[lamford]

---

IMP pairs. Lead 2♥ Table Result 3NT=. NS +600

SB has been having a great time since August 1st with six director calls already, four of them over non-compliant 2C bids, and last night he targeted a couple of students setting out in their first duplicate. As luck would have it, they had discussed the gambling 3NT with their teacher, and were told that they should not use it with more than a queen outside. The teacher had suggested that a solid minor with two or three stops should be opened with 2C followed by a 3NT rebid, but the course had broken up for the summer, so he did not have a chance to explain the August 1st Blue Book changes for their first venture into the big bad world.

There were a variety of results on this hand at the club, with two pairs languishing in 1C, another rebidding 3C and playing there after East had protected, and another couple of pairs in 4♣ one off when a gambling 3NT was pulled. The two beginners coped with the hand well, but to no avail, as SB was on to them like a ton of bricks after the contract duly made. They explained why they had opened 2C, as per their teacher's advice, but SB was unforgiving: "You agreed to open a non-compliant 2♣ bid" he started. "DIRECTOR, please!" he bellowed and the rest of the room stood to attention wondering what transgression from the beginners had met SB's wrath. "This pair comes to the club and has not bothered to read the changes to the Blue Book" he began. "They have admitted that they deliberately opened an artificial and strong 2C with a hand without 16 HCPS or 12 HCPs with 5 controls, and they are now trying to justify it with some bullshit about their teacher telling them it was normal". "3 IMPs, please", he concluded.

How do you rule?

[pran]

lamford, on 2017-August-22, 04:50, said:

---

IMP pairs. Lead 2♥ Table Result 3NT=. NS +600

SB has been having a great time since August 1st with six director calls already, four of them over non-compliant 2C bids, and last night he targeted a couple of students setting out in their first duplicate. As luck would have it, they had discussed the gambling 3NT with their teacher, and were told that they should not use it with more than a queen outside. The teacher had suggested that a solid minor with two or three stops should be opened with 2C followed by a 3NT rebid, but the course had broken up for the summer, so he did not have a chance to explain the August 1st Blue Book changes for their first venture into the big bad world.

There were a variety of results on this hand at the club, with two pairs languishing in 1C, another rebidding 3C and playing there after East had protected, and another couple of pairs in 4♣ one off when a gambling 3NT was pulled. The two beginners coped with the hand well, but to no avail, as SB was on to them like a ton of bricks after the contract duly made. They explained why they had opened 2C, as per their teacher's advice, but SB was unforgiving: "You agreed to open a non-compliant 2♣ bid" he started. "DIRECTOR, please!" he bellowed and the rest of the room stood to attention wondering what transgression from the beginners had met SB's wrath. "This pair comes to the club and has not bothered to read the changes to the Blue Book" he began. "They have admitted that they deliberately opened an artificial and strong 2C with a hand without 16 HCPS or 12 HCPs with 5 controls, and they are now trying to justify it with some bullshit about their teacher telling them it was normal". "3 IMPs, please", he concluded.

How do you rule?

If I have a choice which pair I shall never expect to see again because of how they are met at the bridge table, the students or SB then my choice is easy.
Besides South's auction is not that poor bridge.

Next board!

[Vampyr]

I rule in SB's favour, and then put posters all around the club advising players to add to their convention card and explanation of their strong opening bids that they may not be compliant with the current L&E definition of strong.

[Vampyr]

pran, on 2017-August-22, 06:14, said:

If I have a choice which pair I shall never expect to see again because of how they are met at the bridge table, the students or SB then my choice is easy.
Besides South's auction is not that poor bridge.

Next board!

Sorry, but without using the caveat I have expressed above, the agreement is not legal in the EBU. Good, fair or poor has nothing to do with it.

[sanst]

I think you've proven the point. I would say that it seems that the L&E Committee doesn't understand the basics of bridge. Bridge is NOT about HCP's or controls, but about winning tricks. Both HCP and controls are tools based on statistics, and, as Disraeli is supposed to have said "You have lies, damn lies and statistics". That the Milton Works HCP's are a rather poor, but useful method has probably never been made clear to the committee members, but nonetheless it is so.

[blackshoe]

The SB has gone too far. I would rule in his favor, though if I have any leeway I will not give him three imps. I will fine him half a board for being himself - i.e., rude. I will, doing this, apologize to the newcomers on behalf of the club. Then I will ask club management to tell the SB to find another place to play.

