[VixTD]

---

Multiple teams-of-four, IMPs -> VPs
2♣ was artificial and strong, one- or two-suited with eight or nine playing tricks or 23-24 hcp balanced. They have a stronger opening bid available in 2♦, which is artificial and game-forcing.
Result: 5♠(E)-3, NS+150

I was called at the end of play. NS queried the description of the West hand as "strong", and South claimed that had she known it could have been as weak as this she would have made the obvious double of the final contract. Both East and West said that the rebid of 3NT, at least in an uncontested auction, would have been consistent with a solid minor and two suits stopped, rather than one. East expected West to have a little more for this bid. West agreed with this assessment.

What should the TD do?

[blackshoe]

In the ACBL, the TD would rule that "strong" means whatever the player concerned wants it to mean, so this hand perforce meets the definition. In the EBU, "strong" is defined in OB 10.4:

Quote

Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the minimum allowed is any of:
a) subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal high- card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks, or
b) any hand meeting the Rule of 25 or
c) any hand of at least 16 HCPs Examples:
♠AKQJxxxx♥xx ♦xx ♣x does count as 8 clear-cut tricks. ♠AKQxxxxx♥xx ♦xx ♣x does not.

So this hand meets the EBU's definition as well.

Result stands.

[paulg]

VixTD, on 2011-May-18, 08:06, said:

What should the TD do?

I suppose giving South a good slap is out of the question?

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2011-May-18, 08:06, said:

What should the TD do?

Read the Orange Book more carefully. There it states:

10 B 4 Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the minimum allowed is any of:
a) subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks, <snip>

The West hand clearly qualifies, and is correctly described as strong, with full disclosure of "8/9 playing tricks" on the CC. The TD wrongly recorded the hand. I was the captain (in the other room) and answered the question on the form "Has there been such a deviation before?" as "Not applicable" in that the hand, CC and alerting procedure were all compliant.

[campboy]

Is that really the "proper disclosure" intended by the OB? I normally tell people to describe this sort of thing as "strong or opening-values with 8+ tricks", and I think that "strong, 8-9 playing tricks" means something rather different.

Anyway, that is by the by. In this case it seems that their actual agreement is rather stronger and that this hand was a deviation. I would record the hand, but I think I believe EW.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-May-18, 09:18, said:

In this case it seems that their actual agreement is rather stronger and that this hand was a deviation.

Not so. The CC indicated "8/9 playing tricks" for the non-balanced type, so this hand did not deviate one iota; in fact it is a king better than the minimum requirement. The expectation was that the subsequent 3NT would contain stoppers in two outside suits in an uncontested auction, but there was no suggestion that the 3NT bid was alertable in this auction. The OB instruction is absolutely clear, so you should not be telling people to describe it differently. In what capacity are you telling them this?

[mycroft]

When asked was that explanation given? (If not asked, then the CC is the best and adequate disclosure needed).

East panicked, however. Partner's heard you saying "your suit isn't as solid as you think it is" and bid it anyway. It's solid enough. It turns out that it doesn't take any more tricks than 5S, though (assuming North leads partner's suit). But that doesn't mean anything.

Assuming that the answer to my question is either "yes" or "not applicable", South has no case. The bid is legal, and it was disclosed correctly.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2011-May-18, 09:49, said:

When asked was that explanation given? (If not asked, then the CC is the best and adequate disclosure needed).

East panicked, however. Partner's heard you saying "your suit isn't as solid as you think it is" and bid it anyway. It's solid enough. It turns out that it doesn't take any more tricks than 5S, though (assuming North leads partner's suit). But that doesn't mean anything.

Assuming that the answer to my question is either "yes" or "not applicable", South has no case. The bid is legal, and it was disclosed correctly.

The explanation given was the one stated by the TD: "eight or nine playing tricks or 23-24 balanced". I would have passed 3NT as East, but 4S - 2 would have been better than 3NT - 6 (or -7 if declarer does not spot that he needs to keep all four diamonds in dummy to block the suit!). West's 5C bid was from another planet, but we are not asked to judge the merits of the auction, only the compliance with alerting procedure and disclosure.

[RMB1]

I think "subject to proper disclosure" means that when explained it should be clear that the hand may not meet the other parts of OB 10B4 ("rule of" 25 or 16 HCP).

