[lamford]

---

Matchpoints. Lead K♥. Table Result 7♠=

SB went along last night to the "Really Easy Bridge" at Young Chelsea, and he was East against two beginners on the above board, which was also reported on the Young Chelsea site on Facebook, where it can be verified, in case of unjustified allegations that the hand is constructed.

https://www.facebook...ups/12187326479

SB had not been aware in advance that it was beginners' evening, but was (reluctantly) persuaded to make up the numbers, as there would have otherwise been 5³/₄ tables. South had only been playing a couple of months, and North perhaps a month longer. They did well to reach 7S when South cuebid rather than bid RKCB with two voids.

SB was unhappy however. "This event is Level 3", he began, "and South violated Blue Book regulation 7C1:
(a) Any meaning or meanings as long as they all show a strong hand (16+ HCP, or 12+ HCP with at least 5 controls) <snip>." He paused before reciting the following verbatim:

"Blue Book 7C1, footnote 1, states: A ‘Benji’ 2C or 2D opening (or any other opening with a similar meaning) which may have ‘eight playing tricks’ in any suit must by agreement satisfy (a) above. An agreement to make such a bid on a hand with many playing tricks but limited high card strength , or on a (semi-)balanced hand with fewer than 18 HCP, must be clearly disclosed."

"I don't know what your talking about," replied South, almost in tears. "I just opened 2C as I had game in my own hand, which is what I was taught by the Really Easy Bridge course".

"DirectOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOr", SB called, slightly quieter than usual as he had recited the above footnote in about 10 seconds and was a bit short of breath. OO arrived. "I think we get 60% on this board, because of the use of an incorrectly disclosed convention by North-South", began SB. "If they had not announced it as strong, I would have bid on the East hand, and the opponents may not now have got to 7S."

How do you rule?

[barmar]

Are they a regular partnership? Is there any reason to believe they've had any discussion about the specific types of hands they open 2♣ on?

The regulation is about agreements. Unless they have an agreement to open hands like this with 2♣, SB's case should be dismissed immediately.

[barmar]

It seems like SB's complaint should really be with South's bridge teacher.

[pescetom]

And thus a promising beginner will decide that bridge is not for him after all.
Well done SB.

[barmar]

pescetom, on 2018-May-04, 09:43, said:

And thus a promising beginner will decide that bridge is not for him after all.
Well done SB.

He can't even understand a simple regulation, how promising is he?

[pescetom]

Apart from other considerations, experienced players are expected to defend themselves against mistakes or errors of judgement by beginners.
Could EW really not realise that they had the points and game in the other major?
As E with that hand I would be straight in with my favourite convention to show both red suits.
The opps would still win the auction but might end up at the wrong level.

[sanst]

From the EBU website: "Really Easy Bridge is the EBU's scheme to help introduce newcomers to the world of tournament bridge". It looks likely to me that the newcomers are taught to open 2♣ with a hand like this. South did as taught by the EBU and it's not her or his fault that some EBU rule contradicts the lesson thaught by that organization. And, as Barmar wrote, do NS have an agreement about hands like this? Most unlikely, IMO. Hands like these you see once in a lifetime.
Can someone make clear to SB that you're allowed to use your brains in bridge? If necessary, use force.

[pescetom]

barmar, on 2018-May-04, 09:48, said:

He can't even understand a simple regulation, how promising is he?

The OP says that he's been playing 2 months, and he can already bid a slam quite wisely.
That's more promising than most beginners we have.
Not to mention those playing for years without really knowing the regulations, or imagining how perverse they can be

[pran]

For what it is worth: I was originally licensed as TD back in 1980 and since then became regularly engaged as DIC at a variety of tournaments.
I found pleasure in doing my share in making people enjoy bridge, but retired from most engagements some years ago.

But I can say for sure that had I ever been asked to serve as TD in an event where we might encounter your SB I would give the arrangers the choice between me and SB.

Luckily I can say that I have never, ever met a player like SB. Even an assurance that the stories with him are exaggerated does not make them interesting to me.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2018-May-04, 09:20, said:

Are they a regular partnership? Is there any reason to believe they've had any discussion about the specific types of hands they open 2♣ on?

The regulation is about agreements. Unless they have an agreement to open hands like this with 2♣, SB's case should be dismissed immediately.

As South admitted that he (and presumably his partner) would open 2C with "game in his own hand" in flagrant disregard for the Blue Book, I think South's case should be dismissed immediately. Also "Bridge for All" does recommend opening 2C with 23+ or "game in your own hand". And ignorance of BB C71 footnote 1 is no defence.

