Crockfords Final 1 (EBU)

[lamford]

Suggest saying "strong in principle, but if he has a solid eight-card suit then he doesn't need more than a king outside."

But this wrongly focuses on only one hand type that the player might have. Most of the time the player will have a solid or non-solid suit with more outside. The correct explanation is the one given by the players, strong with 8/9 playing tricks. Any self-respecting program will know what that means; and the odd bridge player might as well. In my opinion the TD was mistaken in recording this hand as a deviation, not that it matters much, as he says.

[bluejak]

Are you saying that "8/9 playing tricks or 23-24 balanced" is inadequate disclosure, and what wording do you think should be used?".

It is clearly inadequate disclosure. Strong is understood by many people as showing a certain level of top cards. While it is permitted to play it otherwise the words "subject to adequate disclosure" in the regulation are not to be ignored and constitute MI if they are. If it is normal to open on this weak a hand in top cards then the players are required to say so.

 

The problem is that, as here, players get an unfair advantage by misdescribing their hand as strong, knowing full well that it means something different to many opponents. So it is MI.

 

Level 5? That is a red herring: that affects what you can play, but you are still required to tell opponents what you play in full.

 

As for suggesting an opponent who knows the OB perfectly will understand the word strong, most players do not know it perfectly: those that do understand strong to mean 16 HCP or Rule of 25 unless there is further disclosure of other possibilities, since that is what the OB says as quoted above.

[lamford]

It is clearly inadequate disclosure. Strong is understood by many people as showing a certain level of top cards. While it is permitted to play it otherwise the words "subject to adequate disclosure" in the regulation are not to be ignored and constitute MI if they are. If it is normal to open on this weak a hand in top cards then the players are required to say so.

 

The problem is that, as here, players get an unfair advantage by misdescribing their hand as strong, knowing full well that it means something different to many opponents. So it is MI.

 

Level 5? That is a red herring: that affects what you can play, but you are still required to tell opponents what you play in full.

 

As for suggesting an opponent who knows the OB perfectly will understand the word strong, most players do not know it perfectly: those that do understand strong to mean 16 HCP or Rule of 25 unless there is further disclosure of other possibilities, since that is what the OB says as quoted above.

So what wording do you recommend they use? And the wording of the OB suggests that all of (a) to ( c) are strong.

[bluejak]

Burn's seems adequate to me. But there are lots of possible wordings, so long as they include the possibility of low point count hands.

[lamford]

Burn's seems adequate to me. But there are lots of possible wordings, so long as they include the possibility of low point count hands.

The problem with Burn's description is that a hand something like KQJ10xxx AKxx xx none would certainly qualify, on the ground that it has 8-9 playing tricks, and it seems that dealing with the rare case of eight solid is certainly not full disclosure. 23/24 balanced or 8/9 playing tricks with opening values seems to be correct, if you believe "strong" is deceptive, although I don't - players have a duty to familiarise themselves with the definition of strong therein. The implication of the OB is that strong is qualified by adding "8/9 playing tricks" to show that it is a 10B4(a) hand, so I think you will find those that just peruse the OB using this form of wording. And it is very clear that all of (a), (b) and ( c) are subsets of "strong". Do you disagree with this?

[mycroft]

How about, since we have experience with this same hand over here, "strong, 8-9 playing tricks *with or without defensive tricks* or 22-24 balanced"?

 

The thing is that most people think that a 2♣ hand with "8-9 playing tricks" will expect partner to hit 4♠ with a balanced yarborough, and expect to set it. If the potential lack of defence isn't made clear - despite the fact that their agreement is exactly what the words say - then I think the opponents are inferiorly disclosed.

 

As far as that other Multi is concerned, he did mention that the 17-24 "any shortage" was 4441, right?

[lamford]

How about, since we have experience with this same hand over here, "strong, 8-9 playing tricks *with or without defensive tricks* or 22-24 balanced"?

 

The thing is that most people think that a 2♣ hand with "8-9 playing tricks" will expect partner to hit 4♠ with a balanced yarborough, and expect to set it. If the potential lack of defence isn't made clear - despite the fact that their agreement is exactly what the words say - then I think the opponents are inferiorly disclosed.

 

As far as that other Multi is concerned, he did mention that the 17-24 "any shortage" was 4441, right?

No, he went to the trouble of adding "can be 4450 with a five-card minor as well".

 

I actually think that the announcement for this 2C should just be "strong", in the same way as a 2C Precision opening is "intermediate". These are standard announcements and players have a duty to find out what they mean. The OB defines that "strong" means as a minimum one of the three hand types stated. You would not announce "promises 1.5 quick tricks" if that was your requirement for an opening bid. The CC should, of course, contain much more information. Here it stated as the TD reported. And yes, I know that 2C is alerted but I think a better method would be an announcement, with the wording decided by the L&E.

