"Extended Rule of 25" disclosure, etc.

[ahydra]

This is regarding the EBU's Orange Book "Extended Rule of 25" requirement for strong 2-level opener hands - does one need to mention it on the CC or not - and how much adjusting based on playing strength is legal given a certain description on the CC.

 

My brother and I play a system where 2♣ = three-way:

18-21 one suit (6+ cards), or

18-21 two suits (5+/5+), or

21-22 balanced

 

This is described exactly as above on the CC but with the additional caveat "or equivalent playing strength" given in the supplementary details*. As an example of "equivalent playing strength" I opened 2♣ on

 

AK10xxx

AQJxxx

-

x

 

This hand has only 14 HCP so the opponents queried whether this was really proper given the description "18-21". However it does meet the Extended Rule of 25.

 

So my questions are, if you were/are a TD:

 

- Should the description be adjusted to include the words "Extended Rule of 25" or is that considered implicit?

- Does the hand above count as legal for the given description or is it too far off in HCPs and should be ruled a psyche?

- Is it necessary to include the words "or equivalent playing strength" or can that be assumed also as just ordinary bridge logic? (Not that I'm taking it out as it's safer that way. :() If not, does that affect your view on what hands are legal upgrades and which are psyches?

 

Thanks,

 

ahydra

 

* Because all that wording doesn't fit in the tiny box next to 2C openings (old style EBU card)!

[jallerton]

- Should the description be adjusted to include the words "Extended Rule of 25" or is that considered implicit?

 

The description should include whatever you have agreed. However, I would advise you to agree to conform to the "Extended Rule of 25", at least for hands containing 4+ clubs "as part of the specification", in order to make your 2♣ Opener legal at EBU Level 4.

 

Does the hand above count as legal for the given description or is it too far off in HCPs and should be ruled a psyche?

 

Yes, 14+6+6=26 so this meets the standard rule of 25.

 

Is it necessary to include the words "or equivalent playing strength" or can that be assumed also as just ordinary bridge logic?

 

Nothing can be assumed through "ordinary bridge logic" . "18-21" suggests 18+ HCP; if you can have some hands with under 18HCP you need to disclose the nature of such hands.

 

* Because all that wording doesn't fit in the tiny box next to 2C openings (old style EBU card)!

 

In that case, put a short description on the 2♣ line of the convention card, followed by a reference to a supplementary note, on which you can explain your agreement in sufficient detail.

[bluejak]

Why are we using an old style EBU card?

 

I do not approve of putting "Extended Rule of 25" on the card. Players will not understand it so it does not help, while anyone who does understand it will read it to mean "We are playing a legal system" which seems gratuitous.

 

I think your disclosure seems adequate if you are playing openings as Rule of 25. Disclosure problems come in the 'Extended' bit.

 

10 B 4 Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the minimum allowed is any of:

 

a] subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal highcard 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

If you are normally playing 18-21, and open certain Rule of 25 hands which are fewer than this. saying "or equivalent playing strength" is sufficient. Yes, it is necessary.

 

If you open hands which may be weaker than Rule of 25 and weaker than 16 HCPs, then they have to conform to [a], and now a stronger comment on what you are doing is needed: for example saying "Benjamin" is inadequate if you use [a].

[mycroft]

"We open Rule of 25 hands with 2C" - if it's very rare, then you're misdescribing. If it's only these massive-offence two-suiters (and especially if you would choose not to with major-minor or both minors, same hand), then "we open 2C Rule of 25" is massively overbroad.

 

"or suitable playing strength". Well yeah. But is AKQJTxxxxx A x x "suitable playing strength"? How about A AKQJTxxxxx x x? x AKQJTxxxxx A x? In other words, if they bid to the 5 or 6 level, are you going to be uncomfortable when partner doubles? Or do you require enough defence in your 2C openers that the 5-level shouldn't make (okay, duelling voids in your suits may have it make, but in general)? The opponents need to know that - especially if you don't require defence!

 

"18-21, but we do upgrade with freaks, or two-suiter majors" may be more correct. Of course, if you need 18 and 5/5, 16 in the 6-5 suits seems about right, and your 14 pure in 6-6 majors seems okay. I'm surprised anyone bothered about this one.

 

The simple answer is that the opponents will be disadvantaged understanding your calls by the very fact that you have more experience with the system and its nuances than they. The rules of the game ask you to bring them as close as possible to your experience as you can in limited space and time; if you're thinking "should I..." the answer is probably "yes"; if you're thinking "can I get away with not..." the answer is probably "only if you like winning that way".

[ahydra]

"We open Rule of 25 hands with 2C" - if it's very rare, then you're misdescribing. If it's only these massive-offence two-suiters (and especially if you would choose not to with major-minor or both minors, same hand), then "we open 2C Rule of 25" is massively overbroad.

