[jillybean]

Dealer: North Vul: EW Scoring: IMP

♠ T87643 ♥ K974 ♦ 95 ♣ 5

West North East South

 -     Pass  1♦    2♠
  


After the hand you are called to the table by E/W complaining Souths 2♠ bid is destructive, how do you rule?

[awm]

Is there a law against destructive bids? I'm not aware of any such thing. There is a rule that you have to try to obtain good scores, but bidding 2♠ here could easily obtain a good score (and in fact it probably did, since opponents are complaining). I rule no adjustment.

There is (sort of) a law against destructive agreements but even if the agreed range for 2♠ includes this hand I wouldn't classify it that way.

[jillybean]

awm, on Dec 31 2008, 12:27 AM, said:

Is there a law against destructive bids?

Not that I am aware of. I sometimes get players saying a certain bid is purely destructive and that I should do something about it! Noone has told me which law I should apply, only that it isnt allowed.

[Tola18]

Next question is, what is a destructive bid. Is it a very weak - but real - preempt, or is is it a semi-psych like bidding in this position 1sp on 13 cards - and hopefully 3 spades??
Or perhaps both.


(why do I say semi-psych and not psych? Such destructive bids are usually described in CC, and also partner too knows they may - and often are, nonsens.)

[cherdano]

This is not destructive.

[P_Marlowe]

So what?

N/S are green vs. red, S made the bid
facing a passed p, ...
Depending on the level, Ethe South hand
should not be a huge surprise for E/W.

I am not sure, I would make the bid, but
this may just be a matter of the current
Sun Moon constelation.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

The bridge laws don't know "destructive bids".

If you start to bid lunatic, this is covered by law 74.

If you make a bid with a bridge reason (yes even a psyche has a bridge reason) it is allowed, if properly disclosed or covered by Law §40.A.3 .

The sponsoring organization may allow or disallow certain conventions, but the question is if 2♠ isn't a natural call. If weak jumps and weak 2 openings are allowed, I don't see how this overcall can be disallowed.

There is often a restriction in strength for opening bids (~about a kings worth), but since 2♠ is no opening bid, that does not apply.

Since opps did not claim misinformation or a missing alert, there is not case.

Perhaps "destructive" is used in GCC or midchart by the ACBL.

[cherdano]

hotShot, on Dec 31 2008, 04:12 AM, said:

Perhaps "destructive" is used in GCC or midchart by the ACBL.

Yes.

[Tola18]

Again a next question.

What was the problem?

Where EW only mentioning NS used a "destructive bid" for your attention?
Thus no need to compensate EW for anything, but you as director should know.

Or did they get disturbed by this more or less normal weak bid? (look at Marlowes answer, I agree with him).

Or did they get stuck the hearts were splitting badly sitting also in the wrong hand???

[Cascade]

cherdano, on Dec 31 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

hotShot, on Dec 31 2008, 04:12 AM, said:

Perhaps "destructive" is used in GCC or midchart by the ACBL.

Yes.

The word "destructive" does not appear in the GCC nor does it appear in the Mid-Chart. It does appear in the super-chart:

"All of the ACBL MidChart plus any other non-destructive convention,
treatment or method except that:..."

The GCC and the Mid-Chart (and Super-Chart) do say under disallowed methods:

"Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy
the opponents’ methods."

For a weak two there is also another requirement in the GCC that conventions may not be played if "... weak two-bids which by partnership
agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five
cards in the suit."

Other than this there is no definition of destructive that is applicable to weak twos.

To me this says that you need both a range greater than 7HCP and the possibility of fewer than five cards for this provision to be activated. That is a 2-10 hcp weak two is ok provided if can never be a four-card (or shorter) suit. As is a 4-card weak two provided the range is restricted to 7 hcp e.g. 3-10 hcp. Although I am sure that someone will tell me that either condition is sufficient. If that interpretation was intended then the wording should have the "and" replaced with an "or".

No doubt someone else will tell me that 3-10 hcp is an 8 hcp range and not a 7 hcp. However the standard definition of "range" is maximum value subtract minimum value.

[brianshark]

jillybean2, on Dec 31 2008, 06:37 AM, said:

After the hand you are called to the table by E/W complaining Souths 2♠ bid is destructive, how do you rule?

I would probably start laughing at them.

Incidentally, I think there are laws against destructive methods. But not destructive bids. But we're talking about even worse than typical HUMs... for example: "partnership forced to open 1NT on every single hand without exception".

