[mtvesuvius]

OK, I was playing at the club a few weeks back, and opened my KTxxxx xx xxxx x with 2♠. After the hand was over the opponents called the director, and complained that I was too "light" for a weak 2 opening. The director ruled in their favor and adjusted the board. The director then warned me that opening weak 2s on hands like that is illegal, and that if I did it again I could face serious consequences. The director said I needed 4 HCP to open a weak 2.

Is this an ACBL law?
If so, what are my restrictions?
Or do I need to send this director back to school?

[awm]

For the most part, the director is making this up.

However, your card should be marked with the range for your weak two bids. If this bid is substantially lighter than your agreed minimum, there might be a problem (although it should probably be ruled a legal "psych" and recorded rather than having the board adjusted).

It's also possible that you may need to pre-alert if your agreed range includes "very light" hands (which might be the case if it includes three-point hands). And there are issues if your range is very wide and you use artificial follow-ups.

[peachy]

Ask him to show the ACBL regulation that covers that. It is not a Law, no matter what it is or is not. There is no restriction AFAIK, except that folks who play some very weak, potentially unusually weak, variants like this one need to pre-alert before each round.

[bluejak]

Clubs are allowed their own restrictions on what may be played, but if so have to inform the players in advance. In practice, not one club in 100 follows this appproach. As Adam said, your TD was making this up.

[TimG]

From the GCC DISALLOWED section:

Quote

7. 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.

It's not clear to me whether the director's statement that you were "too light" was in relation to your stated range or if it was meant to suggest that the minimum of your stated range was too low. If you have 3-11 as your HCP range for a weak two-bid, a director might think you weren't allowed any conventional responses after a 2♠ opening.

If your stated range is 5-11 HCP and you routinely open with 3 HCP, it is my opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to play any conventional responses (under ACBL rules). If you intentionally try to get around this restriction by stating a 5-11 HCP range while routinely opening with 3 HCP, I think you could "face serious consequences".

I don't mean to suggest that you were doing any of these things, just guessing at how a director might have been confused.

* I bolded the "and" because I think the intent of ACBL is "or" and am assuming that is what the regulation is for the purpose of this post. Which again is meant merely as speculation on how the director might have been confused, not a judgment on the players or the regulation.

[Mbodell]

I've had this issue come up with someone calling the director after I bid a weak 2 ♦ with just 2 points once (to the best of my knowledge the only time I've ever done this). My hand was xx xx QT98xxx xx r/w. My stated range with this partner was 5-11 [which is the most common in my club], and the director said he'd make a note of it but that I don't have a history to his knowledge of this kind of deviation. Opponent felt that I should be able to open 3♦, but not 2♦, and he had misguessed a finesse because I'd shown so few points. But about half the field at our club made the same choice I did on the hand.

With some partners where I play a strong club system we've moved the range to 4-10, and really should probably do 3-9, because a 6 card suit with 11/10 points is a 1 bid anyways.

[jillybean]

Isn’t this sort of ruling a common quirk in Club Bridge?
2♠ is legal but other unwritten rules exist to keep the regulars happy. Aggressive weak2’s in this club, psyches in others and so on.

[NickRW]

jillybean2, on Jul 16 2009, 03:46 PM, said:

Isn’t this sort of ruling a common quirk in Club Bridge?

Yes and no. Clubs are free to make their own restrictions about what can and cannot be bid in sessions that they are responsible for - just as bodies like the ACBL and EBU etc do in major competitions. The real quirk is that they are supposed to publish these rules - which hardly ever happens.

Nick

[Cascade]

TimG, on Jul 16 2009, 02:11 PM, said:

From the GCC DISALLOWED section:

Quote

7. 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.

It's not clear to me whether the director's statement that you were "too light" was in relation to your stated range or if it was meant to suggest that the minimum of your stated range was too low. If you have 3-11 as your HCP range for a weak two-bid, a director might think you weren't allowed any conventional responses after a 2♠ opening.