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-May-18, 09:32, said:

Not so. The CC indicated "8/9 playing tricks" for the non-balanced type, so this hand did not deviate one iota; in fact it is a king better than the minimum requirement. The expectation was that the subsequent 3NT would contain stoppers in two outside suits in an uncontested auction, but there was no suggestion that the 3NT bid was alertable in this auction. The OB instruction is absolutely clear, so you should not be telling people to describe it differently. In what capacity are you telling them this?

To answer your last point first, yes the OB instruction is clear: anyone playing it so that some hands which meet (a) but neither (b) nor © are opened must disclose it properly. I do not think that "strong, 8-9 playing tricks" is an adequate description. I do not see what the point of the warning about proper disclosure for (a) is if a description which is commonly used for methods which always meet both (b) and © is sufficient. As for the capacity, I have occasionally been asked by players how I would disclose such a method, that is all.

As to your other point, evidently I misunderstood the OP. I thought EW were agreeing that West should have more for his 2♣, not for the subsequent 3NT.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-May-18, 10:30, said:

I do not think that "strong, 8-9 playing tricks" is an adequate description. I do not see what the point of the warning about proper disclosure for (a) is if a description which is commonly used for methods which always meet both (b) and © is sufficient.

I would agree that "strong" is an insufficient description, but "8/9 playing tricks" seems complete disclosure to me. The keen student of the OB will already know that opening values are required. If the OB required the partner of the person bidding 2C to state, "does not require two defensive tricks" or whatever, it would say so. I think you are clutching at straws here. The disclosure required is that the bid may be made on 8/9 playing tricks only. Particularly when, as here, there is a stronger bid available.

[VixTD]

campboy, on 2011-May-18, 10:30, said:

I thought EW were agreeing that West should have more for his 2♣, not for the subsequent 3NT.

I think EW did agree that West should have more to open 2♣, and both said that to rebid 3NT he might have a solid minor, but he should have at least another suit stopped.

I think that if EW habitually open the West hand 2♣ they are certainly guilty of inadequate disclosure. However, if you give West another high card in spades or diamonds, which is what both of them say is what they would expect for the sequence, then they have a hand that surely fits the description of strong, but not quite game forcing, which is all they ever claimed it was. I saw no reason to disbelieve EW, and ruled exactly as Campboy says he would have, for exactly the same reasons. I recorded the hand as a deviation from the partnership agreement and let the result stand.

I'm still a little puzzled at Lamford's objection to all this. He seems to think that I'm recording it as a deviation from the minimum legal requirement for the bid as laid down in the Orange Book. Not so, it's a deviation from what EW agreed the bid (or sequence) would show.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-May-18, 10:30, said:

As to your other point, evidently I misunderstood the OP. I thought EW were agreeing that West should have more for his 2♣, not for the subsequent 3NT.

Did you think "this bid" was a non sequitur in an otherwise well-written OP?

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2011-May-18, 10:55, said:

I think EW did agree that West should have more to open 2♣, and both said that to rebid 3NT he might have a solid minor, but he should have at least another suit stopped.

I think that if EW habitually open the West hand 2♣ they are certainly guilty of inadequate disclosure. However, if you give West another high card in spades or diamonds, which is what both of them say is what they would expect for the sequence, then they have a hand that surely fits the description of strong, but not quite game forcing, which is all they ever claimed it was. I saw no reason to disbelieve EW, and ruled exactly as Campboy says he would have, for exactly the same reasons. I recorded the hand as a deviation from the partnership agreement and let the result stand.

I'm still a little puzzled at Lamford's objection to all this. He seems to think that I'm recording it as a deviation from the minimum legal requirement for the bid as laid down in the Orange Book. Not so, it's a deviation from what EW agreed the bid (or sequence) would show.

No, I have played with West and East before, and would expect them to open 2C on this hand. Are you saying that "8/9 playing tricks or 23-24 balanced" is inadequate disclosure, and what wording do you think should be used?". And why, when you recorded "8/9 playing tricks" on the form, did you think EW thought that West should have more for the opening 2C?