 

"or suitable playing strength". Well yeah. But is AKQJTxxxxx A x x "suitable playing strength"? How about A AKQJTxxxxx x x? x AKQJTxxxxx A x? In other words, if they bid to the 5 or 6 level, are you going to be uncomfortable when partner doubles? Or do you require enough defence in your 2C openers that the 5-level shouldn't make (okay, duelling voids in your suits may have it make, but in general)? The opponents need to know that - especially if you don't require defence!

 

"18-21, but we do upgrade with freaks, or two-suiter majors" may be more correct. Of course, if you need 18 and 5/5, 16 in the 6-5 suits seems about right, and your 14 pure in 6-6 majors seems okay. I'm surprised anyone bothered about this one.

 

The simple answer is that the opponents will be disadvantaged understanding your calls by the very fact that you have more experience with the system and its nuances than they. The rules of the game ask you to bring them as close as possible to your experience as you can in limited space and time; if you're thinking "should I..." the answer is probably "yes"; if you're thinking "can I get away with not..." the answer is probably "only if you like winning that way".

Well... the system isn't designed around Rule of 25, but more the HCPs (and by extension, playing strength). To be honest I wouldn't care about what suits I had if it was a strong two-suiter. As such I don't see the difference between the sample hands mycroft gives though I'd probably open any of those 3NT (GF with specific ace-ask) to avoid the "defence at the 5-level" issue s/he mentions.

 

I often use "4 losers" as a guideline to decide when to upgrade to a 2C opener (e.g. the one in the OP has only 3 but it's too weak to be opened 2D, our mega-bid). We do guarantee Extended Rule of 25 to avoid arguments with opps ;), but following the world #1 TD's advice I'm not going to be putting that on the CC.

 

I will be making a system file that (alongside explaning all our conventional bidding sequences) gives our style in more detail (eg all the comments above) so that the opps can get a feel for when we might upgrade etc. That's pretty much as "full disclosure" as you can get :) and should think that it will cover any issues. Thanks for everyone's advice.

 

ahydra

[WellSpyder]

We do guarantee Extended Rule of 25 to avoid arguments with opps :), but following the world #1 TD's advice I'm not going to be putting that on the CC.

Curiously, I do refer to the Rule of 25 on my system card following advice on this forum, but it may have been from a different poster....

[CamHenry]

I will be making a system file that (alongside explaning all our conventional bidding sequences) gives our style in more detail (eg all the comments above) so that the opps can get a feel for when we might upgrade etc. That's pretty much as "full disclosure" as you can get :) and should think that it will cover any issues. Thanks for everyone's advice.

 

ahydra

Chiming in a little late here...

 

Have you considered describing it as "strong, usually 18-21 HCP"? That would (a) fit in boxes and (:) be entirely true.

 

As for a full system file: Matt and I carry one around with us, but it's rarely referred to. It's useful when we need evidence to say "yes, that pass is definitely forcing" or "that double was penalties, therefore the explanation given was correct", but no-one reads it. (We used it last night to work out what Matt's double had meant; I'd got it wrong and we defended 3CX+3).

[WellSpyder]

  (We used it last night to work out what Matt's double had meant; I'd got it wrong and we defended 3CX+3).

Did the opponents complain about MI? :)

[bluejak]

I do not mind 'Rule of 25' on an SC because it is a form of evaluation and easily explained, thus legal under Orange book 10A3.

 

But 'Extended Rule of 25' is different. It is not, per se, an evaluation system, it does confuse, and I do not really think it helps your opponents to know what your methods are.

[WellSpyder]

'Extended Rule of 25' is different.  It is not, per se, an evaluation system, it does confuse, and I do not really think it helps your opponents to know what your methods are.

That depends on the methods, presumably.

 

As regular readers of the forums may recall, in one regular partnership I play a two-way club, including a strong option that equates to a Precision 1♣ opening, normally 16+ points. Like most (all?) strong club players, we believe there are some hands with slightly fewer points that are worth upgrading on the basis of distribution, suit quality, etc. Many of these hands satisfy the extended rule of 25, but some do not. However, EBU regulations do not allow an agreement to open a strong club on hands that do not satisfy the extended rule of 25. So we have agreed that those hands that we believe are worth opening with a strong club but that do not satisfy the extended rule of 25 need to be opened with a different bid.

 

In these circumstances it seems to me that not only does the extended rule of 25 form an integral part of our methods, but that any attempt to explain our methods that does not refer to this rule must of necessity provide incomplete disclosure since two hands that we evaluate equally but that differ with regard to whether or not they satisfy the extended rule of 25 will be opened with different bids.

[mjj29]

In these circumstances it seems to me that not only does the extended rule of 25 form an integral part of our methods, but that any attempt to explain our methods that does not refer to this rule must of necessity provide incomplete disclosure since two hands that we evaluate equally but that differ with regard to whether or not they satisfy the extended rule of 25 will be opened with different bids.

