Weak 2 on a 3-count

[shevek]

[hv=pc=n&s=sk962h43djt74c754&w=sj854haj5daqcaj92&n=saqt3hq72dk85ckq8&e=s7hkt986d9632ct63&d=e&v=n&b=2&a=2h(weak%2C%206-10)p4hdp4sdppp]399|300[/hv]

 

IMPs (Swiss Pairs, major event)

East is a good player. (Well, I think I am)

North-South average.

4♠x went -500.

 

The East-West system card says

"Weak, 6-9 pts. Could be a 5-carder 1st & 3rd seats non-vul"

 

Some questions ...

 

What should happen at the end of the hand?

 

If North-South say nothing and shrug, should East call the director?

 

If North-South find a director at the end of the match - when they see a hand record - what might happen?

 

If North-South call the director at the time "He opened 2♥ with 3 points!" what will happen?

 

Should director quiz E-W about proclivities 1st in hand at favourable?

 

Is 2♥ a psyche? (This is Australia if that makes a difference)

 

If it is a psyche, how much better would the East hand have to be - at the conditions - to avoid the psyche tag?

[sanst]

If E doesn’t have a habit of making calls on such weak hands, i.e. if he usually sticks to the system, there’s nothing wrong. But it wouldn’t surprise me if a good player does this more often given the vulnerability, which should have been made clear to the opponents. If that’s the case, E should have called the director. I doubt whether it would have made a difference had NS known that E could be this weak, but that’s a matter of polling, especially about a double with the hand of W.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s a psyche. The psyche would have been a 1♠ call by E. Nothing wrong with that. And, also OT, I would have passed the double of N had I been S, although 4♠ is certainly a LA. Even more OT, a partner of mine once opened a weak 2 in one of the majors with 2 points, vul vs non-vul. Our agreement about it was a’good hand’, 8...10 pts or distribution, and she was certainly not used to doing this. Notwithstanding the director ruled against us, which I still think was a mistake. Afterwards I asked my partner not to give me any more heart attacks, but she did it because things were going badly and hoped for a swing.

[Cyberyeti]

I would not consider this a psyche, merely slightly light (K&R gives 5.4 presumably due to the stiff and intermediates).

 

If there is a habit of doing this, may be lighter in 3rd should be on the card and there may be MI.

[DozyDom]

It's a misdescription of their methods if they do this habitually, and I'd guess they do because most people who play that weak twos could be 5 cards at some vulnerabilities don't stick to strict point counts.

 

Either way, is the North hand the right one to make a take-out double on? If that wasn't take-out, is the South hand really the right one to pull a penalty double? I'd say the answers are both no - no adjustment is needed because NS have done themselves in, whereas the EW bidding should have got them to a hopeless game.

[blackshoe]

Some questions ...

 

What should happen at the end of the hand?

Rather an open-ended question. :unsure:

If North-South say nothing and shrug, should East call the director?

Depends on whether this is a psych and whether the ABF has a regulation requiring self-reporting of psychs.

If North-South find a director at the end of the match - when they see a hand record - what might happen?

Anything. Depends on whether the director finds an infraction.

If North-South call the director at the time "He opened 2♥ with 3 points!" what will happen?

That depends on the competence of the director.

Should director quiz E-W about proclivities 1st in hand at favourable?

If he suspects that EW might have a concealed partnership understanding yes he should.

Is 2♥ a psyche? (This is Australia if that makes a difference)

You should have asked this question first. B-) In North America I think this would be ruled a psych, but North America is harsh on psychs. In Australia (or anywhere else in the world) I would not rule it a psych, though it's close.

If it is a psyche, how much better would the East hand have to be - at the conditions - to avoid the psyche tag?

Add a jack, preferably in the long suit.