[sanst]

The copy of the Blue Book on the EBU website doesn't give (dis)allowed understandings for Level 3 events. So, how are these novices to know.
More serious, do you really expect players, either novice or experienced, to know the Laws and those Handbooks and other regulations to the last footnote? It's a game we're talking about, something you do for fun. It's certainly a excellent way to put anybody off if you punish them for not knowing footnote 1 to paragraph 7C1. This pair, playing for only a few months, should be praised for the way handled these hands.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2018-May-04, 11:02, said:

As South admitted that he (and presumably his partner) would open 2C with "game in his own hand" in flagrant disregard for the Blue Book, I think South's case should be dismissed immediately. Also "Bridge for All" does recommend opening 2C with 23+ or "game in your own hand". And ignorance of BB C71 footnote 1 is no defence.

Our convention card says "22+ balanced or an unbalanced hand forcing to game", and that's how we explain the alert.
Sounds to me as if "Bridge for all" is on the same wavelength.
Is the problem here just that S failed to alert his agreement, or is his agreement actually disallowed for some reason?

[weejonnie]

The problem is:

North's interpretation of the word "Strong" is not in accordance with the Regulatory Organisation;s definition of the word "Strong". (The hand would have met ER25 - the rules in force before August 1st, since it has 10 clear-cut tricks). The hand only has two defensive tricks (or even only one) - it does not have 15 points, nor 5 controls (regrettably voids are not construed as controls in the EBU definition).

You can have an agreement to open such a hand with 2♣ providing full disclosure is made (any game-forcing hand or 23-24 balanced I believe is the Acol definition) - the only criterium is that the hand must be 'strong' if the suit is clubs.

So: legally - SB is correct if the club is adhering to the EBU Blue Book: NS have used an illegal convention (and it would be illegal at level 4 - who on earth uses Level 3 these days?) - or rather their description of the call "strong" is incorrect. This gives MI to SB.

However, I am sure that the club can specify the allowed meanings for all calls and I would weasel my way out and say (truthfully or otherwise) "For beginners' evenings we follow the 'Bridge for All' protocol and not the EBU Blue book." - A Solomonic solution. I would advise South of the problem in the bar, later and, since it was SB, rule that EW weren;t damaged by the MI.

I will quote Frances Hinden (EBU)

"Where a hand is a true freak (such as with a double void or a 12-card suit), TDs should accept that few pairs would have agreements on how to bid it."

To quote Terry Pratchett "Sometimes people are so concerned whether something is legal or illegal, they forget to decide whether it is right or wrong."

[pescetom]

weejonnie, on 2018-May-04, 14:18, said:

The problem is:

North's interpretation of the word "Strong" is not in accordance with the Regulatory Organisation;s definition of the word "Strong". (The hand would have met ER25 - the rules in force before August 1st, since it has 10 clear-cut tricks). The hand only has two defensive tricks (or even only one) - it does not have 15 points, nor 5 controls (regrettably voids are not construed as controls in the EBU definition).

You can have an agreement to open such a hand with 2♣ providing full disclosure is made (any game-forcing hand or 23-24 balanced I believe is the Acol definition) - the only criterium is that the hand must be 'strong' if the suit is clubs.

So: legally - SB is correct if the club is adhering to the EBU Blue Book: NS have used an illegal convention (and it would be illegal at level 4 - who on earth uses Level 3 these days?) - or rather their description of the call "strong" is incorrect. This gives MI to SB.

However, I am sure that the club can specify the allowed meanings for all calls and I would weasel my way out and say (truthfully or otherwise) "For beginners' evenings we follow the 'Bridge for All' protocol and not the EBU Blue book." - A Solomonic solution. I would advise South of the problem in the bar, later and, since it was SB, rule that EW weren;t damaged by the MI.

Thanks. I like your Solomonic solution

Sounds like the EBU didn't do a very good job when revising the definition of "Strong". It seems perverse not to consider voids as controls when assessing the strength of a hand bidding to play in trumps.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2018-May-05, 07:30, said:

Sounds like the EBU didn't do a very good job when revising the definition of "Strong".

Indeed. And the larger problem is that one can open 2C on a hand like ♠Axx ♥Axx ♦KJ ♣xxxxx and announce it just as "strong, but without the high-card points necessarily associated with strong." You can even play it as non-forcing!

The old rule allowed a 2C (or 2any) bid with 8 clear-cut tricks to be defined as strong, but they screwed up the definition of clear-cut tricks (well, Dburn and gordontd disagreed on what the rule meant; the former was right, in my opinion). It was much better and all they had to do was correct that ambiguous definition. instead they rewrote it as poppycock.

