[Walddk]

epeeist, on Mar 16 2005, 06:18 AM, said:

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

[cherdano]

Walddk, on Mar 16 2005, 11:38 AM, said:

epeeist, on Mar 16 2005, 06:18 AM, said:

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!

Well, certainly opponents are entitled to know whether, by partnership agreement, weak twos are 6= cards, 6-10 hcp or 5+ cards, 3-13 hcp or 6+cards, 0-7 hcp? Whether "weak 2" as a first explanation (you certainly have to be more detailed if they ask more questions) is adequate is a different story.

Of course it is inexcusable for the TD to give bidding lessons, whether they are right or wrong.

Arend

[helene_t]

I would expect a third-seat preempt to mean nothing more than "I want to play 2♦". It may mean 4-8 diamonds, 0-13 HCPs. It may be more specific. However, that is a question of judgement more than agreement.

Of course, if you have the agreement that partner should never support with 3 diamonds because you may have only 4, the oponents are entitled to that information. Also if you have the agreement that partner should make a game try with a flat 10-11 HCPs.

[Walddk]

cherdano, on Mar 16 2005, 06:48 AM, said:

Of course it is inexcusable for the TD to give bidding lessons, whether they are right or wrong.

Arend

I dare say! Unfortunately too many TDs have very little knowledge of bridge. They may be in a position to interpret the laws, but that doesn't make them good bridge players.

Roland

[david_c]

It certainly looks like the TD got it horribly wrong. One thing that hasn't been commented on yet: it seems odd to me that the TD adjusted to ave-/ave+. As I understand it, if you rule that there was misinformation then you should adjust to the result that you think would have occurred without the misinformation (unless that would be worse for the non-offending side). Please correct me if I'm wrong (I may try to become a TD in future but I'm still learning!) 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?

[epeeist]

Walddk, on Mar 16 2005, 06:38 AM, said:

epeeist, on Mar 16 2005, 06:18 AM, said:

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]

epeeist, on Mar 16 2005, 07:37 AM, said:

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]

david_c, on Mar 16 2005, 07:18 AM, said:

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...5spring/db6.pdf

[hotShot]

Quote

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]

uday, on Mar 16 2005, 09:34 AM, said:

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


http://web2.acbl.org...5spring/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]

JSilver, on Mar 15 2005, 05:51 PM, said:

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]

Walddk, on Mar 16 2005, 06:38 AM, said:

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]

TimG, on Mar 16 2005, 10:21 AM, said:

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]

Walddk, on Mar 16 2005, 10:34 AM, said:

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.