Opening 2's

[euclidz]

EBU Blue Book requires that opening 2's must be announced (weak/strong). What is the sanction/penalty (if any) for failing to announce (with Law number)?

 

Thanks

[Cyberyeti]

Usually that nobody else bids till you do so that you get done under the slow play regs :)

[RMB1]

EBU Blue Book requires that opening 2's must be announced (weak/strong). What is the sanction/penalty (if any) for failing to announce (with Law number)?

 

The EBU White Book defines penalties for failure to alert as warning/warning/procedural penalty for first/second/more offences; and none/warning/procedural penalty for incorrect announcement. (WB 2.8.3.4 (b) and (i))

 

Regulation of alerting/announcing is Law 40B2(a). Procedural penalties is Law 90A.

[euclidz]

The EBU White Book defines penalties for failure to alert as warning/warning/procedural penalty for first/second/more offences; and none/warning/procedural penalty for incorrect announcement. (WB 2.8.3.4 (b) and (i))

 

Regulation of alerting/announcing is Law 40B2(a). Procedural penalties is Law 90A.

Thanks . . . . the rules say x x.x . . . but it's not clear if there is a penalty for failing to comply other than 90a - perhaps that's it?

[nige1]

EBU Blue Book requires that opening 2's must be announced (weak/strong). What is the sanction/penalty (if any) for failing to announce (with Law number)?

A risk is that the director might rule in favour of opponents who plausibly claim damage from your omission.

[sfi]

A risk is that the director might rule in favour of opponents who plausibly claim damage from your omission.

 

Another risk is that an opponent asks only when they have a decision to make and provides their partner with UI. If you don't follow proper procedure you are unlikely to be able to claim you were damaged.

[Vampyr]

Another risk is that an opponent asks only when they have a decision to make and provides their partner with UI. If you don't follow proper procedure you are unlikely to be able to claim you were damaged.

 

Yes, this is my thought about it, but the problem is that the partner of the asker will be constrained nonetheless. Can they claim damage because one of them was prevented from choosing her desired LA? I have never heard of a case like this. Of course it's very rare that there will be a failure to alert/announce, or announce the NT range.

 

So I am wondering if there are other, different cases where damage can be claimed because opponents caused a pair to transmit UI.

[barmar]

If the opponents can't claim damage because you used the UI, are you really constrained? Are you positing a PP for not bending over backwards not to use the UI, even though it's the opponent's fault that you received UI in the first place?

[Vampyr]

If the opponents can't claim damage because you used the UI, are you really constrained? Are you positing a PP for not bending over backwards not to use the UI, even though it's the opponent's fault that you received UI in the first place?

 

I feel that you should be allowed to use this UI, but this is not supported by law.

[RMB1]

I feel that you should be allowed to use this UI, but this is not supported by law.

 

If there is no announcement or alert, and an opponent points out that there should be an announcement-or-alert, this is unauthorised information but we would rule that it does not (demonstrably) suggest anything.

[mycroft]

In the ACBL, in a similar situation (NT announcements), the UI transmitted is deemed to be "you have to say *something*, and I want to know what". Note: whether they're (unknowingly) playing WeaSeL or not - if someone complains about it, they tend to get "well, if you had announced like you're supposed to, this wouldn't have happened, would it?" "But *everyone* plays 15-17!" "So?"

 

It is deemed to be inappropriate for anybody - especially a part time ACBL TD - to *knowingly* play WeaSeL vs unannounced NT, even as a teaching tool :-).

 

I would guess that querying the required *something* would be treated the same way in the EBU; again, provided you don't get caught doing it only when you have values. Note that this defence works well in the ACBL as well, where there is exactly one unAlertable meaning for 2♦♥♠ (although I usually only tend to see it used over 2♦, for reasons that are rational, but not the correct answer to the problem).

[RMB1]

I would guess that querying the required *something* would be treated the same way in the EBU; again, provided you don't get caught doing it only when you have values. Note that this defence works well in the ACBL as well, where there is exactly one unAlertable meaning for 2♦♥♠ (although I usually only tend to see it used over 2♦, for reasons that are rational, but not the correct answer to the problem).

 

In the EBU there is no meaning for 1NT/2♣/2♦/2♥/2♠ that is neither alertable nor announceable

[barmar]

If there is no announcement or alert, and an opponent points out that there should be an announcement-or-alert, this is unauthorised information but we would rule that it does not (demonstrably) suggest anything.