[Vampyr]

blackshoe, on 2017-August-22, 09:03, said:

The SB has gone too far. I would rule in his favor, though if I have any leeway I will not give him three imps. I will fine him half a board for being himself - i.e., rude. I will, doing this, apologize to the newcomers on behalf of the club. Then I will ask club management to tell the SB to find another place to play.

This won't help that much. SB, remarkably, has 24 identical siblings, and you can't ban a person who has done nothing yet based on family associations.

[Cyberyeti]

The beginners say "We haven't agreed to open with less than 16 HCP" which is true as they haven't discussed it because they didn't know it mattered. "Our agreement is a solid 7+ card suit and 2 outside stops and that is tantamount to the same thing as 16 HCP", the absolute minimum possible to meet that is 15, but we happened to upgrade this one due to good intermediates and the 8th club.

SB gets another life ban for the use of the word bullshit in front of the opponents.

[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-August-22, 09:45, said:

The beginners say "We haven't agreed to open with less than 16 HCP" which is true as they haven't discussed it because they didn't know it mattered. "Our agreement is a solid 7+ card suit and 2 outside stops and that is tantamount to the same thing as 16 HCP", the absolute minimum possible to meet that is 15, but we happened to upgrade this one due to good intermediates and the 8th club.

SB gets another life ban for the use of the word bullshit in front of the opponents.

The problem is there is no flexibility in the use of a strong and artificial 2 Clubs, which MUST by agreement have at least 16 HCPs or 12 HCPs and 5 controls. And it is clear that the students had agreed to open such hands with 2C followed by 3NT, as that is what they had been taught.

[lamford]

sanst, on 2017-August-22, 08:32, said:

as Disraeli is supposed to have said "You have lies, damn lies and statistics".

The phrase is not found in any of Disraeli's works and the earliest known appearances were years after his death. I think that Mark Twain may have been wrong with the attribution.

[blackshoe]

Vampyr, on 2017-August-22, 09:26, said:

This won't help that much. SB, remarkably, has 24 identical siblings, and you can't ban a person who has done nothing yet based on family associations.

"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius."

[barmar]

sanst, on 2017-August-22, 08:32, said:

I think you've proven the point. I would say that it seems that the L&E Committee doesn't understand the basics of bridge. Bridge is NOT about HCP's or controls, but about winning tricks.

Does the LEC operate in a vacuum? Do players like Lamford and Vampyre get a chance to comment on proposed changes like this before they become official?

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-August-22, 15:19, said:

Does the LEC operate in a vacuum? Do players like Lamford and Vampyre get a chance to comment on proposed changes like this before they become official?

Yes. No.

Also before anyone suggests the way to effect change, I have stood twice for the L&EC but am not in the clique.

[WellSpyder]

Of course the L&E committee doesn't operate in a vacuum. Its members are active in the English bridge world. And it is operating in the context that many people (myself included) complained about the previous definition of strong, which caused difficulties both for Strong Club players who found many obvious 1C openings were illegal and for players who thought there were playing "Benji" (a popular version of Acol in clubs, which includes a 2C opening to show 8 playing tricks in any suit). But I think it is probably true that non-L&E members didn't get a chance to comment on the latest definition in advance of its adoption.

(Disclaimer: like Vampyr, I have also stood for the L&E in the past but not been elected.)

[Vampyr]

WellSpyder, on 2017-August-23, 02:44, said:

Of course the L&E committee doesn't operate in a vacuum. Its members are active in the English bridge world.

Yes but only at high levels. They are not familiar with club players or practices.

Quote

And it is operating in the context that many people (myself included) complained about the previous definition of strong, which caused difficulties both for Strong Club players

Well, yes. Strong Club players did have a less-strict standard, anyway of course a problem was that the directors' guidance was to fine people who breached the definition, even if they were a first-time partnership who had agreed and discussed nothing.

Anyway, not keeping the extended rule of 25 (scrapping, of course, the ludicrous definition of "clear-cut tricks", since "playing tricks" is what practitioners actually use) as a possible criterion will be very disappointing and not only to Benji players. And some of us are just annoyed that our disclosure of our strong opening will put the opponents to sleep by the end of it.