I think the argument is that the extended-rule-of-25 critereon is implied by you playing in an EBU event and hence playing an EBU-legal system. It doesn't have to be written on the CC

[WellSpyder]

I think the argument is that the extended-rule-of-25 critereon is implied by you playing in an EBU event and hence playing an EBU-legal system. It doesn't have to be written on the CC

I see, thanks. That makes sense. It's a good point in theory, but it's not necessarily true in practice, is it? You have to read the Orange Book pretty carefully to realise you are not allowed in England to play Precision the way most of the rest of the world would play it, and it is only after an adverse ruling that I realised this part of the system needed clarifying. My bet is that the majority of strong-clubbers in a typical EBU event may inadvertently be in breech of the regulations over this issue, so if we have explicitly modified our agreements to reflect the regulations aren't opponents entitled to that info?

[jeremy69]

so if we have explicitly modified our agreements to reflect the regulations aren't opponents entitled to that info?

 

Well I certainly think so and I would have no problem with anyone who wrote "Extended Rule of 25" on their card. Indeed I would commend it. Yes it is a requirement that you adhere to it but giving the opponents information is rarely a bad thing. I can believe there will be some who do not understand what it means but for those who a. look at convention cards b. don't understand and c. want to the explanation would be brief. "We ensure that all our strong club openings either have 16+ points or......."

If we are going to stop people writing things on cards that others do not understand then there are softer targets e.g. "multi landy" as a defence to 1NT

[bluejak]

Multi Landy is already noted as unacceptable: 4C4.

 

If a pair is playing Extended Rule of 25 as a minimum I suppose they will have to put that on their card, but I do not think it helpful. But I think a pair who have this agreement is exceptional.

[WellSpyder]

If a pair is playing Extended Rule of 25 as a minimum I suppose they will have to put that on their card, but I do not think it helpful.  But I think a pair who have this agreement is exceptional.

Now I'm really confused. Do you think it is exceptional because not many people play a strong club these days, or because most of those who do are in breech of the regulations? Or do you simply not accept that this regulation rules out opening 1♣ on a number of hands that many Precision players will feel would otherwise be worth a 1♣ opening?

[mjj29]

Multi Landy is already noted as unacceptable: 4C4.

 

If a pair is playing Extended Rule of 25 as a minimum I suppose they will have to put that on their card, but I do not think it helpful. But I think a pair who have this agreement is exceptional.

I have this agreement and I think that anyone who plays a nominally 16 point strong minor opening will want to open all the way down to that limit (and probably below, but they are not allowed). If they don't have that agreement it's because they don't know the regulation and would probably open some hands in breach of it (or they don't know how to evaluate shapely hands and think 16HCP is a hard limit).

[RMB1]

Now I'm really confused. Do you think it is exceptional because not many people play a strong club these days, or because most of those who do are in breech of the regulations? ...

I can't speak for bluejak but I don't think there are many strong club or either/or club partnerships whose agreements to open 1♣ are based on "eight clear cut tricks".

[gordontd]

My bet is that the majority of strong-clubbers in a typical EBU event may inadvertently be in breech of the regulations over this issue,

My impression, and my preference when I played a strong club for quite some time with several different partners, is that hands are rarely upgraded to open them 1♣. It is much more descriptive and economical to open them with a natural call and then keep bidding/doubling to show extra strength - unless they are really so strong that they wouldn't fall foul of the Extended Rule of 25 anyway. After all, opening 1♣ is one of the weaknesses of the system (unless your opponents can be guaranteed to keep quiet), so minimising its frequency is a good idea.

[jeremy69]

Multi Landy is already noted as unacceptable: 4C4.

 

I agree but in this respect and others players do put this sort of shorthand on their card which is unhelpful and rarely, if ever, penalised. Try saying to a director that the opponents convention card has "Ghestem" on it with no further explanation and see how far you get.

 

After all, opening 1♣ is one of the weaknesses of the system (unless your opponents can be guaranteed to keep quiet), so minimising its frequency is a good idea

 

I agree that vigorous intervention can make life difficult but I don't agree that it is a weakness of the system! Sometimes the intervention gets too vigorous and 800 or 1100 follows if you have your methods sorted out.

[WellSpyder]

My impression, and my preference when I played a strong club for quite some time with several different partners, is that hands are rarely upgraded to open them 1♣. It is much more descriptive and economical to open them with a natural call and then keep bidding/doubling to show extra strength - unless they are really so strong that they wouldn't fall foul of the Extended Rule of 25 anyway. After all, opening 1♣ is one of the weaknesses of the system (unless your opponents can be guaranteed to keep quiet), so minimising its frequency is a good idea.

