Orange Book

[Chris L]

In EBU-land, we have had "Announcements" for some three and a half years and I think they have worked well. One area which has caused problems is what constitutes a "strong" hand. From 1st August 2009, the Orange Book provides (Para 10 B 4) that it must be one of the following ("Extended Rule of 25"):

 

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

 

In practice, of course, b) and c) cause no problems. Guidance is given as to what does, or does not, constitute eight clear-cut tricks (one is to assume a void in partner's hand and the second best suit break). My question is concerned with the first half of a) - what constitutes the "normal" high card strength associated with a one-level opening? Is it an objective test? If so, what is "normal" in these days of light openings?

 

If not, do the words "subject to proper disclosure" have the effect of incorporating the partnership's agreements (as shown on their convention card) about one of a suit openings - so that if an opening bid of one of a suit requires (say) 11 HCP, they can't announce as "strong" an opening bid of (say) 2♥ which has 10 HCP and eight clear-cut tricks?

[aguahombre]

No answers here, just more question:

 

Does EBU differentiate between "strong", as in suitable for a Forcing Club ---and "strong" as in suitable for a strong forcing artificial 2C?

[wank]

in theory yes - they're not bracketed together, but in practice the requirements are identical - i.e. any 'extended rule of 25' as set out above: 16+ points or rule of 25 or 8 clear cut tricks and a normal opening strength.

 

ridiculous imo. nothing difficult about defending a 15 or 14+ strong club opener.

[bluejak]

Are you suggesting difficulty of defending the actual call should be the only criterion for what is and is not allowed?

[wank]

Are you suggesting difficulty of defending the actual call should be the only criterion for what is and is not allowed?

i understand the need to protect little old ladies from conventions they don't know how to defend and normal people from conventions which would require excessive time to discuss defence to.

 

and it would be nice if you could objectively judge which methods are not being played for serious reasons, i.e. for objectives other to win, but that's a very grey area. 7NT opener as a random pre-empt would obviously fall into that category, but a strong 1C with a point or 2 less than the 16 which has been around for 40 years couldn't be reasonably described as non-serious.

 

disallowing controlling of psyches: ok fair enough too.

 

but no, i can't think of any other reasons not to allow conventions.

[bluejak]

Ok, explain to a simple soul like me why you would find it trivially easy to defend against a 14+ "strong" 1♣.

 

It is certainly not obvious to me, because it is no longer a strong opening.

[mjj29]

Ok, explain to a simple soul like me why you would find it trivially easy to defend against a 14+ "strong" 1♣.

 

It is certainly not obvious to me, because it is no longer a strong opening.

Well, the ACBL allows 1♣ to be any opening hand. (and yet they don't allow 1NT with a singleton?!)

[helene_t]

Ok, explain to a simple soul like me why you would find it trivially easy to defend against a 14+ "strong" 1♣.

 

It is certainly not obvious to me, because it is no longer a strong opening.

They are supposed to be able to defend a nebulous minor suit opening in the context of Precision or a short club system. And they are supposed to be able to defend multi.

 

By far the most difficult-to-defend thing you encounter at the club is the 12-14 1NT opening. As long as that (as well as the multi 2♦) is allowed I think it makes little sense to ban anything. Oh well I suppose it's ok that nebulous major suit openings are not allowed. No Stephenson Spade at level 3, please :)

 

Anyway, this forum is about how to interpret the existing laws, not about whether they should be changed. So more to the point, I would take the limit by 10 HCPs. So no Benji 2♣ opening on AKQxxxxxx and out. With an outside Jack it would be OK I think.

 

It would be better if the regulations said something like that explicitly. Our local TD once said that an artificial strong opening must promise at least 14 points, but I guess the rules have changed in the meantime.

[bluejak]

There are two comments here which seen ACBL oriented. I could just as easily say "How on earth can you ban 2♦ which shows a weak hand with diamonds and a major?". I find it completely incredible, and it is Level 2 over here, ie allowed at novice/holiday bridge. To not allow it at GCC is beyond belief.

 

But the difference is that I have sympathy for rules based on what is normal, historical approaches and so forth, and I do think Americans especially, coming from a jurisdiction with what seems like a wide variety of extremely strange rules, should be more tolerant of others' rules.

 

By far the most difficult-to-defend thing you encounter at the club is the 12-14 1NT opening.

Everyone who is not a total beginner knows how to defend against that.

 

They are supposed to be able to defend a nebulous minor suit opening in the context of Precision or a short club system.

Are they indeed? Who says? Well, many English players have not the first idea how to defend against such openings, which is one of the reasons for a lot of English rulings starting 1♣ [may be short] 2♣ [overcall].

 

But one of the things that even medium players do not understand, and in my view several people reading here, is the distinction between defending a strong club and a may be short club, which is considerable. The moment you permit weakening a strong club you make a problem which few players know the solution to, which is when to switch from one to the other, or whether to try an intermediate defence.

 

Now, I am not saying the EBU's stance on a strong club is right, any more than I am saying the ACBL's stance on the Rough 2♦ is wrong. But both are reasonable, and kneejerk reactions that such decisions are obviously wrong [usually by people who do not care about the background] are ill thought out and unnecessary.

