|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
International Bridge Laws ForumIf you need help with the Laws or rulings from |
| To ask a question, click HERE and type in your message. Please specify your country in your query where indicated. Right click your mouse button for help on abbreviations. |
| Welcome, Register :: Log in |
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
al.ohana Reply |
Country: France
Hi all I would like to have your opinion concerning a situation which is differently appreciated among Directors N opens 2H weak, E pass, S bids 2NT alerted "forcing", W pass, N bids 3H, E pass, S thinks a little and pass, followed by W Now S has nearly nothing apart Hearts, and E-W can maks 3NT or 4S When asked why he acts as if he has points, S says his partner never said he was strong, and he hesitates to decide stopping in 3H or continuing the preempt to 4H ( NV against Vul) What say the laws about that ? Ethically speaking, is it fair ? Kind regards Al. Ohana |
|
henrys Reply |
Let me preface this by stating that I am neither a Director nor a common committee member.
I seem to recall a lengthy discussion in the Bridge World in which an individual took exactly the same action as your south, holding something akin to xxx; kxx; xx; xxxxx or the like. If my memory is correct, there were 3 possible solutions: (1) south had forgotten that they were playing weak2s and had given a negative response. If there is hard evidence that this is so - a prior board in the session was the bridge world's example - then the ruling would normally be bad luck, no adjustment. (2) south had a normal bridge problem that any reasonable person might take a moment or two to solve. Same ruling - bad luck, no adjustment. Clearly not the case here or in the BW's discussion. (3) south did not have a normal bridge problem. Ruling = damage plus adjustment. However, the BW added a caveat: the damage would only have occured at the hesitation over the 3h rebid. Would it be reasonable to assume that West would balance over this auction without hesitation with, say, xx; kjx; aqxx; kjxx once he decided that he could not take a call over the 2nt response WHICH WAS NOT AN INFRACTION BECAUSE NOT OUT OF TEMPO? If it is not reasonable to assume that a balancing call would be made, THEN most of the damage to EW came as a consequence of the 2nt call, not the hesitation over the 3h rebid. Any adjustment would have to determine what damage resulted from the hesitation, and ignore what might of happened had west taken a call directly over 2nt. Possibly someone more knowledgeable than I can cite chapter and verse from the BW issue in question. |
bluejak  427 posts Forum Host Reply |
There are two possible infractions here so let us treat each one separately.
First is misinformation. There are a lot of players, especially in North America where this is a known problem that is not being dealt with satisfactorily, who know that a 2NT response is often made on a weak hand with a fit, but they do not tell the opponents this. That is misinformation. In some cases they tell the opponents that 2NT is an enquiry but they do not mention whether it is strong or not. Good, experienced opponents realise it may be weak and pre-emptive: poor, inexperienced opponents expect it to be strong and so are misled. It is important that players who play a 2NT respose to a weak two as an enquiry make it clear to opponents whether it shows values or may be used as a pre-emptive manoeuvre. So, in the current case, the first question is whether there was misinformation? Did the pair make it clear that 2NT might be weak? Of course, if they play it as showing values, and this was a psyche that is legitimate this time. However, if they often use it on a weak hand then the opponents should have had this information available. If there was misinformation we consider damage. Would the next player have bid after 2  - 2NT? if so, we adjust.Second, there is the question of the hesitation after 2 - 2NT - 3 - ?. The player said he was wondering whether to go on to 4 as a further pre-empt, which is complete codswallop. Before he bid 2NT he knew what he was doing on this hand, and to hesitate after the 3 rebid is clearly illegal. In tempo sensitive positions the Law requires the player not to act out of tempo if this misleads, and the player certainly has done so.So, if we believe that the next player might have protected then we adjust under Law 73F.
