[hrothgar]

This thread is an offshoot of a parallel discussion regarding a specific ruling in an ACBL tournament.

I would like to try to establish what constitues general bridge knowledge regarding 3rd seat preemptive openings. Which of these statements best describes "standard" practice regarding preemptive openings in third seat

1. Third seat weak two opening bids are highly undisciplined
2. Third seat weak two opening bids are disciplined

The reason that I asking is the following: In the disucssion thread, there were a number of statements suggesting that players who use highly undiciplined methods in third seat have an obligation to provide "extra" information. However, an equally valid argument can be made that this tendency is general bridge knowledge and standard practice. Under this assumption, those players who adopt disciplined methods are the outliers who need to made special effort to adopt their weird little habits.

As an alternative, we could simple say that

3. Everyone needs to provide very detailed descriptions regarding third seat opening habits. I know how much everyone loves spending time typing out long tedious alerts that the opponents ignore.

For the sake of completeness, we should also offer

4. People need to protect themselves and ask the right questions...

[cherdano]

I will just point out that the WBF, which is probably responsible for the tournaments with the widest range of players' backgrounds, has chosen no. 4 to my understanding.

[inquiry]

My third seat preempts are very undisciplined, my second seat preempts are highly disciplines, my fourth seat preempts are "to make." My first seat preempts depend upon vulnerabilty... .not vul versus vul, they are wild and wooly, vul versus not vul they are very sound.

So in third seat, a weak two (or three or four) could be virtually anything. I am not asking for partners participation.

My second seat preempt have to be alerted too, as after one opponent has passed, I am much more likely to have a text book perfect preempt.

So if we have to type all this out, I would have special alerts... but somehow it would seem to me that common bridge knoweldge should cover a lot of these. The fourth seat preempt for instance. Why bid if you think it is their hand? Just pass it out. Same type of logic applies to other seats I think.

[luis]

1 and 4.
I think I made my point in that thread. For the ones not knowing what happened a player opened 2s in 3rd with QJxxx and out (CC saying: 5-9), declarer refused to take a finesse thinking the 2s opener must have the hK for his opening and played and exotic endplay (MPs). Then when the hand was over -IMPORTANT- the partnership accepted that it was common for them to relax weak 2s in 3rd seat. Declarer called the director and after a good ruling by the TD an AC changed the result based in undisclosed information or something like that...
You can always ask, if you don't ask it's because you are trying the hand twice, either by doing what you should according to the CC or by a ruling if they don't have what the CC says they should have.
I firmly believe that opening weak 2s in third position with even 0 is not enough to call the TD and ask for any ruling.

[TimG]

I think some combination of 3 and 4 is required. I do not think it is onerous to include in the description of a 3rd seat opening bid something along the lines of "undisciplined" or "wide-ranging". If an opponent needs more information than that, she can ask for a more detailed explanation.

What should not happen is the bid is described the same as a 1st or 2nd seat opening and the opponent is then required to ask whether it might differ in 3rd seat.

I will also point out that these sorts of issues are seldom a problem in high level games. Not because high level players are more aware of what might be considered general bridge knowledge, but because high level players are more likely to give accurate, brief and useful explanations.

[mike777]

luis, on Mar 17 2005, 09:01 AM, said:

1 and 4.
I think I made my point in that thread. For the ones not knowing what happened a player opened 2s in 3rd with QJxxx and out (CC saying: 5-9), declarer refused to take a finesse thinking the 2s opener must have the hK for his opening and played and exotic endplay (MPs). Then when the hand was over -IMPORTANT- the partnership accepted that it was common for them to relax weak 2s in 3rd seat. Declarer called the director and after a good ruling by the TD an AC changed the result based in undisclosed information or something like that...
You can always ask, if you don't ask it's because you are trying the hand twice, either by doing what you should according to the CC or by a ruling if they don't have what the CC says they should have.
I firmly believe that opening weak 2s in third position with even 0 is not enough to call the TD and ask for any ruling.

If I understand your post, your cc says 5-9 hcp but in third seat you may often have 0-5 and your cc does not say or infer extreme 3 seat bids? Are you suggesting in a Nat pairs event I need to ask questions every board about such issues or I am fault and should just accept the result?

If so what other bids, special understandings not on cc should I be asking about? Seems as if I will have little time to play with all my time asking questions and reading the cc if opp are not going to be alerting.