[helene_t]

By far the most difficult-to-defend thing you encounter at the club is the 12-14 1NT opening.

Everyone who is not a total beginner knows how to defend against that.

Maybe I and/or my regular partners count as absolute beginners but I can say that I wouldn't know what partner's double after I have doubled their 1NT means. This is particularly the case because people play all kind of weird escapes and often mess them up, so we have to cater to escapes which are explained in a vague and/or incorrect way. But even against opps who play natural escapes and know what they are doing, I would not always be sure.

 

I admit that this is due to laziness and that we should spend some time discussing defense against the weak notrump. Fact is most club pairs don't.

 

They are supposed to be able to defend a nebulous minor suit opening in the context of Precision or a short club system.

Are they indeed?

A 1♣ opening may be played to have any meaning, forcing or not, as long as this does not include unbalanced hands with 5+ Diamonds or 5+ Hearts or 5+ Spades (unless there is a Club suit of equal length or longer).

 

But one of the things that even medium players do not understand, and in my view several people reading here, is the distinction between defending a strong club and a may be short club, which is considerable. 

I may have overlooked something but I don't know what/whom you refer to. My point is that nebulous 1m is allowed at level 2 and upwards. Maybe it shouldn't be but it is. I doubt there is any pair at our club who would be more confident about how they defend a "0+ diamonds" precision 1♦ opening as opposed to a "14+ HCPs" 1♣ opening. I might be wrong.

[mjj29]

My point is that nebulous 1m is allowed at level 2 and upwards. Maybe it shouldn't be but it is. I doubt there is any pair at our club who would be more confident about how they defend a "0+ diamonds" precision 1♦ opening as opposed to a "14+ HCPs" 1♣ opening. I might be wrong.

There are still _some_ restrictions on the nebulous minor openings. It's usually safe to overcall a major, for example.

[blackshoe]

Ok, explain to a simple soul like me why you would find it trivially easy to defend against a 14+ "strong" 1♣.

 

It is certainly not obvious to me, because it is no longer a strong opening.

Well, the ACBL allows 1♣ to be any opening hand. (and yet they don't allow 1NT with a singleton?!)

That doesn't answer the question, does it?

[CamHenry]

(After doubling 1NT) we have to cater to escapes which are explained in a vague and/or incorrect way.

Surely this is what the laws are for? If you feel there has been damage caused by the lack of, or incorrect, information, you call the director. The director determines in as neutral a fashion as possible whether you are correct or not, and does his best to restore equity.

[jallerton]

One area which has caused problems is what constitutes a "strong" hand. From 1st August 2009, the Orange Book provides (Para 10 B 4) that it must be one of the following ("Extended Rule of 25"):

 

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

 

In practice, of course, B) and c) cause no problems. Guidance is given as to what does, or does not, constitute eight clear-cut tricks (one is to assume a void in partner's hand and the second best suit break). My question is concerned with the first half of a) - what constitutes the "normal" high card strength associated with a one-level opening? Is it an objective test? If so, what is "normal" in these days of light openings?

 

Forgive me for ignoring the off-topic discussion.

 

The answer to your original question is that there is no further definition of "the normal strength associated with a one-level opening". The L&EC has been asked to provided clarification but (despite Bluejak's best efforts) the L&EC has refused to provide a more specific definition. This seems inconsistent to me. Why bother to spend a lot of time coming up with a rigorous definition and numerous examples of "eight clear cut tricks" when it still does not make it (excuse the pun) clear cut as to whether such hands meet the definition of strong?

 

In the absence of guidance, "the normal strength associated with a one-level opening" is whatever the TD/AC judges it to be. This will lead to inconsistency between the rulings of different EBU TDs, but the L&EC can hardly complain.

 

If not, do the words "subject to proper disclosure" have the effect of incorporating the partnership's agreements (as shown on their convention card) about one of a suit openings - so that if an opening bid of one of a suit requires (say) 11 HCP, they can't announce as "strong" an opening bid of (say) 2♥ which has 10 HCP and eight clear-cut tricks?

 

As the regulation refers to "the normal strength associated with a one-level opening" not "the partnership's normal strength......" then it is not relevant what agreement the partnership in question has for its 1-level openers.

[barmar]

Isn't "the normal strength associated with a 1-level opening" general bridge knowledge? It's what we're taught in our first bidding lessons.

 

Although styles vary, most players know what's normal, and whether their style would be considered aggressive or conservative relative to that. And anyone who doesn't know this would not be competent to be a TD or AC member.

[jallerton]

The regulation actually says: "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening".

 

For example, does AKQJ10xxx in a suit and no outside high card qualify? Helene says yes. I would have thought no, but I can't say whether Helene is definitely right or wrong.

 

Yes, there is general bridge knowledge on what "normal" minimum opening bids look like; they are a function of the combination of high card strength and distribution. In my view, it is normal to pass on an average 4333 11-count but equally normal to open a average 6511 11-count.

 

I think the most logical interpretation would be to take it to mean: "normal high- card strength associated with a one-level opening by virtue of its high-card strength alone. Hence I would suggest usng 12+HCP as a guide.

 

However, if Helene ruled as TD that 10+HCP was acceptable, I as an AC member would see no reason to overturn her interpretation.