If your stated range is 5-11 HCP and you routinely open with 3 HCP, it is my opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to play any conventional responses (under ACBL rules). If you intentionally try to get around this restriction by stating a 5-11 HCP range while routinely opening with 3 HCP, I think you could "face serious consequences".

I don't mean to suggest that you were doing any of these things, just guessing at how a director might have been confused.

* I bolded the "and" because I think the intent of ACBL is "or" and am assuming that is what the regulation is for the purpose of this post. Which again is meant merely as speculation on how the director might have been confused, not a judgment on the players or the regulation.

I think it is strange how some people assume the laws and regulations mean something different from what they actually say.

How on earth anyone with the inside knowledge is supposed to know that the regulation means something completely different than what is written I have no idea.

[blackshoe]

Me: Can we play Precision?
Club Owner: You can play anything you like.
Me (much later): Can we play the Dynamic Notrump (a GCC legal convention)?
Same Club Owner: Only if you treat it as if it were Mid-Chart, pre-alert it, and provide a written defense to it.

He's perfectly within his rights, of course. What he is not is consistent.

[mtvesuvius]

Thanks all, I don't often open the 3 point weak 2s, and our range was 4-9... I just thought that it was pretty crazy to have that rule. lol.

[Lobowolf]

Cascade, on Jul 16 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

TimG, on Jul 16 2009, 02:11 PM, said:

From the GCC DISALLOWED section:

Quote

7. 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.

It's not clear to me whether the director's statement that you were "too light" was in relation to your stated range or if it was meant to suggest that the minimum of your stated range was too low. If you have 3-11 as your HCP range for a weak two-bid, a director might think you weren't allowed any conventional responses after a 2♠ opening.

If your stated range is 5-11 HCP and you routinely open with 3 HCP, it is my opinion that you shouldn't be allowed to play any conventional responses (under ACBL rules). If you intentionally try to get around this restriction by stating a 5-11 HCP range while routinely opening with 3 HCP, I think you could "face serious consequences".

I don't mean to suggest that you were doing any of these things, just guessing at how a director might have been confused.

* I bolded the "and" because I think the intent of ACBL is "or" and am assuming that is what the regulation is for the purpose of this post. Which again is meant merely as speculation on how the director might have been confused, not a judgment on the players or the regulation.

I think it is strange how some people assume the laws and regulations mean something different from what they actually say.

How on earth anyone with the inside knowledge is supposed to know that the regulation means something completely different than what is written I have no idea.

So, you think they'd be allowed to play conventional responses to weak 2 bids that can by agreement be made on a singleton, as long as they keep to that 7-point range?

[bluejak]

Cascade, on Jul 16 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

I think it is strange how some people assume the laws and regulations mean something different from what they actually say.

How on earth anyone with the inside knowledge is supposed to know that the regulation means something completely different than what is written I have no idea.

I do not think it unreasonable to make certain assumptions when Laws or Regulations are unworkable if you follow them exactly and pedantically. In this case we know perfectly well it means 'or' so it is silly to assume otherwise.

Our intention is to run a game of bridge, not win brownie points for pedantry.

[Cascade]

bluejak, on Jul 17 2009, 12:28 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 16 2009, 05:22 PM, said:

I think it is strange how some people assume the laws and regulations mean something different from what they actually say.

How on earth anyone with the inside knowledge is supposed to know that the regulation means something completely different than what is written I have no idea.

I do not think it unreasonable to make certain assumptions when Laws or Regulations are unworkable if you follow them exactly and pedantically. In this case we know perfectly well it means 'or' so it is silly to assume otherwise.

Our intention is to run a game of bridge, not win brownie points for pedantry.

It is impossible to run a game of any sort with any credibility if the rules do not mean what they say.

[Cascade]

Further the law requires the director to rule according to the announced regulation.

It is entirely improper for a director interpreting a regulation that says 'and' to interpret it as if it said 'or'.

