The interesting Case of Bd 4

[inquiry]

The Cavendish had a rule that "preempts in which the suit is not identified are not allowed", the actual rule was rule 14, subpart d.

 

14. In general, any convention or treatment that is familiar to the average tournament player, or can be explained to the average player within 10 seconds, is allowed. Methods of a destructive nature are not authorized, nor are the following:

a)....

d) Preemptive bids that do not specify which suit is held

 

Having read these rules, then board 4 of I think the finals (found it in the bulletin) north held, all vul,

 

-----

9x

xxx

AKQJTxxx (eight of them if I mistyped)

 

After his LHO passed he opened 3NT (gambling).

 

Was this allowed because it is not a preempt but rather a constructive raise?

Was it allowed because of some rule I overlooked that allowed gambing 3NT?

 

If I was playing in this event, I would have assumed 3NT oopening bid on hands like this were not allowed. Given the wording of the rule.

 

Did others not open this hand 3NT because of this rule?

[bid_em_up]

The Cavendish had a rule that "preempts in which the suit is not identified are not allowed", the actual rule was rule 14, subpart d.

 

14. In general, any convention or treatment that is familiar to the average tournament player, or can be explained to the average player within 10 seconds, is allowed. Methods of a destructive nature are not authorized, nor are the following:

a)....

d) Preemptive bids that do not specify which suit is held

 

Having read these rules, then board 4 of I think the finals (found it in the bulletin) north held, all vul,

 

-----

9x

xxx

AKQJTxxx (eight of them if I mistyped)

 

After his LHO passed he opened 3NT (gambling).

 

Was this allowed because it is not a preempt but rather a constructive raise?

Was it allowed because of some rule I overlooked that allowed gambing 3NT?

 

If I was playing in this event, I would have assumed 3NT oopening bid on hands like this were not allowed. Given the wording of the rule.

 

Did others not open this hand 3NT because of this rule?

I'm not sure where you are getting the "rule" number from, but the CoC states:

 

9. Systems and Conventions: All methods approved for the Cavendish Invitational Pairs are allowed, but no others. In general, any convention that would require a pre-alert and suggested written defenses, including Multi, preemptive opening bids that do not specify the suit or suits held, and other artificial bids that cannot be explained to an average player within 10 seconds, are barred. If there is any question about the acceptability of your system, it must be approved by a member of the Tournament Committee prior to the start of play.

 

 

Since I think you could explain Gambling 3N in 10 seconds or less to any player at this event, I think it would be allowed, even though the suit is not known. (Yes, I know, this is contradictory to the stated rules).

 

jmoo.

[inquiry]

I got it from the conditions of contest page... here is a link

 

Cavendish pairs CoC

 

Rule 14 is near the bottom of the page. One can explain a lot of conventions in 10 seconds but I am dealing with one that appears to be expressedly forbidden.

[Fluffy]

3NT is a natural call, you can't ban a bid that is bid to make the contract it bids.

[hrothgar]

3NT is a natural call, you can't ban a bid that is bid to make the contract it bids.

Try playing a 1NT opening that shows 9-11 HCPs here in North America and then get back to me...

 

The WBF has stated that Zonal authorities can do whatever they want.

[bid_em_up]

Ok, you are looking at the CoC for the pairs, and I was looking at the one for teams.

 

However, I think this covers it.

 

14. In general, any convention or treatment that is familiar to the average tournament player, or can be explained to the average player within 10 seconds, is allowed.

 

 

The other part isn't applicable, imo, since gambling 3N should be familiar to the average tournament player.

 

again, jmoo.

[inquiry]

Ok, you are looking at the CoC for the pairs, and I was looking at the one for teams.

 

However, I think this covers it.

 

14. In general, any convention or treatment that is familiar to the average tournament player, or can be explained to the average player within 10 seconds, is allowed.

 

 

The other part isn't applicable, imo, since gambling 3N should be familiar to the average tournament player.

 

again, jmoo.

But you left out the specific restriction part of #14.. which said...

 

Methods of a destructive nature are not authorized, nor are the following:... which then listed, 14d. There are a lot of bids that can be explained in 10 seconds that still fall into that group.

[awm]

Gambling 3NT is often an exception because it's not really a preempt. In particular:

 

(1) Our side expects to make 3NT fairly often, which is a game contract.

(2) Opener will always have at least 9 hcp, often 10 or more (better than an average hand).

 

This is not a purely destructive bid where the goal is to take space away from the opponents who (probably) have the majority of values. It is more an attempt to reach a making contract. Note that a strong 2♣ (for example) is allowed even though it is preemptive (in that it takes up a lot of space) and does not specify a known suit.

[kenrexford]

9. Systems and Conventions: All methods approved for the Cavendish Invitational Pairs are allowed, but no others. In general, any convention that would require a pre-alert and suggested written defenses, including Multi, preemptive opening bids that do not specify the suit or suits held, and other artificial bids that cannot be explained to an average player within 10 seconds, are barred. If there is any question about the acceptability of your system, it must be approved by a member of the Tournament Committee prior to the start of play.

10 seconds? To the "average" player?

 

Wow! This is tough for me.

 

First, I cannot describe Stayman in 10 seconds. I have trouble with 10 seconds and Blackwood.

 

Then, add in the "average player?" Holy Cow! Here's the discussion with the average player:

 

1♠

 

"What does that show?"

 

"Five or more spades and an opening hand."

 

"What's the minimum?"

 

"Normally 11, but maybe a really shapely 8."

 

"When will he have 8?"

 

"Maybe if he is 6-6 in two suits, with Aces."

 

"Can he have four spades?"

 

"In theory, yes."

 

"When will he have four spades?"

 

"When he sorts his hand wrong."

 

and so on...

[mgoetze]

10 seconds? To the "average" player?

Yes, this of course means that anyone using LTC or Zar points is barred from playing any conventions. :(

 

On the other hand, if it were 10 seconds explanation to an expert, I could just say "It's Wilkosz" and he would know all about it...

[han]

10 seconds?  To the "average" player?

Yes, this of course means that anyone using LTC or Zar points is barred from playing any conventions. ;)

No, only if that player is not able to express their agreements using mainstream methods.

 

On the other hand, if it were 10 seconds explanation to an expert, I could just say "It's Wilkosz" and he would know all about it...

 

If only you could play bridge as well as you can talk bridge. The system regulations of the Cavendish make it an excellent event to watch for the beginning player who'd like to learn the basics. But instead of taking the 10 seconds to learn Stayman and Blackwood you ask for Zar count and Wilkosz. Too bad.

[Guest Jlall]

I believe Hamman called opening 3N with this hand "insane." I didn't think it was that bad but someone I know did it and got to 5C after not diagnosing the spade void.