[hrothgar]

Hi Kathryn

For what it’s worth, I think that you did an exemplary job handling this incident.

You focused the discussion on the crucial issue (damage) and explained that adjustments are not designed to punish players for infractions.

Nicely done

(You might want to contact the aggreived party and point them at this thread)

[helene_t]

jillybean2, on Aug 8 2008, 05:48 AM, said:

Correct Wayne, Multi 2♦ is specifically
1.Weak two in a Major 2. Strong balanced or 3. Strong three-suited hand ?

My impression is that "Multi" always includes a weak two in either major, but what (if any) strong variants it includes varies between cultures. FWIW if a Dutch club player alerts his opening as "Multi" it probably includes a semi-GF minor one-suiter.

Agree with david_c that it is questionable if there was misinformation at all but in any case I think you did the right thing by asking South if he saw damage. As long as he wasn't able to explain damage it is not necessary to discuss whether there was misinformation.

[rigour6]

It looks to me like a very standard Ekren 2♦ pre-empt. Whether one agrees that is "highly unusual" is a matter of opinion. ACBL doesn't to the best of my knowledge, but it does require the range be restricted from true Ekren, which is 3 to 10 High, to some 5 point range (I think typically just raise the floor from 3 to 5).

I think the box and time constraints and typing skills are sometimes responsible, so you get people typing in "weak, both majors" or something to that equivalent, because it takes longer to go "3 to 10 high, at least 4-4 in the majors". I'm not saying that's an excuse, I agree with your action. If you're going to play Ekren, you need to recognize that it is not a particularly widely-known convention, so it behooves you to make the extra effort, not expect your opponents to. At the same time, a convention that would allow you to use it only when you're weak with 5-5 in the majors, how many ahnds would it come up? The "victim" should use some common sense.

I also agree with your viewing of the results and the reason why. Pre-empts are by nature destructive, and this one worked. Which is annoying for sure but part of bridge. The not-entirely-complete explanation isn't what caused the poor result here.

[TimG]

rigour6, on Aug 8 2008, 08:11 AM, said:

It looks to me like a very standard Ekren 2♦ pre-empt. Whether one agrees that is "highly unusual" is a matter of opinion. ACBL doesn't to the best of my knowledge, but it does require the range be restricted from true Ekren, which is 3 to 10 High, to some 5 point range (I think typically just raise the floor from 3 to 5).

ACBL has deemed weak openings that could be made on 4-4 hands to be destructive. Changing the lower limit from 3 to 5 does nothing to change this. (I'm not offering an opinion on whether this is good or bad, just stating what current ACBL policy is.) I'm sure you can find somewhere on the mid-chart a note that such weak openings must promise at least 5-4.

[hrothgar]

TimG, on Aug 8 2008, 04:53 PM, said:

ACBL has deemed weak openings that could be made on 4-4 hands to be destructive. Changing the lower limit from 3 to 5 does nothing to change this. (I'm not offering an opinion on whether this is good or bad, just stating what current ACBL policy is.) I'm sure you can find somewhere on the mid-chart a note that such weak openings must promise at least 5-4.

I was always kind of miffed that this wasn't called the "Richard Willey rule".

Marty Bergen got the "Marty Bergen rule". Seems vaguely unfair...

[blackshoe]

I agree with others - Jilly handled it well. Sounds to me like the complainer is more concerned about the fact that the opponent won the tournament than anything else.

[Trinidad]

david_c, on Aug 8 2008, 04:13 AM, said:

The explanation seems adequate to me. OK, if I played this convention I would say "at least 4-4" in the explanation. But is a failure to do so actually misinformaion?

I fully agree with David. No infraction. Then the question whether or not there was damage is not relevant anymore (and it shouldn't have been come up either).

Rik

[Echognome]

Jillybean said:

I was running the tourney under 'WBF rules'

jtfanclub, on Aug 7 2008, 07:54 PM, said:

Two Suiter seems to be defined in American General Convention Chart as 5-4 or better.  So I think there was misinformation.

Try again?

[Echognome]

jkdood, on Aug 7 2008, 11:45 PM, said:

In a short mini with many casual or pick-up partnerships and a clock, it would have much merit if you allow this convention to require the players to provide a defense.

Strongly disagree with this. Of course, I strongly disagree with written defenses anyway. Either allow it or don't, but how is it bridge for opponents to sit there and read their bids off a sheet rather than actually getting to think. Suggesting a defense ahead of time... maybe.