I agree that you do not want to be opening hands 1♣ that can be dealt with perfectly well with other opening bids - it is the extra description available for the limited opening bids that gives a strong club system its purpose, not the 1♣ opening itself. (Sometimes I think the regulators in England have refused to amend the relevant regulations because they think strong clubbers are somehow trying to gain an unfair advantage by opening more hands 1♣ whereas the reality is that in many ways one is at a disadvantage after opening 1♣.)

 

But there will still be hands that really are as strong as a normal 1♣ opening despite having less than 16 points, and if you don't open these 1♣ you risk partner misjudging the prospects of game or slam. Two possible examples I have quoted before which came up in the last Tollemache qualifier within a few boards of each other are ♠Q10x♥ AKQ10xx♦Ax♣ xx and ♠KQxx♥-♦AJxxx♣AJxx. I don't expect everyone to agree on whether these hands are worth a Precision 1♣ opening or not - indeed, my partner and I did not agree about both. But I would expect most Precision players at least to want to consider upgrading one or both of these hands, and the fact remains that you cannot agree to open either of these with a strong club in England.

[WellSpyder]

After all, opening 1♣ is one of the weaknesses of the system (unless your opponents can be guaranteed to keep quiet), so minimising its frequency is a good idea

I agree that vigorous intervention can make life difficult but I don't agree that it is a weakness of the system! Sometimes the intervention gets too vigorous and 800 or 1100 follows if you have your methods sorted out.

My view is that it is not necessarily the prospect of intervention that makes 1♣ the potential weakness of a strong club system, but rather the fact that there are quite a wide range of potential hands. The more you shift hands from one opening bid to another the more you simplify the bidding after the opening bid you have taken the hands away from and the more you potentially make life more difficult after the opening bid you have moved the hands into.

[bluejak]

If a pair is playing Extended Rule of 25 as a minimum I suppose they will have to put that on their card, but I do not think it helpful.  But I think a pair who have this agreement is exceptional.

Now I'm really confused. Do you think it is exceptional because not many people play a strong club these days, or because most of those who do are in breech of the regulations? Or do you simply not accept that this regulation rules out opening 1♣ on a number of hands that many Precision players will feel would otherwise be worth a 1♣ opening?

I do not think that one in a hundred Precision players puts their minimum opening at "Extended Rule of 25".

 

When I played Strong Clubs I followed Garozzo's approach: you need 16 points for a Strong Club. Of course, I may be exceptional in this.

 

The very next time you play against someone who plays Precision or any other Strong Club ask them what their absolute minimum is. If the say "Extended Rule of 25" I shall give you fourpence.

[CamHenry]

The very next time you play against someone who plays Precision or any other Strong Club ask them what their absolute minimum is. If the say "Extended Rule of 25" I shall give you fourpence.

mjj29 and I play a strong diamond, but our absolute minimum IS ER25. There are bad ER25 hands that we downgrade, but very few (it would have to be singleton kings, quacks all over the place, and a six-card suit to the jack, or something similar).

 

... but it's a strong diamond, so Bluejak's money is safe.

[bluejak]

Multi Landy is already noted as unacceptable: 4C4.

I agree but in this respect and others players do put this sort of shorthand on their card which is unhelpful and rarely, if ever, penalised. Try saying to a director that the opponents convention card has "Ghestem" on it with no further explanation and see how far you get.

I hope, trust, and expect that the opponents will get a lecture on correct filling in of a SC. They certainly will if I am the TD. But penalising, no, it is not normal to penalise for this - or most offences - unless there is evidence of repetition or it is a very high level event or pair. In the case of Ghestem especially, I shall also return to check they have amended the card.

[WellSpyder]

I do not think that one in a hundred Precision players puts their minimum opening at "Extended Rule of 25".....

 

The very next time you play against someone who plays Precision or any other Strong Club ask them what their absolute minimum is.  If the say "Extended Rule of 25" I shall give you fourpence.

Of course I don't expect them to say this, or to use this as a guide.

 

But I also expect the vast majority of them would say they upgraded some hands with less than 16 points, and that many would react with disbelief if they were then told that in that case they had better use the extended rule of 25 or they will be ruled to be playing an illegal system. "Don't be ridiculous, the EBU would never do something so stupid. Precision has been around for fifty years. Of course I can open this hand 1♣ if I want to, it's worth at least as much as a typical 16-point hand. Etc, etc"

 

It seems to be that you are implying two contradictory things in suggesting that the regulation doesn't cause any problems but that no-one takes any notice of it in defining their system. These two views are only compatible if you believe strong club players define 1♣ strictly in terms of points in a way that hardly anyone seems to do for any other bid. This may, of course, be your experience, but it is so contrary to what I have seen, heard or read that it feels to me more like a convenient fiction than a genuine reflection of how people play bridge.