[trent58]

My view is that the 2 ♥ opening would not be a psyche ( a gross misstatement of strength or suit) in Oz. If partner seldom made such a bid (less than say 2 or 3 times a year as a guide), then there is no real partnership understanding. No self reporting for psyches that I know of in Oz. No need to call the director by E/W (why would you?). If N/S called, the Director after investigating the best they could (again afaik no national psyche database), would have no cause to adjust the score.

[VixTD]

If there is a habit of doing this, may be lighter in 3rd should be on the card and there may be MI.

"May be lighter in first" is what should be on the card if there is a habit of doing this.

 

I would not adjust the score, but tell EW to amend their explanations to account for this. Like Dom, I think there's a tendency for pairs to deviate from point count agreements when pre-empting more than they let on, or even are conscious of themselves.

 

I would have doubled with the North hand, and passed the double as South, but I don't think they're easy decisions.

[blackshoe]

I don't have any point count agreements when preempting at the 3 level or higher, save "less than invitational values". Where does that leave me? (My weak twos are 5 to a bad 10 points).

[barmar]

I don't have any point count agreements when preempting at the 3 level or higher, save "less than invitational values". Where does that leave me? (My weak twos are 5 to a bad 10 points).

As long as you disclose this, I think you're OK.

 

The ACBL CC doesn't even have a specific place for point ranges for 3+ preempts, it just has three checkboxes: Sound, Light, and Very Light. I've always interpreted "Sound" to refer to suit quality (something like 2 of the top 3 honors, as well as the expected length, level+4, so 5 HCP is the minimum possible strength). Light is something a little less than this, but not uncommon, while Very Light is significantly weaker than most players would expect.

[blackshoe]

The question, really, is not how you or I interpret Sound, Light, and Very Light here, but how the ACBL tells us to interpret them. Unless, of course, the ACBL doesn't tell us that, in which case Law 81C2 comes into play.

[PrecisionL]

The question, really, is not how you or I interpret Sound, Light, and Very Light here, but how the ACBL tells us to interpret them. Unless, of course, the ACBL doesn't tell us that, in which case Law 81C2 comes into play.

 

ACBL requires a suit opened at the 3-level to be Qxxxxx or better. Otherwise, it is a pre-alert.

[blackshoe]

ACBL requires a suit opened at the 3-level to be Qxxxxx or better. Otherwise, it is a pre-alert.

That's explicit in the alert procedure, l presume?

[VixTD]

I don't have any point count agreements when preempting at the 3 level or higher, save "less than invitational values". Where does that leave me? (My weak twos are 5 to a bad 10 points).

In the same situation as most players, I would have thought.

[barmar]

That's explicit in the alert procedure, l presume?

Yes:

Systems Based on Very Light Openings or Other Highly Aggressive Methods

 

If it is your partnership style to routinely open hands with fewer than 10 HCP, preempt

with very weak (frequently worse than Qxxxxx) suits, and/or make overcalls with fewer

than 6 HCP at the one-level or with fewer than 10 HCP and/or fewer than five cards in

the suit named at the two-level, then the opponents must be pre-Alerted.

[PrecisionL]

1538342509[/url]' post='960542']

That's explicit in the alert procedure, l presume?

 

YES, not generally known.

[pescetom]

"If it is your partnership style to routinely open hands with fewer than 10 HCP, preempt

with very weak (frequently worse than Qxxxxx) suits, and/or make overcalls with fewer

than 6 HCP at the one-level or with fewer than 10 HCP and/or fewer than five cards in

the suit named at the two-level, then the opponents must be pre-Alerted."

 

That 10 HCP limit looks a bit excessive to me.

Would anyone really consider "very weak" a 2♥ overcall with x AKQxxx xx xxxx ?

[barmar]

That 10 HCP limit looks a bit excessive to me.

Would anyone really consider "very weak" a 2♥ overcall with x AKQxxx xx xxxx ?

it says "routinely". If you only do it in special cases like this, that's hardly routine.

 

I assume you're talking about (1♠) 2♥. If it's a jump overcall, it's expected to be weak, so that's actually near the top of the expected range.