[lamford]

---

East-West, two of Middlesex's finest players, had a good auction to the cold grand slam here as EW, and there was nothing to the play. But SB, North, was not finished.

"You should have overcalled 2♠, RR, then we can save in 7S doubled for only 800, cheap against even a small slam".

"I thought it was too dangerous", replied RR, "East might have had a balanced 23-24."

"Right, but you have to take chances sometimes," replied SB. "And you should not be put off by the word 'strong'," he continued. "And that East hand does not look strong to me. DIRECTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOR", he bellowed.

Jeremy the Jackass arrived. "How can I help you?" He asked.

SB began. "The East opening bid was alerted and explained as strong, but it fails to comply with Blue Book 5C3", he began. "That states:

To be considered a ‘Strong’ opening bid or overcall, the minimum allowed by agreement is either or both of:
(a) any hand of at least 16 HCP
(b) any hand of at least 12 HCP with at least five controls [only aces and kings count].
Partnerships who agree that an artificial opening (such as 2♣) may be made with a hand with a lot of playing strength but limited high cards must disclose this clearly. For example, the opening could be described as “Either a strong hand or eight playing tricks in a major” (in this case the major suit options do not have to satisfy the criteria above as they are permitted under 7 C 1 (b)). The need for complete disclosure applies even if the minimum agreed strength is in line with (b) above."

He paused for breath. "Had there been full disclosure, RR would have overcalled 2♠, and we would have saved."

"Yes, you are right", JJ concluded, peering closely at the Blue Book. "That is 3 IMPs to the non-offenders."

Do you agree with JJ's ruling? This board was opened 2C on 21 occasions, but only SB called the TD, and as can be seen only he collected his 3 IMPs from Santa.

Link removed to avoid a misconception that SB and RR were actual playing!

[pescetom]

If voids are not considered controls then at first sight the ruling looks correct, and the rule rather poor (it is difficult to accept that any hand of at least 16 HCP is strong while this one is not).

[nige1]

lamford, on 2019-December-04, 06:48, said:

Jeremy the Jackass arrived. "How can I help you?" He asked.

Jeremy the Jaguar (as in BridgeWinners) might have been a better choice of director

pescetom, on 2019-December-04, 07:44, said:

If voids are not considered controls then at first sight the ruling looks correct, and the rule rather poor (it is difficult to accept that any hand of at least 16 HCP is strong while this one is not).

Strength is a matter of judgement, David Burn points out that if a player has particularly good results when he holds ♣85 (say) then it's hard to argue with him. RAs seem to enjoy themselves, imagination running free, to create reeking piles of system-legislation
For example ♠ 4 3 2 ♥ A 3 2 ♦ A 3 2 ♣ A 4 3 2 exceeds the minimum EBU Blue-book criteria for strong.
Is there an RA, somewhere, that defines a hand, holding ♣85, to be strong?

[broze]

The rule is a joke and imo anyone exploiting it (especially on this hand) should be ashamed. Clearly this is not in the spirit of the game.

If I were a director I would rule in EW's favour on the following basis: the rule is that "Partnerships who agree that an artificial opening (such as 2♣) may be made with a hand with a lot of playing strength but limited high cards must disclose this clearly" but clearly that is not the case here because no-one makes agreements about how to deal with 8500 hands. Result stands.

[nige1]

broze, on 2019-December-04, 08:31, said:

The rule is a joke and imo anyone exploiting it (especially on this hand) should be ashamed. Clearly this is not in the spirit of the game.

Don't blame pathetic players vainly struggling with unnecessary daft rules. Rule-makers should take urgent action..

[Cyberyeti]

I see no reason why anybody wouldn't put the playing strength/low points rider on the convention card, Apparently you can't open AKQ 10th KQJ a 12 trick hand as a strong 2♣ without the rider, and almost everybody would.

But that said, "We don't have that agreement, but this hand was just too good not to" should get him off the hook.

[lamford]

broze, on 2019-December-04, 08:31, said:

The rule is a joke and imo anyone exploiting it (especially on this hand) should be ashamed. Clearly this is not in the spirit of the game.

