[Cyberyeti]

We play our weak 2s 0-10, 4+ cards in suit first and 3rd.

What should we announce them as, as I suspect "Weak" doesn't really tell the opps what they need to know. Should we alert as the treatment is unexpected, say "Weak and I suggest you look at the card", "Weak, and possibly shorter than you might expect" or do we legally have to stick with "Weak".

Does this change with the new regs this coming season where "Weak to intermediate" becomes normal, and is "Weak to non-existent" or similar permissible.

[mjj29]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-April-28, 09:12, said:

We play our weak 2s 0-10, 4+ cards in suit first and 3rd.

What should we announce them as, as I suspect "Weak" doesn't really tell the opps what they need to know. Should we alert as the treatment is unexpected, say "Weak and I suggest you look at the card", "Weak, and possibly shorter than you might expect" or do we legally have to stick with "Weak".

Does this change with the new regs this coming season where "Weak to intermediate" becomes normal, and is "Weak to non-existent" or similar permissible.

I would definitely announce something like you suggest (maybe "Weak to Awful"? "Bad to Worse"?) and might also point it out to oppo when exchanging cards. The OB is clear that's is definitely announceable, 5E1 specifically excludes announceable bids from "it has a potentially unexpected meaning" and 5G3(a) says you should not alert them, so I think that's the best you can do. While 2 bids are on the front of the convention card I would also put it under "Other aspects of the system that opponents should note".

[gnasher]

The rules seem to be very clear about this. Your two bids are natural according to the definition of "natural" in the glossary. Therefore they're announceable and not alertable. In announcing them, you may use only the four categories "Strong, forcing", "Strong, not forcing", "Intermediate" and "Weak", either alone or in combination.

I think you should ignore the rules. The really unexpected feature of your two-bids is the suit length. Hence I'd announce it as "weak, can be a 4-card suit".

[bluejak]

I am quite sure the L&EC have said that you may use more words for Announcements if it is helpful. I was pleased personally, since I felt "9-12, may have a singleton" gave the wrong flavour to our 1NT openings, which only have a singleton when it is an honour in a minor. Now we say "9-12, may have a singleton honour in a minor".

[nige1]

Duplicate. Sorry.

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2011-April-28, 09:12, said:

We play our weak 2s 0-10, 4+ cards in suit first and 3rd. What should we announce them as, as I suspect "Weak" doesn't really tell the opps what they need to know. Should we alert as the treatment is unexpected, say "Weak and I suggest you look at the card", "Weak, and possibly shorter than you might expect" or do we legally have to stick with "Weak". Does this change with the new regs this coming season where "Weak to intermediate" becomes normal, and is "Weak to non-existent" or similar permissible.

bluejak, on 2011-April-28, 12:05, said:

I am quite sure the L&EC have said that you may use more words for Announcements if it is helpful. I was pleased personally, since I felt "9-12, may have a singleton" gave the wrong flavour to our 1NT openings, which only have a singleton when it is an honour in a minor. Now we say "9-12, may have a singleton honour in a minor".

IMO you should alert rather than announce because the bid has an unusual meaning that opponents won't expect. Incidentally, are ordinary players meant to comply, clairvoyantly, with obscure law-committee decisions? IMO amendments and corrections should be made directly to the text in the (on-line) rule-book.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-April-28, 12:05, said:

I am quite sure the L&EC have said that you may use more words for Announcements if it is helpful.

If so, they seem not to have said it in the regulations about announcing two bids:

A natural opening bid of two of a suit is announced by stating the range into which it falls, from the following categories. Partner of the opener says the words shown.

That doesn't appear to allow one to choose any non-standard wording.

Quote

I was pleased personally, since I felt "9-12, may have a singleton" gave the wrong flavour to our 1NT openings, which only have a singleton when it is an honour in a minor. Now we say "9-12, may have a singleton honour in a minor".

The regulations for 1NT openings are different:

Natural 1NT openings are announced by stating the range, eg by saying "12 to 14".

The word "eg" allows you to state the range in any way that you see fit.

However

Where a 1NT opening which is in principle natural may be made by agreement on some hands which contain a singleton, it is announced by stating the range followed by “possible singleton”.

seems not to allow any variation in the explanations about distribution.

[TMorris]

The Orange book changes in August 2007 allow various wordings - "weak to intermediate" is given as an example for a wide ranging bid so I think you can say anything sensible and descriptive.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on 2011-April-28, 13:27, said:

If so, they seem not to have said it in the regulations about announcing two bids:

A natural opening bid of two of a suit is announced by stating the range into which it falls, from the following categories. Partner of the opener says the words shown.

That doesn't appear to allow one to choose any non-standard wording.


The regulations for 1NT openings are different:

Natural 1NT openings are announced by stating the range, eg by saying "12 to 14".

The word "eg" allows you to state the range in any way that you see fit.

However

Where a 1NT opening which is in principle natural may be made by agreement on some hands which contain a singleton, it is announced by stating the range followed by “possible singleton”.

seems not to allow any variation in the explanations about distribution.

