[JSilver]

cherdano, on Mar 16 2005, 10:40 AM, said:

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]

mpefritz, on Mar 16 2005, 06:02 AM, said:

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.