[luis]

mike777, on Mar 17 2005, 04:11 PM, said:

luis, on Mar 17 2005, 09:01 AM, said:

1 and 4.
I think I made my point in that thread. For the ones not knowing what happened a player opened 2s in 3rd with QJxxx and out (CC saying: 5-9), declarer refused to take a finesse thinking the 2s opener must have the hK for his opening and played and exotic endplay (MPs). Then when the hand was over -IMPORTANT- the partnership accepted that it was common for them to relax weak 2s in 3rd seat. Declarer called the director and after a good ruling by the TD an AC changed the result based in undisclosed information or something like that...
You can always ask, if you don't ask it's because you are trying the hand twice, either by doing what you should according to the CC or by a ruling if they don't have what the CC says they should have.
I firmly believe that opening weak 2s in third position with even 0 is not enough to call the TD and ask for any ruling.

If I understand your post, your cc says 5-9 hcp but in third seat you may often have 0-5 and your cc does not say or infer extreme 3 seat bids? Are you suggesting in a Nat pairs event I need to ask questions every board about such issues or I am fault and should just accept the result?

If so what other bids, special understandings not on cc should I be asking about? Seems as if I will have little time to play with all my time asking questions and reading the cc if opp are not going to be alerting.

Yes you should ask about such issues and yes you are at fault if you don't and take a wrong decision.
What other situations merit such a question, well any situation where valuable style information might influence the line you take to play the hand.
And I don't think you will be asking so many questions in the 80% of the hands there's nothing to ask about or if there is the information is irrelevant to the play.

Using a technicality in the CC to ask for TD to make you take a finesse you refused to take at the table is disgusting specially when you didn't ask anything at the table before taking the finesse.

[DrTodd13]

Knowing that some people take liberties in the third seat should be general bridge knowledge. So, if asking about a third seat bid you should ask the right questions to get the answer you desire. Of course, the problem is that information is transferred to partner by the fact that you are asking the question and by the way you phrase the question so you have to be careful. The more generic statement "tell me everything you know about this third seat bid" will avoid these sorts of problems but you'll have to sit there and listen to the opp rattle on for 30 seconds.

[luis]

DrTodd13, on Mar 17 2005, 07:20 PM, said:

Knowing that some people take liberties in the third seat should be general bridge knowledge. So, if asking about a third seat bid you should ask the right questions to get the answer you desire. Of course, the problem is that information is transferred to partner by the fact that you are asking the question and by the way you phrase the question so you have to be careful. The more generic statement "tell me everything you know about this third seat bid" will avoid these sorts of problems but you'll have to sit there and listen to the opp rattle on for 30 seconds.

If you are declarer there're no excuses for not asking since there's no UI to pd.
If you don't ask and you refuse to take a finesse then don't cry, I'd have ruled strongly against that pair in the ACBL tournament, upheld the TD decision and retain the deposit. Some days in jail would also be fine but an AC can't do that...

[DrTodd13]

If you are declarer and the auction has ended then yes you have no excuse. If it is the middle of the auction and your question might cause partner to (not) take some action or to defend differently then you have to be careful about targeted questions.

[LH2650]

This looks like Pittsburgh NABC appeals case #5, which may be found in the Wednesday bulletin. Until such time that an Appeals Casebook is issued (and they may no longer do that) with the review committee taking exception to the ruling, this is about as close to an official ACBL policy pronouncement as we are going to get. Note that the ruling of the floor director was overturned by a panel of senior ACBL directors, not a committee of players.

[Flame]

standard and common arent the same, for example where i play there is only 1 in 3000 who play 2M to be strong, but i still alert my weak 2 opening while the strong 2M opener will probebly not alert. There is atleast some logic in this, its not a good idea that alerts policy will change all the time and be a subject to trends , instead there is one stadard which rarly change and till it will change an 3rd seat opening should be alert if its not based on that standard, which is what was common in the near past.

[mycroft]

probably not answering Richard's question, but since this revolves around the ACBL:

Remember that for games held under the ACBL GCC or Mid-Chart (I believe this hand was played in a Mid-Chart game), if you play that a weak 2 could be fewer than 5 cards or have a range (in one position, at one vulnerability) of greather than 7 HCP, you may play exactly NO conventions afterward, including conventional defences to conventional interference.

So, while I like to play very undisciplined in third seat - and I ascribe to the EHAA definiition of "Undisciplined", which does not equate to "insanely weak" - I may push the bottom edge of my range (usually 5-11) but not the top.

If the pair in question had 5-9 marked on their card, and would consider the hand in question systemic, I believe they are being "judicious" about their agreements on their card. If they would also consider AKQxxx xxx J xxx a 2S opener in that seat and vulnerability, and claim to play any conventions over it, then they are playing an illegal system.

Whether or not this is the right way to regulate what the ACBL doesn't want, and whether or not this is what should be regulated at all - especially in National pairs games - these are the rules. If you have an implicit understanding that you both fail to mention to the opponents and could conceivably be illegal, I think the one tends to colour the interpretation of the other...