weejonnie

In England prepared or short 1♣ openings (which are not forcing but may be made on two cards or fewer) are announced (not alerted) as "may be n" - so obviously 'correct' procedure depends on RA.

Or more likely an SB type player who noticed a break in tempo. (If your partner bid a very quick 2♦ you have UI that his bid was 'pure' and there was nothing for him to think about - which suggests that he is probably in the middle of the range. i.e. not a borderline 1♦ call or a 'pass') Otherwise - the OP was asked a question, didn't answer it and it was then re-asked. RHO made an error in assming a weak 2♦ call is alerted. Am a bit surprised he asked the OP on the second/ third hand of the set as presumably the OP wasn't answering questions from a different set of boards.

SB was being very helpful - he has to have two convention cards to play multiple systems in 7+ board team matches and so felt that the best way to be considerate to his opponents was to use the same two cards for the duplicate event. Both cards are, of course, completely, legibly and accurately filled in - and to reduce the chance of confusion, he carefully leaves on the table only the convention card that details his system that applies to the actual position.

Of course if the esteemed director would like to put this matter to rest by clearly defining what the phrase in the Blue Book actually means - and how far a system may be varied according to position and vulnerability, I would be only too grateful for his direction. Edit: Even the two suggested amendments (length of majors + NT strength) enables you to change from Acol (4CM WNT) to the principles of Standard American. (SNT - 5CM). You don't have to worry about changing responses as they are specifically unregulated. So I think there is no problem in changing from Acol - 3 -strong 2s, to American 3-weak 2s. Nor, for instance, changing from a short club/ diamond (could be 2+) to Acol (3+)

Is there any real difference from playing:- 1NT = 9-11 1st NV, 12-14 1st Vul, 16-18 3rd Vul otherwise 15-17 AND 2H = 6-10, 5 hearts 1st Non Vulnerable, 8-11 5 Hearts 3rd Vulnerable, 16-20 6 hearts 2nd vulnerable, otherwise 11-15 5+ hearts?

Sitting down to play in the local duplicate, 3 boards a round, against someone who looks and sounds like a Secretary bird, I was disturbed to see him prsent two fully-filled in convention cards. The first convention card stated: SBs marvellous system (1st/ 3rd): 7NT = 35+ points balanced. The second convention card stated: SBs marvellous system (2nd/ 4th): 7NT = 35+ points balanced. Being surprised at seeing two such similar system card titles, I made enquiries. SB said - "the first convention card lists our agreements in 1st/ 3rd to speak and the second one lists our agreements in 2nd/ 4th position. They do vary a lot- in fact they are completely different, other than the fact that we have agreed that an opening bid of 7NT in any position guarantees 35+ points." However we will alert/ announce any call as required. Not happy with this, I called the director. Who amazingly had a Blue Book with him. The director read out "A partnership may play two basic systems at different positions or vulnerabilities only in level 4 or level 5 competitions and only where rounds are of 7 boards or more. The partnership must display two system cards for each system, indicating the occasions when the different systems apply." "I am sorry - but as this is only 3 boards a round, I cannot permit this. SB was there in a flash. 'Please read the next paragraph'. "It is always permitted to vary certain parts of a system according to position and/ or vulnerability. This includes, for example, variable NT openings and playing four or five card majors in different positions." 'We only vary certain parts of our system according to position - the fact that this is 99%+ of calls is irrelevant. The Blue Book does not put any limit on the proportion of a system that can be varied and the examples given are not exhaustive.'

I think the key thing is: Does the slow 6♣ demonstrably suggest 6♠ over pass? Note that South knows that North would be going to 6♣ had the response been 5♦, which I assume is 1 Ace, and so can infer the 3 controls that North actually has. The TD thought so. presumably the AC didn't. (South has a source of tricks that North does not know about - that is worth more than the facile 'spades > clubs')

Is the pass artificial? All it states is that the passer wishes to play in the suit last called. The fact that the suit last called is artificial is surely irrelevant. It certainly does not 'unexpectedly convey values', nor 'specify suit holdings'.