It seems to me that it's like the frequently debated question of whether asking the meaning of an alerted bid transmits UI that demonstrably suggests something. Some say that it suggests (but doesn't necessarily guarantee) a hand that would take different action depending on the answer, and this should be unauthorized to partner, others say that you should always be able to get information about the opponents' agreements without reducing your side's rights.

[euclidz]

Thanks for the helpful replies . . .

 

When I asked this question (penalty), I suspected that the answer was somewhere in UI.

 

If a player fails to announce a weak two and his partner knows that it is a weak two does it not follow that he is in possession of UI and that the opponents are disadvantaged if they presume it's a strong two and consequently should there be a procedural penalty? And, if so, how do we factor in that section that states . . . if the victim had considered the bid had alternative meaning/value and failed to ask it would hinder his claim.

[pran]

Although the laws state that law 16B1 may apply for a player who's partner asks about a call, I feel convinced that this shall never apply when the question is to a player who failed to announce a call that by regulation shall be announced.

 

Whether it shall apply to questions about alerted calls must depend on the particulars of the actual question.

[Vampyr]

In the ACBL, in a similar situation (NT announcements), the UI transmitted is deemed to be "you have to say *something*, and I want to know what". Note: whether they're (unknowingly) playing WeaSeL or not - if someone complains about it, they tend to get "well, if you had announced like you're supposed to, this wouldn't have happened, would it?" "But *everyone* plays 15-17!" "So?"

 

It is deemed to be inappropriate for anybody - especially a part time ACBL TD - to *knowingly* play WeaSeL vs unannounced NT, even as a teaching tool :-).

 

I would guess that querying the required *something* would be treated the same way in the EBU; again, provided you don't get caught doing it only when you have values. Note that this defence works well in the ACBL as well, where there is exactly one unAlertable meaning for 2♦♥♠ (although I usually only tend to see it used over 2♦, for reasons that are rational, but not the correct answer to the problem).

 

Why should you be forced to ask when you have no values?

[barmar]

Thanks for the helpful replies . . .

 

When I asked this question (penalty), I suspected that the answer was somewhere in UI.

 

If a player fails to announce a weak two and his partner knows that it is a weak two does it not follow that he is in possession of UI and that the opponents are disadvantaged if they presume it's a strong two and consequently should there be a procedural penalty? And, if so, how do we factor in that section that states . . . if the victim had considered the bid had alternative meaning/value and failed to ask it would hinder his claim.

Your own agreements are never UI to yourself, unless you've forgotten your agreement and then heard partner explain it (his explanation is not allowed to wake you up). Possible implications of his failure to announce (e.g. partner thinks it's a strong 2) would be UI to you, though -- you have to continue to bid as if he remembers your ageeemtns correct (basically, assume that he just forgot the bid was announceable, not that he forgot what it means).

 

If the opponents have an incorrect understanding of your agreements because of a failure to alert/announce, that's MI to them, but not UI to you.

[sfi]

Yes, this is my thought about it, but the problem is that the partner of the asker will be constrained nonetheless. Can they claim damage because one of them was prevented from choosing her desired LA? I have never heard of a case like this. Of course it's very rare that there will be a failure to alert/announce, or announce the NT range.

 

So I am wondering if there are other, different cases where damage can be claimed because opponents caused a pair to transmit UI.

 

I don't agree that partner will typically be constrained if I ask about a bid that should have been announced. To me, asking merely transmits the information that the opponents forgot to announce, and the directors are likely to rule that way. Not necessarily to everyone though. Omitting the announcement opens up the possibility of UI that can't be proven, and may even be subconscious - maybe questions get asked a different way if only reminding you that you are supposed to announce. Or you might get a person planning to bid, with a move towards the bidding box, and then asking what the bid showed.

 

Sure, the partner might have UI. But you can't get an adjustment because you didn't follow normal procedure. So answer the original post, the "penalty" for not announcing is that you will have a more difficult time showing existence or damage in the event of any perceived related irregularity.

 

I have seen cases where the side that didn't announce was ruled against for exactly this reason. The situation I believe you are referring to - where the non-offending side asks a question and their partner feels constrained because of this, and would not have had the bid been announced - seems of academic interest only. I agree it's not one I would expect to see in real life.

[mycroft]

Why should you be forced to ask when you have no values?

You're not forced to. But if you do only ask when you have values, even if it's an opening for which *something* has to be Alerted or Announced, your partner now has information she is not Authorized to have, and both sides are now potentially Offending.

