[boris3161]

Playing a teams match under EBU rules, my partner opened 2 hearts with a fairly feeble 7 card suit and 5 points. Our opponents bid to 3nt and went down by 4 tricks. They immediately "reserved their rights" on the basis that a weak 2 shows a 6 card suit. There was no partnership agreement in force as we are not a regular partnership.

So, can anyone clarify, under EBU rules, is one allowed to open a weak 2 with a 7 card suit?

(I can't see any problem with this but I don't know for certain)

Thanks in advance.

[Ant590]

Yes this is fine under EBU rules. More evidence that the EBU would be better suited educating players as to the rules than pushing through P2P.

[hotShot]

I don't know EBU rules, but I would be very surprised if having a 7th card would be illegal.
A problem might be disclosure, if you were asked about the meaning of the bid, you should have stated point range and length. If your statement included something like: "We preempt at the 3 level with 7 card suits!"
There might be a case of misinformation.

[paulg]

Firstly I think your opponents are being petty and are just reacting to their poor result. Just because their definition of a weak two means precisely six cards does not mean that the rest of the world's does.

More accurately it is s a question of disclosure. If you said that the opening bid was weak, showing precisely six cards and 5-9 points, then they could claim misinformation. I think that they would get short shrift from most Directors even in this case.

If you said, "we are playing weak twos", then this really means that the opening shows a weak hand and a 5+ suit in a single-suited hand. Although it normally contains six cards it is not a guarantee.

Paul

[P_Marlowe]

boris3161, on Feb 26 2009, 06:24 AM, said:

<snip>
They immediately "reserved their rights" on the basis that a weak 2 shows a 6 card suit. <snip>

Sure / wtp, did the hand contain 6 cards in the suit?

A possible counter question: Would say also reserve their
rights, if you open 1H with 7 hearts, because a 1H opening
showes also "only" 5 cards?

With kind regards
Marlowe

[blackshoe]

This whole "reserved their rights" thing makes no sense to me, particularly at the end of the play of a hand. Either you call the TD now, or you don't. If you don't, you can ask for a ruling later (within the correction period). No "reserving of rights" is necessary.

EBU regs require an announcement of the relative strength of a two level opening, in this case "weak". Assuming that was done, the question of MI can only arise if the opponents asked for further information, which apparently they did not.

The regulations regarding permitted agreements do not seem to speak directly to a natural weak two, so long as it contains at least 4 cards in the suit, but the discussion of multi allows a weak option which shows "six or more" cards in the suit. So no, opening a weak two on a seven card suit is not illegal.

As Edgar Kaplan said "an agreement between partners is not a promise to opponents".

[Gerben42]

Some people get upset by things like that, but should rather stick to the rules. An interesting story is when I held

♠xxx
♥x
♦AKQJT
♣xxxx

all white in 1st seat.

Before I could consider if I wanted to bid 1♦ for the lead, LHO grabbed in her bidding box in the direction of 1♥, then realized that it was not her turn. Her partner didn't notice, but I did. So I opened 3♦.

It went 3♥ Pass 4♥ all pass. Opps were 4-3 in ♦, both expecting partner to be short. They were not amused when I cashed 3 top ♦ after my partner led one and called the director if this was allowed...

[mtvesuvius]

Gerben reminded me of my favorite weak 2 story... When I originally learned bridge I learned from a cruise director. She tought be the basics, including that I must have 7 ponts in my suit to open a weak 2. I must also have 6 cards in the suit. I must not have any outside aces. I must not have any outside 4 card major. And so I am still waiting for her kind of weak 2... Anyway, my father and I were playing a regional with her and her husband and I decided to have some fun, after all, we were up by 37 at the half. So Red on Red I pick up:

♠ 94
♥ 854
♦ 76532
♣ 842

A beautiful yarbourough!

RHO dealt and passed. I opened 2♦, and LHO went into the tank... Poor lady had 28 HCP. She doubled, my partner bid 3♦, passed back to her. She decided to bid 3♠ now... Passed by her partner who held an 8 count .

We came back to compare, and our partners were yellling and screaming at each other over who should have bid the grand on this hand... They reached the small slam and were quite dissapointed to not get to the grand. I told them to shut up and relax. We compared and her husband asked what happened on the board at our table... So I went and got my hand and showed her. She berated me for the next 2 hours, and I'm still laughing.

[matmat]

maybe I'm getting cynical, but "reserving the right" as opposed to actually calling the director to clarify this situation seems like an action meant to intimidate and unsettle the opponents. I think if it were me that were "threatened" with this, I'd turn this right back around and call the TD right there and then.

-now, what was it you were reserving your right to call the director for?

-*mumble*

-no, no. the director is here, I =INSIST= you tell them.

[manudude03]

I assume you mean RHO dealt .

I had a hand last week where I decided to open 2S in 1st seat with QTxxxxx J xxx QJ or something, my LHO goes into a bit of a tank with a huge hand (something like A AKQTxx AQJTx A), he decides to double, partner passes, RHO bids 3C (not playing lebensohl), I pass, LHO bids 3H which gets passed out! (RHO's only points were the ♠K) I don't think they were too happy entering 3H+3 into Bridgemate.

Only one pair opted to open 3S on my hand, and it got the brief auction of 3S-6H-AP. A group of us discussed the hand after (this is in EBU land) and the general consensus was that opening it 2S is enough.