[jtfanclub]

Echognome, on Aug 8 2008, 01:32 PM, said:

Try again?

Try reading the last line again? Here: I'll help.

But of course that only applies to people following ACBL rules anyways.

[Echognome]

jtfanclub, on Aug 8 2008, 11:18 AM, said:

Echognome, on Aug 8 2008, 01:32 PM, said:

Try again?

Try reading the last line again? Here: I'll help.

But of course that only applies to people following ACBL rules anyways.

Still doesn't make any sense. How can you think there was misinformation?

[helene_t]

Makes some sense. In the absence of a WBF definition, one could look at the definition given by some other organization. Not directly relevant since this was not an ACBL tourney, but arguably an ACBL definition is better than no definition.

[Echognome]

helene_t, on Aug 8 2008, 12:16 PM, said:

Makes some sense. In the absence of a WBF definition, one could look at the definition given by some other organization. Not directly relevant since this was not an ACBL tourney, but arguably an ACBL definition is better than no definition.

I'll just agree to disagree with that. The ACBL's convention chart should not have any bearing. If I looked at the EBU orange book, I'm sure I could find that 2♦ showing both majors (with 4-4 in length) is allowed at a certain level. It hardly seems relevant at all.

[helene_t]

Of course the agreement is allowed (unless explicitly stated otherwise). Has the ACBL definition jtf referred to do with the fact that Ekren is not allowed under GCC? In that case you're right, my bad.

[barmar]

One thing I don't thnk has ever been mentioned in this thread: Does the pair in fact have an agreement that 2♦ can be bid with 4-4? Often the agreement about two-suiters is that it's at least 5-4, but a player might occasionally deviate from the agreements. You might call this a psyche, although I don't think being one card short constitutes a "gross deviation".

East's 3♥ bid sure seems to me like he expected more cards in West's majors.

[jtfanclub]

helene_t, on Aug 8 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

Of course the agreement is allowed (unless explicitly stated otherwise). Has the ACBL definition jtf referred to do with the fact that Ekren is not allowed under GCC? In that case you're right, my bad.

I certainly didn't mean to imply it was illegal.

It's just that's the 'most official' definition of two-suiter I've been able to find. If there's a WBF source that defines two-suiter, I'm unaware of it.

There's just so much information, and it's so difficult to try to get it into an explanation. If a bid is defined as "weak" or "two-suiter" or "invitational", they have to have some definition besides Humpty Dumpty's.

[jdonn]

barmar, on Aug 8 2008, 03:55 PM, said:

One thing I don't thnk has ever been mentioned in this thread: Does the pair in fact have an agreement that 2♦ can be bid with 4-4? Often the agreement about two-suiters is that it's at least 5-4, but a player might occasionally deviate from the agreements. You might call this a psyche, although I don't think being one card short constitutes a "gross deviation".

East's 3♥ bid sure seems to me like he expected more cards in West's majors.

West's hand was not unusual in any way, so they can claim their agreement is at least 5-4 and that they deviated this one time, but I would never believe them.

[jillybean]

barmar, on Aug 8 2008, 01:55 PM, said:

One thing I don't thnk has ever been mentioned in this thread: Does the pair in fact have an agreement that 2♦ can be bid with 4-4?  Often the agreement about two-suiters is that it's at least 5-4, but a player might occasionally deviate from the agreements.  You might call this a psyche, although I don't think being one card short constitutes a "gross deviation".

East's 3♥ bid sure seems to me like he expected more cards in West's majors.

Yes, their agreement was 2♦ = weak 44 in the majors

[mr1303]

Do you mean weak 4-4 in majors, or weak 4+ 4+ in majors.

This seems to be a significant difference.

If the agreement is that the 2D opening shows exactly 4-4 in the majors AND CANNOT BE LONGER THAT THIS then I think there is more scope for a misinformation ruling, since bidding now becomes a lot more ropey as there is much less guarantee of a fit. South has bid as though he expected 4D to be a safe run-out if doubled in 3NT knowing that West was likely to be short in diamonds.

If the agreement for 2D is a major 2 suiter, showing AT LEAST 4 cards in each major (and 4-4 is possible) then I agree this is sour grapes.

[jillybean]

Weak 44 is their agreement