less than in a face-to-face game.

[Walddk]

If asked for an explanation, am I not, therefore, obliged to give this same information (which is essentially what my fuller explanation, in response to a request for info, gave)?

Yes, that would indeed be a complete explanation of what the bid means, but as you may know, there is not enough room in the explanation box for all that. Anyway, that is beside the point because JSilver actually did explain that it was pre-emptive.

 

It was according to their partnership agreement. What he actually had does not matter. He must tell the opponents about the agreement, but not about what his holding is. It is quite simple really.

 

Roland

[Walddk]

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?

That is the easy solution, and I suspect that this is how it's done on many occasions. I am sure that time is an important factor, because a TD on the internet has to deal with many other things - not least getting substitutes for disconnected players. Another reason is that many players scream for an adjustment after they run out of time.

 

This case is very easy though. It shouldn't have taken the TD long to rule that the table result stands.

 

Roland

[inquiry]

A director needs a "ground" (law violation) on which to make a ruling.

 

1) Was the description here "mis-information"? If JSilver and partner play 2♦ as "weak two", the answer is no. As so many other pointed out, you are to describe your "partnership agreement".

 

2) The director's alleged statement The director agreed with this, adding "but you can't misinform the opponents." shows a complete and utter misunderstanding of the rules of alerting. You alert and or explain what your partnership agreement is, not what you actually hold.

 

3) The director's statement, "First of all you should have opened 1♦." Is also wrong. As others said, it is not up to the director to protect your opponents or your partner from your "misbids" or flights of fancy. Perhaps you overlooked your heart King, and thought you had only 9 hcp. Maybe you down-graded the 12 count based upon flat distribution. Perhpas in your judgement, opening this hand 2♦ opposite a passed hand would have a more disruptive effect on your opponents than if you opened 1♦. Rather you overlooked the king, or decided to down evaluate the hand due to pattern, or used bridge judgement to make a calculated risk, it is not up to the director to tell you how to bid.

 

4) The director also has to show how your opponents were damaged due to your infraction (here alleged mis-informaton). West with 4-5-0-4 would surely have re-opened with a double even if you had explained "5 to 7 diamonds, in third chair vul, 8-bad 13 hcp)" and EAST apparently would have passed anyway. EAST surely KNEW that your side had the majority of the hcp and the majority of the double with or without such an explanation. He took a big gamble passing a weak two doubled opposite a passed partner on such a poor diamond suit and his own 8 hcp. His partner, short in damonds, surely rates to have no more than 10 hcp and in theory might not be that strong to go along with his own 8. So his opponents had the majority of the diamonds (7 or 8 of them) and the majority of hcp (22 or more). EW actually deserved the anticipated zero they got for their highly speculative bidding.

 

The director needs more time with the rule book, and needs more feedback on his performance. Are we sure this ruling happened on the internet? It is not clear this was a BBO ACBL game (could be), but also could be a club game almost anywhere. Bad rulings happen and we need to find a gentle way to help educate directors when they do.

 

Ben

[mpefritz]

TD got it wrong.

 

However, a general ACBL ruling question:

 

If a bid is NOT alertable (weak 2♦) in ACBL, how much info must be given to opps when they ask for an explanation -- live or online?

 

And how much recourse is there if someone misspeaks/mistypes when describing a non-alertable "standard" agreement under the time stress of explaining the call?

 

fritz

[luis]

Maybe one of the worst rulings of the year.

I'm kindly surprised by the diplomacy of the people here in the forums, this TD does deserve some strong words about his job but since we are being kind I won't start it.

There's one crucial mistake: TDs should not (must not) take into consideration bridge-related decisions since they are not qualified to do that they should only rule according to the laws and if there were bridge considerations to be taken then instruct the players to appeal or appeal himself.

[uday]

Of course we will not take this opportunity to to be mean, not will we allow ourselves to blow one ruling out of proportion.

 

Appeals case 5 from the acbl national, currently underway in the US, involves a weak 2 in 3rd seat.

 

 

http://web2.acbl.org/nabcbulletins/2005spring/db6.pdf

[hotShot]

A weak two-bid shows a six-card suit of reasonable quality and 5–11 HCP. On rare

occasions it may be a very good five-card suit. It is possible to open a weak two with

a poor seven-card suit (not good enough to open with at the three level).

 

From the ACBL'S SAYC description

 

1) You have to state your agreement, not your hand.

 

2) I think at BBO ACBL tournaments you have to post a CC, so there should be no problem in proving the agreement. And stating "pre-emptive" is accurate enough here.

 

3) A deviation of 1 HCP of the agreement , is to be considered as normal judgement (nowhere near a psych), and perfectly legal.

 

4) Change the ♦Q to a small ♦ and 2♦x is still made.