Sorry, I stand by my reply.

Quote

L&EC minutes 2010-07-14 #5.9

It was also confirmed that the prescribed announcements in the Orange Book may be added to by players if doing so aids full disclosure in a concise fashion.

I expected someone else to find it for me! Oh well, there it is.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on 2011-April-28, 16:03, said:

Sorry, I stand by my reply.

I wasn't disputing that they'd said that - I only said that it wasn't in the regulations.

Do the minutes of the L&EC override the published regulations? And if so, does that apply in perpetuity, or only until a new edition of the regulations is published?

I don't always agree with Nigel's posts about the rules, but his concern about the promulgation of such decisions seems justified.

[barmar]

gnasher, on 2011-April-28, 13:27, said:

The regulations for 1NT openings are different:

Natural 1NT openings are announced by stating the range, eg by saying "12 to 14".

The word "eg" allows you to state the range in any way that you see fit.

I think "eg" just refers to the range being used in the example, not the form, i.e. you can say "12 to 14", "13 to 16", "10 to 12", "good 14 to 17", etc.

[gnasher]

In 2007 I had this exchange of emails with the EBU's chief TD, via the secretary to the L&EC:

I said:

Suppose that I play that a 1NT opening is 15-17 when balanced, but might also be a 6322 type (with a six-card minor) of equivalent playing strength, and therefore less in high cards...
Can you tell me how I should describe this when announcing the opening?

Max Bavin said:

Why not just announce it as:-

"15-17; maybe slightly less with a 6-card minor"?

This isn't the opening 2-bid problem, in that we don't specify the exact form of words which must be used.

So the difference in wording was apparently both intentional and intended to have the effect I stated in my earlier post. That was in 2007, but so far as I know the only subsequent change to that part of the regulations has been to add the section about saying "weak to intermediate", etc.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-April-28, 13:27, said:

If so, they seem not to have said it in the regulations about announcing two bids:

A natural opening bid of two of a suit is announced by stating the range into which it falls, from the following categories. Partner of the opener says the words shown.

That doesn't appear to allow one to choose any non-standard wording.

Indeed, it allows the abuse which I met recently where a pair who played that an opening 2 major was either weak or Lucas could just announce it as "weak", as it did not guarantee length in another suit. So much for full disclosure. Indeed, according to 5D3 of the Orange Book (which they were able to recite by heart), they were conforming exactly.

[alphatango]

For clarification, what is the abuse -- was the agreement not pre-alerted or disclosed on the card? If they were conforming with the regulations, surely that cannot lead to a reflection on their ethics?

[lamford]

alphatango, on 2011-May-01, 02:40, said:

For clarification, what is the abuse -- was the agreement not pre-alerted or disclosed on the card? If they were conforming with the regulations, surely that cannot lead to a reflection on their ethics?

Indeed I confirmed that they conformed exactly, and they are quite entitled to use the method, exploiting the loophole in the alerting regulations. Yes, it was fully disclosed on the card, and there is no requirement to pre-alert. It was only discovered because they happened to respond 3C, pass or correct, with a 2-3-4-4 shape.

[RMB1]

I don't see any abuse. Their 2M shows length in M and may have a side suit, that is true of many who play 5-card weak twos.

[gnasher]

I can't see any abuse either. They play weak twos that might be either 5 or 6 cards, but with a 5-card suit they don't do it on a 5332 shape or with a side 4-card major. In reply, they use methods that take account of these constraints. That seems quite sensible.

If I played this method, I would intentionally break the rules by alerting the two-bids or by announcing them in a non-standard way, especially now that I know that the L&EC encourages this practice. However, it seems unreasonable to criticise a pair for following the rules, or for not reading the minutes of the L&EC.

I realise, however, that some pairs (not very many, in my experience) would be happy that the rules required them to make misleading explanations, and might even seek out methods that allowed them to do this. Maybe your experience of this particular pair suggested to you that this was what was going on?

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2011-May-01, 03:38, said:

If I played this method, I would intentionally break the rules by alerting the two-bids or by announcing them in a non-standard way, especially now that I know that the L&EC encourages this practice.

This was the view of a Belgian TD friend of mine, to whom I just spoke. It is "The Law is an Ass" approach. I gained the impression, perhaps unjustified, that the alerting regulations were part of the decision of the pair whether to play the methods in question, which is a perfectly permissible attitude, but not one I personally wish to adopt. As pretty much all 5-4 hands within range would be opened with a "weak" two, I believe that the Lucas or Muiderberg hands are about 60-40 favourite to occur. And the weak two opener might well reject certain hands with a six-card major that do not want to hear a "pass or correct" 3C. But, as you all say, no abuse whatsoever. And the fact that good (six-card) weak twos in a major went through a multi was coincidental.

[AlexJonson]

I don't really get this.

Oppos have funny 2's, that they put on the front of their card.

So, the problem is... you just got back from the bar with no time to play Bridge properly?