SB was gloating to all and sundry about his 3 IMPs and encouraged others who had faced a 2C opening to form an orderly queue at the TD desk to collect their 3 IMPs. It seems from the traveller that none did.

[PeterAlan]

Curiously, we had exactly the same issue with this very similar hand at the club the next day: ♠ J ♥ A K Q 10 8 3 2 ♦ - ♣ K Q 9 8 2

[FelicityR]

Judgement should be made on arbitration not just rules and rule books. Here the decision to aware the opponents the 3 IMPs on the board is completely RUBBISH!

There's far more considerations than whether East had misled the opponents:-

First, no other opponents sacrificed against any contract bid by East/West on any of the other boards, and sometimes where only game was reached by East/West (!)

Second, the opponents are vulnerable (which we all know is not the time to sacrifice in 999 out of 1000 situations, and even more so at the seven level)

Third, a majority of other East players also agreed that a 2♣ opening bid described the hand.

Fourth, no other opponents took issue with East opening the hand 2♣.

Fifth, if a rule book law had been broken in toto, then it behoves the tournament director to adjust the score on all the boards where the infringement had taken place.

[nige1]

Notice how easy it is to avoid such problems by implementing simple common-sense rules. For example,

Pescetom and Sven Pran tell us that in their jurisdictions, the 2♣ opener's partner would routinely announce its meaning. ("G/F or 23+" -- or whatever the actual partnership agreement).

Automatic announcement of all calls (e.g. by pointing to boxes on a card containing likely meanings) seems to reduce disclosure problems
It's orders-of-magnitude shorter/simpler than current disclosure rules
It's simple enough for some players and directors to understand, but perhaps not all of them, judging by previous threads

[lamford]

FelicityR, on 2019-December-04, 10:15, said:

Judgement should be made on arbitration not just rules and rule books. Here the decision to aware the opponents the 3 IMPs on the board is completely RUBBISH!

There's far more considerations than whether East had misled the opponents:-

First, no other opponents sacrificed against any contract bid by East/West on any of the other boards, and sometimes where only game was reached by East/West (!)

Second, the opponents are vulnerable (which we all know is not the time to sacrifice in 999 out of 1000 situations, and even more so at the seven level)

Third, a majority of other East players also agreed that a 2♣ opening bid described the hand.

Fourth, no other opponents took issue with East opening the hand 2♣.

Fifth, if a rule book law had been broken in toto, then it behoves the tournament director to adjust the score on all the boards where the infringement had taken place.

The TD can only adjust the score at the table where he was called. For all he knows, all the other Easts might have provided full disclosure. And, it is not a question of whether NS would have saved in 7S. If South had overcalled 2S, whatever West did, North would raise to 4S, and now it would be very hard - nay impossible - for EW to bid to 7C. I think the regulation is wrong and one that plays into SB's hands, but the ruling was almost inevitable, once West agreed that he would have opened 2C as well.

[Cyberyeti]

PeterAlan, on 2019-December-04, 09:40, said:

Curiously, we had exactly the same issue with this very similar hand at the club the next day: ♠ J ♥ A K Q 10 8 3 2 ♦ - ♣ K Q 9 8 2

I recall partner opening 2♣ with AKQ10xxxx, KQJx, void, x but under an older set of rules.

[FelicityR]

lamford, on 2019-December-04, 10:27, said:

The TD can only adjust the score at the table where he was called. For all he knows, all the other Easts might have provided full disclosure. And, it is not a question of whether NS would have saved in 7S. If South had overcalled 2S, whatever West did, North would raise to 4S, and now it would be very hard - nay impossible - for EW to bid to 7C. I think the regulation is wrong and one that plays into SB's hands, but the ruling was almost inevitable, once West agreed that he would have opened 2C as well.

Yes, I am aware that the TD can only adjust the score at the table, but I have seen where appeals have been lodged after a board is played, or a session has been completed (to be more precise) and East/West must have decided against that - goodness knows why? British judicial laws have been re-written on appeal, but it seems that the EBU's Blue Book is absolute gospel. Nothing is set in stone, especially laws, rules and regulations in this world.