Maybe South should be playing Lucas 2s (4-7 HCP), and a Multi 2♦ (4-7 points, weak 2) + aggressive pre-empts - but I assume that 'distribution' would count as values (although it bumps up the average HCP for a pass).

An appeals committee was called at a bridge club in Northern England over an appeal by a well-known visitor at an EBU sanctioned event held there over the weekend. The deal in question was uninteresting. [hv=pc=n&s=sq73hq32dq743ckj5&w=sk84hkj7dkj52caq3&n=s9652h954d86c9872&e=sajthat86dat9ct64&d=s&v=0&b=11&a=p1dp1hp1np3nppp]399|300[/hv] After South dealt and passes, West quickly became declarer in 3NT. After the opening club lead he quickly took three losing finesses into the South hand and ended up with 10 tricks for a below average score. (Yes I know this is bad play). With a mellifluous tongue he turned to South. "You had everything?" "Yes - but the hand was balanced and we have an agreement not to open under any circumstances with fewer than 12 points - even pre-empting in 1st position and our 2-bids are all strong. We find we need a bit extra." "Director Please", came the usual bellow". "NS are playing an illegal convention. The blue book states quite categorically that:- "A pass before any player has bid must not show , or usually have , any values" "The probability that a hand has fewer than 12 points is 56.24% and the probability that a hand has 7 - 11 points is 35.68%. Thus most of the time South is going to have some values. (In fact the chance that he has 8+ points - and so qualify for a legal level 4 1 opening hand is nearly 50% of all the hands under 12 points). My partner and I open on all 8+ point hands (that conform to the rule of 18 in 1st & second) and many weaker ones, so do our utmost to obey this instruction. I demand an AV+, AV- in accordance with EBU guidelines." The TD declined and the player, who would have won the event but for the hand in question, appealed.

B/A quote both : beats contract and average tricks The tricks (for the KJT4 8652 AJT8 8 ) i.e. matchpoint score performance were:- 1NT J ♠ : 6.60 7 ♥ : 6.45 J ♦ : 6.44 8 ♣ : 6.31 So you are correct that a heart improves for Matchpoints (but does not beat spades). In fact for 3NT J ♠ : 3.88 7 ♥ : 3.89 J ♦ : 3.62 8 ♣ : 3.76 which confirms that at matchpoints you want to find the safest major suit lead Vs a 3NT contract with no suits shown. (There are other good leads e.g. KQ, QJ(x) in the majors or the weaker major if you have a weak hand, but I won't go through them all).

The auction is assumed to be 1NT : 3NT in the book - Analysis in the book suggests that it does not matter much whether the auction is with a weak 1NT, a strong 1NT or 2NT - 3NT. (although the chance of beating 3NT reduces on a 2NT - 3NT auction, the relative positions remain the same.) If LHO has bid NT and not used Stayman or a transfer then there is a significant bias in favour of leading a major suit.

Of course passing UI is not an offence - it happens on the majority of hands. It is up to partner not to take advantage of it. You should show confidence in your partner's ethics by asking. At worst, for you, he may be forced to reject the LA that is demonstrably suggested by your action. If it is a borderline decision I don't think a TD or AC is going to do anything other than adjust the score.

Bird, D., & Anthias, T. (2011) Winning Notrump Leads, Ontario, Master Points Press, pg118 Hand quoted KJT4 8652 AJT8 8 Beats 1NT J Spades : 52.7% 6 Hearts : 45.8% J Diamonds: 48.9% 8 Clubs : 41.5% Beats 3NT J Spades : 35.7% 6 Hearts : 37.6% J Diamonds : 26.8% 8 Clubs : 33.4% (J Spades beats J Diamonds because of major suit bias)