 

I would personally (as a player, and as someone who has been abused by this way too often, and as someone who has to field the "everybody plays 15-17. why do we have to Announce it?" questions, even 20 years later) be very happy if the ruling was "if they fail to say anything in a situation where something by regulation must be said, WeaSeL is explicitly allowed" (or even "any UI transmitted by questions or lack thereof is wholly deemed to have been provided by the non-Announcing side, not the non/asker of the questions"). I think the best way to stamp out this lack of care for regulations is to let them see why it's there, and have the TDs smile and say "well, if you followed the rules, they wouldn't have had the opportunity to pass this information, would they?" when they complain. But even I know the boundaries of *that* slippery slope, and why we don't want to do it. And I may be passive-aggressive, but I can rein it in occasionally.

 

Of course, my argument may be coloured by the fact that "of course, it's very rare..." at least over here, is a massive understatement. I expect I have to prompt for a NT range on average once a session, and the number of 1NT-p-2♥-p; "transfer" 2♠ is legion - so much so that switching to Keri/our weak NT was a blessing because it meant that we now were playing transfers and didn't have to deal with the "I'm waiting..." glares.

[barmar]

"any UI transmitted by questions or lack thereof is wholly deemed to have been provided by the non-Announcing side, not the non/asker of the questions").

If it's UI, what difference does it make which side it was provided by -- the U stands for "unauthorized"? Maybe what you meant to say is that information from partner's question is authorized if the question was necessary to resolve misinformation from the opponents (incorrect alerts/announcements are already deemed misinformation).

[mycroft]

Okay, I knew I was being unclear. Remember that information that is unauthorized to the partner of the player giving it is usable "at their own risk" to the opponents.

 

What I'm meaning is that since the reason for the question was a failure to say anything in a situation where something is required no matter what the meaning of the call, that any information transmitted is unauthorized for the offenders and authorized for the non-offenders, even if the NOS is innocuously or deliberately using the WeaSeL defence.

 

Again, that is *not* the current rule; and shouldn't be (for other reasons). But it sure would clear up these minor "forgets" in a hurry - if they noticed, anyway.

[Vampyr]

Okay, I knew I was being unclear. Remember that information that is unauthorized to the partner of the player giving it is usable "at their own risk" to the opponents.

 

What I'm meaning is that since the reason for the question was a failure to say anything in a situation where something is required no matter what the meaning of the call, that any information transmitted is unauthorized for the offenders and authorized for the non-offenders, even if the NOS is innocuously or deliberately using the WeaSeL defence.

 

Again, that is *not* the current rule; and shouldn't be (for other reasons). But it sure would clear up these minor "forgets" in a hurry - if they noticed, anyway.

 

I think it should be the rule, which was kind of what my question was about.

 

Anyway, with any luck you were not in a rush to start the round, so the opponents will have told you their basic system (but then again, they don't always mention what their two-level openings are).

[blackshoe]

I do not have the meaning of "the WeaSeL defense" clearly fixed in my mind. I'll make a note of it, if someone will tell me what it is. B-)

 

Rush? When most EWs come to sit down at our table, usually at least one of them has his cards out of the board before he's fully seated. What rush? B-)

[mycroft]

WeaSeL over Preemption. Works just as well against weak NTs, and unAnnounced strong NTs. Often known in various countries as "The <rival country> defence".

 

Basically, there are four types of hands.

• with absolute tripe, you pass, quickly. Partner doesn't balance without the nuts.
  
• with interest, but nothing to bid, or with something to bid, but insufficient strength, you ask the range, and then pass. An advanced detail, not played by everybody, is to take about a second for each 3-4 HCP to pass. Partner is encouraged to balance with anything reasonable.
  
• with a clear call, but no game interest, ask, think, and bid. Partner is not enouraged to compete without a big fit, and should use their judgement to pull penalty doubles.
  
• with the big hand, just make the call, probably quickly (bonus points if you can get it on the table before LHO can make the required Announcement). If partner pulls your penalty double, she's walking home.

I can pretty much guarantee that playing this system will improve your results against 1NT openers, no matter the range, by half-a-board a night. That's because when the ACBL switched from Alerting weak NTs (back in 1990) to Announcing them, my partnership median score improved from 49% in that field to 52% in the same field. I can't imagine it doesn't work just as well against unAnnounced 2-openers in England (I know it works well against a weak 2♦ in the ACBL - the only meaning for a 2♦ opener that does not require an Alert).

 

As I frequently say, this is the only convention that works *better* if you don't know you're playing it, because as overcaller, you'll do the right thing automatically, and as advancer, your brain makes the connection for you without any conscious thought.

[blackshoe]

Thanks, Mycroft. B-)