Also, I don't agree that if South does overcall 2♠, East/West will find it extremely difficult to bid to the seven level. West has a two ace hand opposite a partner who opens 2♣. After 2♠, West has a natural 3♣ bid. It is only hypothesis how the auction would proceed after that, and how far North/South are willing to sacrifice, and whether East/West would be able to get to the seven level.

[lamford]

FelicityR, on 2019-December-04, 10:59, said:

Also, I don't agree that if South does overcall 2♠, East/West will find it extremely difficult to bid to the seven level. West has a two ace hand opposite a partner who opens 2♣. After 2♠, West has a natural 3♣ bid. It is only hypothesis how the auction would proceed after that, and how far Eest/West are willing to sacrifice, and whether East/West would be able to get to the seven level.

Indeed. When the results are too numerous or complicated to calculate, the TD awards an artificial adjusted score which he did. I think an appeal from East-West would have just led to a lost deposit. And SB did exhort other NS pairs to ask for their 3 IMPs, but they did not do so, perhaps thinking that bridge in the SB way just isn't bridge.

[weejonnie]

There is more information here than at BW (although I think that awarding a +3,-3 under law 12C is a bit of a cop-out, (although we could possibly get that via a weighted adjusted score ) - and the fact that both E and W agree that the hand is 'strong' rather hangs them.

[pescetom]

nige1, on 2019-December-04, 10:25, said:

Pescetom and Sven Pran tell us that in their jurisdictions, the 2♣ opener's partner would routinely announce its meaning. ("G/F or 23+" -- or whatever the actual partnership agreement.

To be precise our only possible announcement for 2♣ is "Strong", for which it is sufficient that all agreed meanings are game forcing - if there is any non game forcing agreement then the bid must be alerted (unfortunately there is no exception for a balanced hand too strong for 2NT but not strong enough to force to game, hopefully this will be inserted for next year).

You will be happy to learn that otherwise the related agreements are unregulated, except by the WBF Brown Sticker criteria, so any meanings that promise 10 HCP and/or a known suit can be played without restriction. This goes for any other 2 or 3-level suit opening too.

[helene_t]

I think it makes some sense that "strong", for disclosure purposes, is defined in terms of HCP and controls. That is after all what determines the defensive strength of the hand, which is what opps need to know. The hand in question doesn't expect to take more than two defensive tricks, and often only one. Hence, it's a bit dubious to just call it "strong".

That said, I agree with Cyberyeti that EW should be able to get away with just saying that they don't have an agreement to open this hand 2♣. Of course, opps are entitled to know if EW has for example a 4NT opening asking for specific aces, which could cover some very strong hand with little defensive strength. But they didn't ask.

And presumably, East would have a balanced 23 more often than he would have a hand with little defensive strength. So SB probably isn't damaged. RR would have passed anyway, if told that a hand like the actual E hands is a possibility.

[Cyberyeti]

You said EW were two of Middlesex's finest players, but were they a regular partnership ? If not it's much more difficult to rule against them, as they're less likely to have an agreement or previous experience that they would open hands like this 2♣.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-December-04, 09:18, said:

I see no reason why anybody wouldn't put the playing strength/low points rider on the convention card, Apparently you can't open AKQ 10th KQJ a 12 trick hand as a strong 2♣ without the rider, and almost everybody would.

But that said, "We don't have that agreement, but this hand was just too good not to" should get him off the hook.

Yes. It does make sense to put this on the convention card to cover yourself in case you have a shapely hand with a lot of playing strength. The trouble is that people think that they are bound by the bluebook’s definition of strong, and don’t think that they can make an agreement that doesn’t comply with it.

I don’t agree with the notion of announcing all opening bids, but In the case of a 2♣ opening, you often have to ask. The pair could, for example be playing Benji or could have weak options included in their two 2♣ opening;for instance a weak 2 in ♦?

[lamford]

Vampyr, on 2019-December-05, 06:26, said:

I don’t agree with the notion of announcing all opening bids, but In the case of a 2♣ opening, you often have to ask. The pair could, for example be playing Benji or could have weak options included in their two 2♣ opening;for instance a weak 2 in ♦?

Indeed I have been stung by a pair using 2C as either weak with clubs or a 37-count. That apparently just gets an alert, and the hand opposite with a queen or better knows to pass as the strong option is not possible.