The rules of opening depend on which level you are playing. There are two main levels - level 2 and level 4 (level 3 is no longer used in EBU competitions). The simple answer is that you can open at the one level on 8 high card points or more, subject to the following: - AT level 2 the hand must either have 11 points or more or satisfy the rule of 19 - 1NT is 10+ (any single range e.g. 12- 16, no singleton or 7 card suit) AT level 4 the hand must (in 1st or second position) satisfy the rule of 18 - 1NT is 9+ (any single range e.g. 16 - 20, can contain a singleton, no more than 9 cards in any two suits and no 7 card major) Please note that these are absolute limits. You CANNOT open at the 1 level by agreement below these minima. Since they are built into EBU regulations you don't have to alert that your agreement may go as low as this. All players are expected to know the regulations of the EBU in the Blue Book. You do not need to alert an agreement to open on a hand based on a 'rule of xx' as that is just an agreement to be more restrictive than the minimum allowed. The rules are you alert (or announce if appropriate) a bid that (a) is not natural; or (b) is natural but has a potentially unexpected meaning. In Acol 1-level bids are natural (3+ cards in the minor, 4+ cards in the major) and i don't think that guaranteeing the 'rule of 20' is 'potentially unexpected' so don't alert them "A bid of a suit which shows that suit (3+ cards) and does not show any other suit;preference bids, completion of transfer bids and raises may be on shorter suits" - are defined as 'natural'

I cannot find any definition of 'weak', 'intermediate', or 'strong' at level 2 or level 4 in either the white book or the blue book, although you are expected to 'announce' one of them (+- (not) forcing after 'strong'.) There IS an example of a '9-12' hand being advised to describe the call as 'weak to intermediate', and a precision 2♣ call (which is, I think 11-15) is described as 'intermediate' - even though it could reach the requirements of ER25. (There is no definition of 'intermediate' in WBF either - just 'weak' (<10HCP) and strong (>12HCP)) ER25 is NOT a definition of strong, IMHO: it is the definition of a hand of such playing strength that virtually any opening bid can be agreed to portray it - and not perfect! I would not really regard QJ3 AK32 K432 QJ as being a 'strong' hand, but it does qualify for ER25 - however AKJ98764 - XX - AJT (which will take a lot more tricks, isn't) Maybe we should go back to the idea of adding 1 point for the 5th, 6th card of a suit and 3 for each longer one (or some variety e.g. add 1 for each card over 6) and include 'distributional points' in the ER25 definition.

Maybe, maybe not: - 'Strong OPENINGS are often described as "Extended Rule of 25"' - so in the BB there are many cases where a blanket licence is given for hands that meet this rule (or ER24)(See page 20). There is no requirement that a 'strong' opening or overcall so described must meet the requirements of ER25 - however you could play KQJT9876543 x x - as "Strong but does not necesarily meet ER25" or "Benji - 8 playing tricks in Spades, but may not meet ER25" (the latter is definitely preferable - and see below for my thoughts on HCPs" The WBF give definitions of Weak (High card strength below an average hand (10HCP) and Strong (King or more above 10) which I assume will apply to all WBF events. If the EBU Intend that these definitions are to apply (and they probably/ possibly do but don't seem to make that clear to the average club player) then a jump overcall of 11-13 points would have to be described as "intermediate to strong" - but of course better to describe it as "11-13 points, 6 card suit, 6 or 7 losers" (or your more precise definition). Equally a weak 2 in a major (6-10) has to be announced (technically) as 'weak to intermediate' - now how many people do that!? (And for fun sake - if you add 3 points, so the range is the same (9-13) then you have to say "weak to strong"!) (Note that you must not say anything further when you 'announce'.) It is now clear, I think, that you cannot just say "weak, intermediate, or strong" when asked to describe e.g. a jump overcall although many people at our club ask "How strong is that?" and get back the sort of answer you should might expect UNLESS the point range fully fits in with WBF guidelines. So, for example, when asked about a multi 2♦ you can't say "23-24 balanced, strong 2 in a minor or a weak 2 in a major" (Which by the way would be illegal unless you agree that the diamond suit hand matched ER25") - unless your minor suit call promised 13 points and the weak major call denied 10+" Thus: - AK9876 AK987 65 Can be announced or described as 'Strong....' AK9876 AQ987 65 - Can be announced as "Strong" under WBF guidelines" so presumably "Strong" under EBU guidelines, or alerted as "Strong but not necessarily complying with ER25" AQ9876 AQ987 65 - Is "Neither strong, nor weak", under WBF Guidelines - so presumably Announced as "Intermediate" under EBU Guidelines KJT987 KQT98 65 - Is "Weak..."