 

So there is

-no missinformation

-no infriction

-no damage (just a poor score)

 

One might think this devastating performance is hard to top, but there is:

"You should have bid 1♦"

Will we see referees at [put your favorite team sport here] change the team-up from now on? Or perhaps they will be allowed to score as well.

[Walddk]

Appeals case 5 from the acbl national, currently underway in the US, involves  a weak 2 in 3rd seat.

 

 

http://web2.acbl.org/nabcbulletins/2005spring/db6.pdf

The AC's ruling in Pittsburgh is correct, because they established the fact that EW had an explicit agreement that was not explained to NS. The foundation for the ruling was therefore completely different from the ruling that was made by our TD in the case JSilver presents.

 

If JSilver's version is to believed, and I can't see why we should not, the NS pair did not have an explicit agreement. As a consequence, there has not been an infraction, and the table result must stand.

 

Roland

[TimG]

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

Your answer, "preemptive", was likely not complete. What you should probably have said is something along the lines of: "weak two-bid generally showing x-y HCP, but wider ranging in 3rd seat." It does not matter whether this agreement is implicit or explicit, it must be disclosed. And, the opponents should not be required to ask if you devitate from the norm in 3rd seat, that should just be part of your explanation.

 

As far as the director's ruling: the opponents (or director) would have to make a case that the mis-information (if there really was any) led to the bad result. I doubt they can make that case here. So, I would likely rule the result to stand and apply a procedural penalty against NS if the wide-ranging 3rd seat preemptive style could be established.

 

Tim

[TimG]

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.

When you do this more than a couple of times, it becomes an understanding, whether discussed or not, and mustbe disclosed to the opponents.

[Walddk]

When you do this more than a couple of times, it becomes an understanding, whether discussed or not, and mustbe disclosed to the opponents.

Of course, but this case is about *ONE* incident where North deviated from the norm of a weak 2. My point was perhaps too well hidden between the lines:

 

Why do you think most TD's are TD's? As Luis pointed out: TD's are not supposed to concentrate on bridge related matters, only matters that relate to the laws. Why is that do you think?

 

So telling JSilver that he should have opened 1♦ with his hand is not only none of the TD's business, it is also insolent.

 

Roland

[scoob]

perhaps now is a good time to end this thread

[uday]

Amen to that :)

[TimG]

So telling JSilver that he should have opened 1♦ with his hand is not only none of the TD's business, it is also insolent.

You get no argument from me there.

 

However, I don't think the comment affects the ruling. Indeed, I think it is important to separate the two.

[JSilver]

maybe it would be out of the question to open this 2♦ in France

Indeed, 2♦ is game forcing in France. ;)

 

To those who wondered if we had an understanding about my bid:

 

We had an understanding that opening bids in 3rd seat can be light, and that 1M could be a 4-card suit. We had never discussed 3rd-seat weak twos, nor do I recall ever opening one with 12 points (or a side 4-card major) with this partner.

 

Of course, we have now had a discussion. In future we will tell opponents that 3rd-seat weak twos are "undisciplined." (Would "wide-ranging" be a better term?) Unfortunately, "undisciplined" won't fit on the cc, so we inserted "lattitude." I'm now left wondering whether that additional information would've influenced West's decision to reopen or East's decison to pass. :)

[DrTodd13]

TD got it wrong.

 

However, a general ACBL ruling question:

 

If a bid is NOT alertable (weak 2♦) in ACBL, how much info must be given to opps when they ask for an explanation -- live or online?

 

And how much recourse is there if someone misspeaks/mistypes when describing a non-alertable "standard" agreement under the time stress of explaining the call?

 

fritz

I believe the official ACBL stance is that once somebody makes any interrogatory remark that you should say everything you know about the bid. In practice, this is hardly ever the case. My belief is that a short description is fine at first but the original asker can keep asking for further clarification, e.g., expected length, strength, suit quality, etc. It doesn't matter whether the original bid was alertable or not. The same level of explanation is required if the opponents ask about it. There is a difference of thought in this area though. I know a player much better than me who believes that it is not his job to explain "bridge knowledge" so at some point if you keep asking him questions for more clarification he'll just tell you it's not his job to teach you how to play bridge. I believe that technically this position violates what the ACBL says about explanations. For example, in some auctions, one might ask, does this player have or deny a 4 card major. I believe the ACBL would mandate such a question be answered simply whereas I know people who say their answer is "use your brain."

[luis]

About the ACBL appeal:

The solution is worst than the problem.

They rule against the partnership and advice them to write 0-10 in their CCs? Does this make any sense? Everybody will have 0-10 or similar and everybody will have insurance against terrible rulings. But this is not the right way to deal with the problem, weak 2 styles vary a lot and what you want to know is the partnership style about weak 2s, not if they have 5 or 3 or 6 or some number of points.