De piscibus e sartigine in prunas desilentibus

[weejonnie]

lamford, on 2018-May-06, 03:17, said:

Indeed. And the larger problem is that one can open 2C on a hand like ♠Axx ♥Axx ♦KJ ♣xxxxx and announce it just as "strong, but without the high-card points necessarily associated with strong." You can even play it as non-forcing!

The old rule allowed a 2C (or 2any) bid with 8 clear-cut tricks to be defined as strong, but they screwed up the definition of clear-cut tricks (well, Dburn and gordontd disagreed on what the rule meant; the former was right, in my opinion). It was much better and all they had to do was correct that ambiguous definition. instead they rewrote it as poppycock.

De piscibus e sartigine in prunas desilentibus

You can - but your partner won't be very happy when they have 12 points and find out that 6NT fails by 3 tricks. Opening that hand as a strong two invites trouble at the table, whereas opening the original hand as a strong bid merely invites trouble at the Appeals Committee.

A weak/ beginner player would have difficulty working out what a clear-cut trick was anyway.

Remember that the Blue book does say "(1) A ‘Benji’ 2♣ or 2♦ opening (or any other opening with a similar meaning) which may have ‘eight playing tricks’ in any suit must by agreement satisfy (a) above. An agreement to make such a bid on a hand with many playing tricks but limited high card strength must be clearly disclosed.

I do so: Playing a multi 2♦ when asked I will say "... or could be 8+ playing tricks in an unspecified suit. The hand may not be strong unless the suit is diamonds". Is it too difficult to get other players to say the same - or are electronic devices stultifying speech?

So; the problem is not that North-South had an illegal agreement to open 2♣ on such a hand (they don't). It is that they haven't been taught what 'strong' means in a (EBU) bridge context. For all South's hand shape - he required North to hold club tricks to make his slam - had EW held North's clubs then THEY would have scored the slam - something ot think about.

[StevenG]

weejonnie, on 2018-May-06, 04:09, said:

So; the problem is not that North-South had an illegal agreement to open 2♣ on such a hand (they don't). It is that they haven't been taught what 'strong' means in a (EBU) bridge context. For all South's hand shape - he required North to hold club tricks to make his slam - had EW held North's clubs then THEY would have scored the slam - something ot think about.

Two questions:-
1) Had the bid been described as "game in own hand" rather than "strong", would that change your opinion? Nobody where I play ever uses the word "strong".
2) How should you open the bidding to find the slam? To not miss a certain game, even?

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2018-May-06, 04:09, said:

Opening that hand as a strong two invites trouble at the table, whereas opening the original hand as a strong bid merely invites trouble at the Appeals Committee.

Not if partner passes with any hand where he thinks game is unlikely opposite a minimum 2C, such as Axx Axx KJ xxxxx. It is a bit like the multi when it first started; it could be a balanced 22-23 about 0.5% of the time, and they decided that you had to explore game if you could expect to make game oppposite one of the strong hand type. Now, with our avant garde 2C, which has no such restrictions, all the LOLs will be missing game, when it goes 2C-All Pass. The explanation one gives, taken from the EBU poster, of "strong but not necessarily containing the high-card points associated with a strong bid" will still deter them from entering the auction. In fact the methods are so destructive that a winner of Brighton is now employing a non-forcing but "strong" 2C bid. Of course you will still have a silly result 0.5% of the time!

[lamford]

StevenG, on 2018-May-06, 05:42, said:

1) Had the bid been described as "game in own hand" rather than "strong", would that change your opinion? Nobody where I play ever uses the word "strong".

No, it would still be an illegal agreement, as the regulation refers to a "strong 2C OR SIMILAR" which must have five controls and 12 HCP. The agreement "game in own hand" does not get round the regulation now. You can play it as a weak 2C, or a multi, but not as a "strong" 2C unless it complies.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2018-May-06, 11:35, said:

Not if partner passes with any hand where he thinks game is unlikely opposite a minimum 2C, such as Axx Axx KJ xxxxx. It is a bit like the multi when it first started; it could gain a balanced 22-23 about 0.5% of the time, and they decided that you had to explore game if you could expect to make game oppposite one of the strong hand type. Now, with our avant garde 2C, which has no such restrictions, all the LOLs will be missing game, when it goes 2C-All Pass. The explanation one gives, taken from the EBU poster, of "strong but not necessarily containing the high-card points associated with a strong bid" will still deter them from entering the auction. In fact the methods are so destructive that a winner of Brighton is now employing a non-forcing but "strong" 2C bid. Of course you will still have a silly result 0.5% of the time!

So instead of reverting 2♦ Multi to Brown Sticker status they decided to redefine 2♣ in an even more destructive way
I'm suddenly unexpectedly grateful for the conservatism of FIGB, at least I can open 2♣ with any genuinely strong hand and my partner has to go to game unless it is balanced.