There was interesting discussion of the following hand at the local bridge club. [hv=pc=n&s=saq2ht98765dkq2ca&w=sjt9hkjda6543ck64&n=sk87654hdjt9cq532&e=s3haq432d87cjt987&d=n&v=0&b=1&a=pp2c(Weak%202%20in%20H%20or%20ER25)p2s(Weak%20Hand)p2n(Weak%202%20in%20Hearts but not asked)p3hd(Pens)3n(No%20agreement)dppp]399|300[/hv] West led A♦ 'to look at dummy' and eventually also looked at -550. "Director Please" The TD came over. "South opened a hand that included a 'weak' 2♥ or 2♠ otherwise all hands are ER25. If you count the hand you will see that he has 15 points (insufficient for ER25), 24 points when you add the two longest suits, nowhere near 8+ clear cut tricks and he certainly hasn't a weak 2 in hearts. North has confirmed that he, too would have opened 2♣ on that hand. This is an illegal agreement and I want my AV+ please." South replied. "On our convention card it clearly states that any hand not meeting ER25 will be regarded as being 'weak' - see here. West has already confirmed to you that the hand is not one that meets ER25 and therefore according to our partnership agreement is is a weak 2 in hearts (we don't use the word 'intermediate' anywhere on our CC). The opponents were not misinformed and therefore there should be no score adjustment. Although the EBU lay down stringent requirements for a hand to meet ER25 and thus counted as being 'strong' (with which we always comply (now)), they (unlike the WBF) have no such definition for 'weak' or 'intermediate' - other than the obvious English grammar of 'not strong'. West replied. "In the Blue book a 6-12 opening would be described as 'weak to intermediate'" South noted "This comes under announcements - but our 2♣ is conventional; and, just to note, if 6-12 points is noted as 'weak to intermediate', what word do the EBU use for hands of strength 13 - 15 that don't meet ER25?" How do you rule?

In the past it was more popular. The Holy Sponge is one of the Instruments of the Passion of Jesus Christ. It was dipped in vinegar (or in some translations sour wine), most likely posca, a favorite beverage of Roman soldiers, and offered to Christ to drink during the Crucifixion, according to Matthew 27:48; Mark 15:36; and John 19:29. (Wikipedia) Posca: Posca was a popular drink in ancient Rome and Greece, made by mixing sour wine or vinegar with water and flavouring herbs. (Wikipedia).

SB had expected this. "Director - my partner comes from a country where opening with a 'pass' to show values is taught from an early age and he is simply applying the basic methods with which he was taught (and which some people on Bridgewinners recommend). He would never dream of using a convention that is specifically barred from the Level 2 events. The only real mention of pass in the laws (other than for rectification)is that if 3 passes occur in sequence (providing someone hasn't missed their regular turn to call) (4 if there has been no call) then the auction terminates. There is nothing in the laws that prohibit the use of 'pass' in any form whatsoever. Indeed if level 2 events specifically bar calls that aren't listed in the Blue Book then you will have to abolish the 'pass' before anyone bids completely since such a use has an unclear definition (any hand not suitable for an opening call - but this will vary depending on the other calls available to the partnership and so have a potentially unexpected meaning) and isn't listed in the permitted calls. Indeed my partner's use of the 'pass' is more descriptive than the use so described and so should be easier to handle." edited to conventionalise a 'natural' pass.