[Mbodell]

Cascade, on Jul 16 2009, 07:17 PM, said:

Further the law requires the director to rule according to the announced regulation.

It is entirely improper for a director interpreting a regulation that says 'and' to interpret it as if it said 'or'.

That isn't the way many things work.

Take, for instance, the baseball strike zone. According to the rules it extends up from the home plate and is between the bottom of the hollow of the knee and the midpoint between the top of the shoulder's and the top of the pants. In actuality the top is lower than that and it extends a good several inches outside the plate. But yet the game seems to mostly work.

Or also the US constitution where many things have established precedence not found strictly in the text. For instance how:

Quote

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

provides much of the basis for Federal abortion rights (Roe v. Wade) or how:

Quote

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

means that the gov't couldn't make illegal the individual ownership completely devoid of militias of residents of certain types of handguns (DC v. Heller)

The point being there's more than just the written word to consider. After all not everyone agrees on what the written word means. Does a 7 HCP range mean 4-10 or 4-11?

After all the meaning of the and could be

Quote

weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement do not show at least five
cards in the suit.

I.e., it is just careless clause joining.

[Cascade]

Mbodell, on Jul 17 2009, 07:36 PM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 16 2009, 07:17 PM, said:

Further the law requires the director to rule according to the announced regulation.

It is entirely improper for a director interpreting a regulation that says 'and' to interpret it as if it said 'or'.

That isn't the way many things work.

Take, for instance, the baseball strike zone. According to the rules it extends up from the home plate and is between the bottom of the hollow of the knee and the midpoint between the top of the shoulder's and the top of the pants. In actuality the top is lower than that and it extends a good several inches outside the plate. But yet the game seems to mostly work.

Or also the US constitution where many things have established precedence not found strictly in the text. For instance how:

Quote

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

provides much of the basis for Federal abortion rights (Roe v. Wade) or how:

Quote

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

means that the gov't couldn't make illegal the individual ownership completely devoid of militias of residents of certain types of handguns (DC v. Heller)

The point being there's more than just the written word to consider. After all not everyone agrees on what the written word means. Does a 7 HCP range mean 4-10 or 4-11?

After all the meaning of the and could be

Quote

weak two-bids which by partnership agreement are not within a range of 7 HCP and weak two-bids which by partnership agreement do not show at least five
cards in the suit.

I.e., it is just careless clause joining.

Who cares about how other things work. In bridge there is a law requiring the director be bound by the announced regulations.

The fact that some directors ignore this law just means that they are bad directors.

The regulation could mean what you suggest. But that would require that they wrote something different than what they chose to write. When they write the regulation differently it means something different.

[NickRW]

Cascade, on Jul 17 2009, 07:43 AM, said:

The regulation could mean what you suggest. But that would require that they wrote something different than what they chose to write. When they write the regulation differently it means something different.

Having been a programmer most of my adult life, I tend to be quite careful about the use of 'and' and 'or'. However, many people are quite sloppy about it, especially with respect to saying 'and' when they mean 'or'. I used to try to correct them, but I soon found I was beating my head against a brick wall - better to just understand what they really meant than what they actually said.

So I agree with you in principle, the rule could stand being rewritten. In practice I agree with David.

The same thing applies to some misspellings. A lot of people say "then" when they mean "than". This used to be mainly Americans - but lately I've seen quite a few Brits come out with this. It makes me cringe, but I am not going to solve the defficiencies or modern education single handed.

Nick

[LH2650]

bluejak, on Jul 15 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

Clubs are allowed their own restrictions on what may be played ......

No. Clubs can regulate conventions. ACBL Handbook, Chapter 4.

[NickRW]

LH2650, on Jul 17 2009, 01:04 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 15 2009, 07:29 PM, said:

Clubs are allowed their own restrictions on what may be played ......

No. Clubs can regulate conventions. ACBL Handbook, Chapter 4.

Isn't that what he said?!