(On the given hand, the situation is perfect for pre-emption. 2♠ is a good bid. Some would consider 3♠.)

[TimG]

Cascade, on Dec 31 2008, 05:52 AM, said:

The word "destructive" does not appear in the GCC nor does it appear in the Mid-Chart.

True, but (as you say) the GCC does disallow: "1. Conventions and/or agreements whose primary purpose is to destroy the opponents’ methods." I don't think it is a leap to suggest this refers to "destructive" methods.

[cherdano]

Wayne, I am sure the regulations meant "or". Also, 3-10 hcp is a 8 hcp range, for the same reason that Monday to Wednesday is a 3 day time period.

[helene_t]

cherdano, on Dec 31 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

Wayne, I am sure the regulations meant "or". Also, 3-10 hcp is a 8 hcp range, for the same reason that Monday to Wednesday is a 3 day time period.

Yes. In "children aged 6 to 12 years" it may mean 6.00 to 11.99 if written with that precision. But 6-12 HCP almost certainly means 5.50 to 12.49

[Cascade]

cherdano, on Jan 1 2009, 04:38 AM, said:

Wayne, I am sure the regulations meant "or". Also, 3-10 hcp is a 8 hcp range, for the same reason that Monday to Wednesday is a 3 day time period.

Of course you do. It was too complicated to actually write what they meant and instead someone thought (and others agreed) that writing the exact opposite would be best.

Monday to Wednesday is a three day period but Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday are all continuous 24 hr time periods. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are discrete integers and range is a well defined concept. The regulators have chosen to use a term a form of judgement (hcp) that results in only integer values and restrict agreements according to those values based on the "range". Nowhere else on the planet is "range" determined by counting the discrete values as you suggest.

One can choose to believe that:

1. The regulators were incompetent

2. The regulators made a mistake

or

3. The regulations actual mean what they say.

Fred or someone would say it was inappropriate if you argued 1.

If you argue 2. then you have to wonder why these simple mistakes have not be fixed with a revision or amendment to the regulations.

So that only leaves 3.

Further it seems to me to be a very slippery slope if you start believing that regulations mean something that you think they mean rather than what they actually say.

Basically a director who said "yes i know your 7 hcp range is in accordance with the regulations but I am ruling that it is an 8 hcp range looks very stupid" IMHO.

[Cascade]

helene_t, on Jan 1 2009, 04:54 AM, said:

cherdano, on Dec 31 2008, 04:38 PM, said:

Wayne, I am sure the regulations meant "or". Also, 3-10 hcp is a 8 hcp range, for the same reason that Monday to Wednesday is a 3 day time period.

Yes. In "children aged 6 to 12 years" it may mean 6.00 to 11.99 if written with that precision. But 6-12 HCP almost certainly means 5.50 to 12.49

How do I get 0.49 of a HCP? Whenever I have added combinations of the quantities one, two, three and four I have got an integer answer.

Helene you appear to have compared a continuous quantity (age) to a discrete quantity (HCP) and then pretended that the discrete quantity masquerades as something continuous (or pseudo-continuous - decimals).

[cherdano]

Wayne, I agree about the use of "and", but you simply have a different understanding of what a "3 hcp range" is than everyone else. Think of it as a "range of hcp containing 3 hcp values".

[Cascade]

The language of:

"CONVENTIONAL RESPONSES, REBIDS AND A CONVENTIONAL
DEFENSE TO AN OPPONENT’S CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE after
natural notrump opening bids or overcalls with a lower limit of fewer than
10 HCP or with a range of greater than 5 HCP (including those that have
two non-consecutive ranges) and weak two-bids which by partnership
agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and do not show at least five
cards in the suit."

Clearly supports the view that in was intended that HCP are discrete and not continuous quantities.

"fewer than 10 HCP" would read "less than 10 HCP" if continuous quantities were intended.

[hrothgar]

All other things being equal, if I hear people using the expression "range", I assume that they are apply the same standard definitions that I was taught back in junir high school.

The range (sometimes referred to as the statistical range) is calculated by subtracting the smaller number from the larger number. This is the same definition that wikipedia uses

http://en.wikipedia....ge_(statistics)

If we are using "standard" vocabuilary, a 15-17 HCP NT opener would be described as a 2 HCP range. A 15-18 HCP opener would be a 3 HCP range.

[1eyedjack]

That's interesting. So a hand that shows precisely 15 points has a 0 point range. This is not the way I would have intuitively read it.