On Wednesday afternoon a certain North London Bridge club hosts a 'level 2' event (with partner pick-up) to encourage novice players to take part in duplicate tournaments without meeting any 'funny' conventions. The TD was mildly surpised to see two regular players from the evening session - a player who acts like the SB and one who, like the Rueful Rabbot, likes to indulge in all the fancy systems that they can find and half remember. At the start of the event the TD welcomed everyone and said (inter alia) - "Remember we are playing this event under what are known as Level 2 Partnership Understandings (as shown on pages 21 - 22 of the Blue Book). If you have any queries please call me and I'll help." On the first hand RR (sitting table 1), picked up [hv=pc=n&n=sqt87hk843da52cqj]133|100[/hv] And 'opened' -Pass - which was duly alerted by SB. East, being a novice and not having seen an opening pass alerted, asked for an explanation. SB was delighted to explain: - "12-14 points, balanced hand with both majors. This way we can use the 2♣ convention over a natural 1NT more effectively as we will know that partner will never have the other major." East was sure that he had never read about passes as showing values, especially in a novice event, thought that the Director should be called. SB was quick off the mark. "Although in a level 4 event "A pass before any player has bid must not show, or usually have, any values" - 7A2 in the Blue Book as every one knows, such a limitation does NOT appear at a Level 2 event. There is therefore no irregularity. Please note that all our 2 bids are natural showing 0-9 points and at least 4 cards in the suit - which meets 6D1, so there is no possibility of being 'fixed' for a bid. The TD looked at the pages, could find nothing to prevent this and sent a note to the appeals committee appealing on behalf of himself. How do you rule?

And I was just about to get warmed up. The short answer is that the EBU have drawn a line in the sand about how you define a 'strong' hand. We may not agree with it, but at least it is easy for someone to work out relatively quickly. All EBU players should know what ER25 is. If they disagree then they should come up with a different definition of what is allowable before you use the word 'strong' and put it forward to the EBU - and 'I know it when I see it' is not IMHO expected to be allowed. Many players in the past used the word 'strong' to try and psychologically prevent opponents from bidding. The now notorious hand (AKJ98765, X, X, AJT) does not meet the EBU definition under ER25. The other side are fully within their rights to ask the TD to see if there was a partnership agreement to open such hands as a 'strong' bid and, if the TD did find that out, the TD would naturally award a 3 IMP penalty as directed in the White book. There is a lot of posturing on bridgewinners. Terence Reese warned against a 'holier than thou' approach as this could affect table harmony if the offending side felt unable to reciprocate at a later stage.

Partner isn't going to be very happy when you fail to lead his heart suit and it turns out that hearts are 5-4-2-2 with declarer having KX opposite XX. (And why didn't you double 3NT when partner shows values for a free bid after your 2♣ overcall?) This is probably going to come down (even if we omit the failure to raise to 3♥) to the fact that the AI doesn't fully replace the UI. So I think a non-heart lead is demonstrably suggested by the UI. So a sadistic knowledgeable TD is going to either. 1) Change the contract to 3♥X -n (if you raise the hearts) AND/ OR 2) Change the contract to 3NTX +n on a heart lead. (assuming the pass is caused by UI)

Pulled out "The complete book of Bridge" (Reese & Dormer 1973). Reese states "At least eight PT are required and this means a six-card suit will usually be present; but the bid can be made on two 5-card suits and, exceptionally, with 5-4 in the major suits. Most hands that warrant an opening two-bid contain between 16 to 19 HCPs" Examples given are:- AKQJ873 9 AQ2 64 AQJ93 AKT92 6 A7 AKJ53 KQJ9 AJ8 3 (for a 2♠ opening). The guideline given is "If I open at the 1 level and this is passed out could I miss a game?" He recommends ; A6 AQJ874 AK83 T as being suitable for an Acol 2♥ bid. (This only has 7 CC tricks, if that, but qualifies under ER25.) Under pre-empts AQJT832 7 62 KQ9 is recommended as a vulnerable 4♠ instead of 1♠

There is - for EBU events certainly. However picking up the CC after the 4♥ call is going to pass some UI on as well. (Of course there may not have been any CCs around, as in many clubs). Then you have the same problem. If partner does NOT pick up the convention card you are in a cleft stick. You KNOW the call is splinter and your double is lead directing with suggestions of sacrificing, but partner may not (and assume the double is for the minors) - and you cannot therefore ask South what the call means as that would be for partner's benefit.