I think the CCs should be changed to indicate weak 2's "STYLE" not HCP range, and if convinient indicate "average" HCP ranges for your weak 2s and a checkbox indicating if this is STRICT or "flexible". Aggresive players can write 0-6 + flexible. Solid dinosaurs can use 6-9 + "strict". And declarers will have the information they need then is up to them.

Furthermore players should stop complaining about misscounting the number of points a weak 2 opener has, specially in third seat. I think they are using a technicality of the CC to get a better result instead of the one they got at the table when they intentionally decided to take a line of play, please don't tell me you really though that a 3rd seat weak2 bid can't be made with 0... cmon!

[keylime]

Todd brings a very valid point up. The ACBL's honorable aim of full disclosure has been in certain cases been misconstrued and twisted in UI situations. We've had at both the local club and sectional levels players getting all up in arms over our transfer bids over 1M-X because they don't like the explaination given. In each case the TD has made the right rulings and has gone out of their way on two occasions to show the whys of it as well to the opps. However, I'm still waiting for the day that I'm forced to appear in front of an appeal committee when I bid a 2D bid (good raise in hearts in 1H-X-2D) on a six count with a shortage.

 

We've recently have changed the format of the CC slightly to give more information to the opps. I've wondered if the ACBL ever has considered the optional use of the WBF CC for sectional and higher rated tourneys for methods that aren't "fitting" per se to the ACBL CC.

[Cascade]

The ACBL is just following the laws that require the explainer to "disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience..." L75C

 

This law continues saying "...but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience".

 

So it is clear:

 

1. That all information should be given in response to a question

 

2. That information that is general knowledge need not be given.

 

I think 1. means that it should not normally be necessary for the questioner to ask subsequent questions.

 

I think 2. means that information that you deduce from your general knowledge and experience rather than from your specific partnership agreements (including implicit agreements) and experience need not be disclosed. For a first time partnership there is a lot of information that is general knowledge rather than specific partnership agreement or experience but for an experienced partnership there is likely to be much less information that is not covered by either partnership agreement (implicit or explicit) or partnership experience.

 

e.g. The first time I play with someone it is only general knowledge that partner might open light in 3rd seat whereas playing in a long term partnership of many years I would expect the partnership's tendancies in this area to be disclosed.

 

Or similarly relating to the ruling at the beginning of this thread - it is general knowledge that a pre-empt might be strong in 3rd seat but playing against a regular partnership I would expect an explanation that included some knowledge of the partnership's habits (partnership experience).

[mycroft]

Some (ACBL-specific) thoughts: From the Alert Procedure:

 

- Remember that the opponents are entitled to know the agreed meaning of all calls.

- The bidding side has an obligation to disclose its agreements according to the procedures established by ACBL

- When asked, the bidding side must give a full explanation of the agreement. Stating the common or popular name of the convention is not sufficient.

- The opponents need not ask exactly the "right" question.

- Any request for information should be the trigger. Opponents need only indicate the desire for information - all relevant disclosure should be given automatically.

- The proper way to ask for information is "please explain."

 

So, DrTodd is right. Also, he is right when he says that this is not regularly followed.

 

The Laws have this to say about "bridge knowledge":

Law 75

C. Answering Questions on Partnership Agreements

When explaining the significance of partner's call or play in reply to an opponent's inquiry (see Law 20), a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience, but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his general knowledge and experience.

 

"General knowledge" has been used to hide a multitude of insufficient explanation. No, you don't have to teach me "how to play bridge", but when I ask "what constitutes a minimum opener in your partnership", "general knowledge" doesn't cut it. You have agreements and you base your calls on information about your partner; and I am entitled to that. For one thing, there are hands I will pass playing 2/1 that I will open playing Standard, Precision or EHAA; if my partner knows what they are, that isn't "general knowledge", even if I open "standard 2/1".

 

General knowledge also does not include "knowledge of the area"; what I mean here is that if I play pickup 2/1 with someone from Alberta, I have a good guess about the answer to the standard 2/1 questions - does 1H-2m;2S show extra values? does 1H-2m; 2NT? does 1S-2m; 2S guarantee 6? does rebidding the minor cancel the GF? - even though we have no partnership experience. A visiting pair from China is entitled to know that "we have no agreement, but about 80% of Alberta 2/1 players play it this way" - this is implied agreements that they may not know about - they may play it differently.

 

Finally, in response to the original question: If you are willing to open 2D in third seat on x Kxx AKQxx xxxx (i.e. you do not consider it a psychic) and also on x xxx QJ9xxx xxx - which is a reasonable way to play, and several responders have said this - you run into the ACBL GCC restrictions. You may play this in an ACBL tournament, but you may not play any conventions afterward - and that includes conventional doubles, SOS redoubles, or things like Goldman Raises after double. Oh, and 2NT has to be natural :-).

 

MIchael.