On a sidenote, I think "reserving your rights" is really just a way of protecting yourself from being accused of taking a double shot. It should be pretty obvious why a side is reserving their rights anyway.

[mtvesuvius]

manudude03, on Feb 26 2009, 11:22 AM, said:

I assume you mean RHO dealt .

Yeah, I edited it

[jdonn]

I am fine with the idea of 'reserving your rights' but it makes me laugh a little when they have no (relevant as far as what the opponents have done) rights. Lol at them for thinking you can't open a weak two bid with a 7 card suit.

[hanp]

I'd like to post I agree with matmat's first sentence. I have read that it is bad form to agree with a top player but I can agree with matmat without it being an issue, right?

[Codo]

In this case I can agree with myself to agree with Han...

[Gerben42]

Quote

we were up by 37 at the half. So Red on Red I pick up:

This sounds like a good way to give back 15 and only be up 22, anyway...

[barmar]

cardsharp, on Feb 26 2009, 07:17 AM, said:

More accurately it is s a question of disclosure. If you said that the opening bid was weak, showing precisely six cards and 5-9 points, then they could claim misinformation. I think that they would get short shrift from most Directors even in this case.

It's not misinformation if that's your agreement. If your partner decides to deviate from the agreement, that's his right.

Since this was a new partnership, it would be hard for the opponents to claim that you have any implicit understandings about his tendencies in this regard. So unless you'd discussed weak 2's in detail, and decided that you'd also open them with bad 7-card suits, there's nothing to disclose.

BTW, I expect it's common the world over to open 7 card suits at the 2 level if you're playing sound preempts and the suit quality doesn't meet your "sound" criteria.

[mycroft]

What were they "reserving their rights" for? Drinks?

In the EBU and other places, you can "reserve your rights" in situations where an action was taken in presence of UI that looks like it could have been influenced by the UI, and the TD call only occurs if the side taking action disputes the UI or it is determined that the action wasn't clearly not infringing Law 16 (sorry for the odd phrasing). But the TD is still called when either situation comes to light, not later (say, when you score it up and lose by 4, having lost 5 on the hand).

I agree with matmat. If you have a problem with a situation(*) at the table, even if it's "I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that", call the TD. The worst that can happen is that you are ruled against for your action when they might not have done it; but you learn why there, and save yourself the embarrassment when you do what they did later, and those opponents call you on it.

* Pedantry alert - you know I don't mean a legitimate bridge situation, like being squeezed or something, right?

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on Mar 2 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

In the EBU and other places, you can "reserve your rights" in situations where an action was taken in presence of UI that looks like it could have been influenced by the UI, and the TD call only occurs if the side taking action disputes the UI or it is determined that the action wasn't clearly not infringing Law 16 (sorry for the odd phrasing).  But the TD is still called when either situation comes to light, not later (say, when you score it up and lose by 4, having lost 5 on the hand).

This is not quite correct. Here are the relevant laws:

Laws 16B2 and 3 said:

2. When a player considers that an opponent has made such information available and that damage could well result, he may announce, unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority (which may require that the director be called), that he reserves the right to summon the director later. The opponents should summon the director immediately if they dispute the fact that unauthorized information might have been conveyed.
3. When a player has substantial reason to believe that an opponent who had a logical alternative has chosen an action that could have been suggested by such information, he should summon the director when play ends*. the director shall assign an adjusted score (see Law 12c) if he considers that an infraction of law has resulted in an advantage for the offender.

These laws apply worldwide, not just in the EBU. That phrase "unless prohibited by the Regulating Authority"? In the 1997 laws, the ACBL did prohibit reserving rights. They have declined to do so in the new laws. So you can "reserve your right" to call the director when you believe that UI has been made available. If you believe that an action was taken that may have been influenced by UI, the time to call the TD is after the play of the hand is completed. There is no need, and no provision in law, to "reserve rights" at the point UI may have been used. BTW, as far as I know, no RA has elected to prohibit reserving rights under this law.

[jdonn]

blackshoe, on Mar 2 2009, 07:35 PM, said:

There is no need, and no provision in law, to "reserve rights" at the point UI may have been used.

Perhaps it's just a matter of poor wording, but as far as I can see you have always been against this simply because it's not absolutely necessary. But wouldn't you agree that identifying that UI has taken place is best done immediately? Sure you could call the director, but it's a waste of time if the opponents agree. If they don't agree then you can still call the director immediately. It just seems to me a very practical option with no downside.

[blackshoe]

I would agree that identifying that UI has been made available is best done immediately. That is, after all, what Law 16B2 is all about. You say to opponents "do you agree there was a break in tempo?" (or whatever the UI providing action may have been) and if they agree, you reserve your right to call the director later. If they don't agree, they are supposed to call the director, but often they'd rather argue. In that case I would call the director myself. But I don't think there's a need to call the director if everyone at the table agrees that the BIT or whatever occurred. And later, if you believe UI has been used — and that is the infraction of law in UI cases — you call the director at the time specified in the laws, which is after the play is over. No need to reserve rights there. Just report the facts to the TD when he comes.

I suppose one might postulate a scenario where the OS agree at the time to the potentially UI providing action, and then when the NOS call the director later because they feel UI may have been used, the OS says "BIT? What BIT? There was no BIT." I won't say that could never happen, but I expect it would be a very rare occurrence.