Yes, I would expect another high card for the 3NT bid, but the only agreement was that the uncontested auction 2C - 2D - 3NT, as stated by East-West, would typically show a solid minor with two other suits stopped. There is clearly no agreement for the actual sequence (when has it ever occurred with you?) and East answered, by analogy, what she would expect her partner to hold and West agreed that this is what he would be expected to have. So I agree that the 3NT bid deviated from what East might expect, but not from any announced understandings. Under 40C1, the player is entitled to deviate in this manner, provided there is no CPU. However, the 2C bid is not a deviation from either the system card, nor from the announced methods. So the only issue is whether the explanation is full disclosure. And perhaps we can have bluejak who edited the OB to comment on what form of wording should be used.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-May-18, 11:02, said:

Did you think "this bid" was a non sequitur in an otherwise well-written OP?

I imagine I just didn't read it carefully enough. No suggestion that the fault was anything other than mine was intended.

I did, however, read the OP carefully enough to deduce that the word "strong" was used in the description of the bid. While "8-9 playing tricks or 23-24 balanced" might be ok, I do not think "strong with 8-9 playing tricks or 23-24 balanced" is.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-May-18, 14:44, said:

I did, however, read the OP carefully enough to deduce that the word "strong" was used in the description of the bid. While "8-9 playing tricks or 23-24 balanced" might be ok, I do not think "strong with 8-9 playing tricks or 23-24 balanced" is.

Really? Then why does the OB have the expression: "Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the minimum allowed is any of <snip>:" Therefore opening 2C with 8/9 playing tricks is correctly described as strong. I think my team-mates should continue to describe the bid as either "strong, 8-9 playing tricks or 23-24 balanced", or "8-9 playing tricks or 23-24 balanced" as they prefer. It would be nice, meanwhile, to get an opinion from a member of the L&E of the preferred form of wording. I think we all agree that "any hand conforming to OB10B4" would not be full disclosure, as that would lead to blank looks from most people. As would any reference to the "extended rule of 25" to any but the most dedicated anorak.

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2011-May-18, 10:55, said:

I think that if EW habitually open the West hand 2♣ they are certainly guilty of inadequate disclosure.

There is no connection between opening the West hand 2♣ and inadequate disclosure. The question of disclosure solely relates to how the bid is explained, so I think you should read again what you have written and see if it makes sense. I can fully accept that opening the West hand 2♣ and then explaining it as strong without stating "8/9 playing tricks" could be inadequate disclosure, but I contend that, provided "8/9 playing tricks" is stated, that the players should continue to open 2♣ on such hands, if they choose.

[campboy]

Lamford, if you do not think that opponents will understand if your team-mates say "satisfying the extended rule of 25" then I do not see how you can expect oppo to understand that when they say "strong" they actually mean "satisfying the extended rule of 25".

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-May-18, 15:49, said:

Lamford, if you do not think that opponents will understand if your team-mates say "satisfying the extended rule of 25" then I do not see how you can expect oppo to understand that when they say "strong" they actually mean "satisfying the extended rule of 25".

I do not expect opponents to think they actually mean that, because that is only one of the three possible conditions to make the bid "strong". However, "8-9 playing tricks" is perfectly understandable. If the methods required "16+ HCP", by agreement, I would tell the opponents that. If the methods required "satisfying the extended rule of 25", by agreement, I would tell them that, and explain it more fully, as many would not understand it. If the methods required "8-9 playing tricks", by agreement, I would tell them that. I would preface each of the statements with "strong", because that is how they are defined in the OB. And I would feel I had given far better disclosure than almost everyone who plays Benjy two bids. In fact leaving out the "strong" would not be full disclosure, as the opponent might consider that we had a pre-emptive type hand without opening values.

And according to your arguments, someone systemically opening 2C on AK AK Jxxx Jxxxx, could either explain it as "strong, extended rule of 25", or "strong, 16+ HCP" and that would be full disclosure...

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-May-18, 09:18, said:

I normally tell people to describe this sort of thing as "strong or opening-values with 8+ tricks", and I think that "strong, 8-9 playing tricks" means something rather different.

Effectively what you are telling them to say is that the bid either conforms to one of OB10B4(a) through ( c) or conforms to 10B4(a), which is jibberish, so you should stop telling them to say that, for sure. The statement "strong, 8-9 (or 8+) playing tricks" means that it conforms to OB10B4(a) - of course by chance or design it might conform to 10B4(b) or ( c) as well. Indeed if more than one of (a) through ( c) were requirements one should say so.