|
|
Henrys Reply |
David, a query: Recent discussions in the bridge world editorial have raised a question as to whether the act of asking a question can provide UI to the askers partner. As a north american bridge player, would I be subject to giving UI were I always to ask, after the auction weak2-p-2nt "Can this bid be made on a weak hand with support"? You are absolutely right in stating that this agreement, almost never explicit but a frequently suggested tactic in american bridge literature, is virtually NEVER made known to the opponents. I suppose the argument could be made that because it is a frequently suggested tactic, experienced players should be aware of the possibility, but I don't know how that might affect the legal situation of asking my question. Thanks in advance for the response. |
Ed  172 posts Forum Host Reply |
ACBL regulations specify a couple of things wrt asking questions: (1) the proper way to ask is "Please explain". (2) any question from opponents should result in a full dump of partnership agreement and partnership experience, including inferences therefrom. So if in this situation you ask "Please explain", and they say "forcing" you say "is that the entirety of your partnership agreement and experience?" and if they aren't forthcoming, call the director. Who should not, btw, as some directors have done to me, ask you "what do you want to know?" Partnership agreements must be disclosed [Law 75A]. Failure to do so should result, every time, in a procedural penalty, in addition to any score adjustment the law requires. [David may disagree with me here, but that is, according to my reading, what the law requires.] |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
I do disagree! There is no Law that requires a PP every time. Some sponsoring organisations have regs that do. Furthermore, failure to disclose partnership agreements is a good example of why TDs get discretion. Sometimes it is a very minor error, not mattering very much: this particular example is a well-known problem that should be stamped out, and PPs is the way to do that.
Not if you always do it. But opponents could be misled. Perhaps your partner should point out that you always ask, but I fear the always ask solution has not been sorted out satisfactorily yet.
|
|
Ed 172 posts Forum Host Reply |
Um. Law 75A says "Special partnership agreements, whether explicit or implicit, must be fully and freely available to the opponents." The preface to the Laws (NA edition, it may be in the scope in the UK edition) says that where the word "must" is used, the violation is "serious indeed". In the next lower category of seriousness, says the preface, an offense should be penalized "more often than not". So no, it doesn't say every time. I do think, though, that a TD should have a very good reason not to issue a penalty in such a case, rather than make not issuing one the default action. I don't want to belabor the point, David, this is not the place for it. But am I wrong? |
|
bluejak 427 posts Forum Host Reply |
Yes, Ed, you are wrong. Tournament Direction is taught to people: they are not given a Law book and told to get on with it.
It is the shared opinion of the regulating authorities throughout the world that frequent Procedural Penalties is not a good solution to running the game of bridge. Therefore we do not do it. The opinion of the people that run the game is more important than personal opinions of the effect of the Scope of the Laws. It is my view, and the view of everyone I know who is really involved in running the game, that continuous penalisation is counter-productive. So it is not done. Note that the Laws do not require a Procedural Penalty: it is merely the interpretation of the Scope. OK, authorities interpret the Scope more leniently than you [or the bridge-laws mailing list] and it is good for the game that they do.
|
|
HenryS Reply |
By a stroke of good fortune, I have found the BRidge World reference adduced in a previous post. It is the editorial of the November 1977 issue in which responder held xxx; xx; kxx; xxxxx. Interestingly enough, Kaplan did not broach the question of possible misinformation by the 2nt bidder, discussing instead only the question of possible damage created by the 2nt bidder's huddle then pass of 3h.
|
| View Thread Page(s): [ 1 ] |
| [ Get Email Advice of Replies ] | [ Print ] | [ Send ] | [ Watch ] | [ < ] [ Add a Reply ] [ > ] |
|
8 bridge player(s) online in the last 15 minutes - 1 bridgetalk member(s), 0 incognito and 7 guest(s). (The most ever was 52 09:45:43 Fri Feb 14 2003) bluejak |
|
Total Members: 393, Newest Member: edm. | Register :: Log in The time is now 00:35:33 Wed Aug 27 2003 |
© 2001-2003 BbBoy.net
|
Thread Index :: FAQ's :: Main Menu :: Posting Hints :: Emoticon Key :: Search David's Lawspage :: EBU :: ACBL :: WBF |
Legend :: 
Read Topic :: 
Unread Topic
Read Topic :: Unread Topic
Help | Full Format: ON :: OFF | Text: ON :: OFF | Email Status