 

But, as the OB stands, we have a duty to give "adequate disclosure" of hands under 10B4(a). It is clearly in the sub-set of "strong", so that must be stated, and I think "8/9 playing tricks is needed", if that is a requirement. The players can add whether it has defensive tricks, whether they have a stronger bid available and how far it is forcing as well if they choose. If it is described as strong, then "containing opening values" seems to be a tautology. In practice, my experience is that "strong" on its own is used by around 90% of players, and 10% give up to three more words. None gives any more.

 

And as for "with or without defensive tricks", why not "with or without a void" or "with or without a solid suit", or "with or without the curse of Scotland" if we want to be really helpful?

[AlexJonson]

Isn't 2C alertable rather than announced? I notice a couple of people have mentioned announcements.

 

Anyway, I don't see a problem with the bidding or disclosure on this hand.

 

Huge numbers of people in the EBU play something like the agreements you mention, and I can't imagine

thinking for one moment that I was poorly informed when they turn up with this hand - especially since it is

a hand type that generated some debate and presumably determined the wording in the current Orange Book.

[lamford]

Isn't 2C alertable rather than announced? I notice a couple of people have mentioned announcements.

 

Anyway, I don't see a problem with the bidding or disclosure on this hand.

 

Huge numbers of people in the EBU play something like the agreements you mention, and I can't imagine

thinking for one moment that I was poorly informed when they turn up with this hand - especially since it is

a hand type that generated some debate and presumably determined the wording in the current Orange Book.

Yes it was alerted; sorry if I got that wrong anywhere. The explanation was "strong, 8/9 playing tricks or 23-24 balanced". And I agree with your other remarks.

[PeterAlan]

Isn't 2C alertable rather than announced? I notice a couple of people have mentioned announcements.

Mea culpa - I said "announce" in my earlier post when I should have said "describe". I do know the EBU announcing and alerting boundaries!

 

I really can't get worked up about this case (my previous post was of course ironic). This has been a very familiar area of contention in the EBU in recent years, and I would have thought that any player in the Crockfords finals (Plate or Cup) would have been aware of the 2007 change to OB that introduced the "Extended Rule of 25". Since the hand meets those requirements, I would have thought just "Strong" to be the appropriate statement of strength (from the standard announcement terms), and "23-24 balanced or 8/9 playing tricks meeting the Extended Rule of 25" should be sufficient as a descriptive disclosure (if that is indeed what the pair were playing; there seems to be some suggestion that their agreement limits this further by requiring somewhat stronger parameters; if so, there could be a case for elaborating the description).

[nige1]

In the ACBL, the TD would rule that "strong" means whatever the player concerned wants it to mean, so this hand perforce meets the definition. In the EBU, "strong" is defined in OB 10.4: So this hand meets the EBU's definition as well. Result stands.

IMO, Blackshoe covered all angles in the first reply to the OP.

[RMB1]

I propose that any two bid be allowed that the partnership describes as 'string'.

Furthermore, a partnership may use the word 'string' to mean whatever it chooses.

 

Is that any different from the ACBL position? Is it a useful regulation?

[bluejak]

The implication of the OB is that strong is qualified by adding "8/9 playing tricks" to show that it is a 10B4(a) hand, so I think you will find those that just peruse the OB using this form of wording. And it is very clear that all of (a), (b) and ( c) are subsets of "strong". Do you disagree with this?

Yes. To a lot of people strong implies top cards. The EBU regulation allows "strong" 2-bids without the top cards subject to adequate disclosure. Not mentioning the lack of top cards strength is not adequate disclosure.

 

How about, since we have experience with this same hand over here, "strong, 8-9 playing tricks *with or without defensive tricks* or 22-24 balanced"?

Excellent.

 

Huge numbers of people in the EBU play something like the agreements you mention, and I can't imagine thinking for one moment that I was poorly informed when they turn up with this hand - especially since it is a hand type that generated some debate and presumably determined the wording in the current Orange Book.

The wording is based on adequate disclosure of openings without the top card structure. Not mentioning the lack of top cards strength is not adequate disclosure.

[blackshoe]

Doesn't sound like it. No.

 

In theory, there is a limit to what a partnership can call "strong". Not sure, myself, exactly where the limit is. I frequently see "8 1/2 PT" written on SCs. But consider this hand:[hv=pc=n&n=sakqj8762hj54dcj2]133|100[/hv]

I've had a ruling, supported by later correspondence with both Mike Flader, who writes the "Ruling The Game" column for the ACBL Bulletin, and the then CTD of the ACBL, that this is "not a psych, but it's close". I asked "how close?" and "what would make it a psych?", but I never got an answer to those questions. This hand is 8 PT, so not much of a deviation from 8 1/2. I suppose without one of the top 3 spades, so it would be 7 or 7 1/2 PT, would qualify.

[StevenG]

Why does the word "strong" need to be used at all? Around my way, nobody ever uses it here. They just say "8 playing tricks or 19-20 balanced", or whatever the details of their agreement. It's assumed that it's OB compliant, which in practice means Extended Rule of 25, and most players are well aware that there are restrictions, even if they don't know exactly what those restrictions are.

 

Anyway, that fact that these hands are legal at Level 3, and that there is no mixing of strong and non-strong at Level 3, says that the EBU have defined this type of hand as strong, whatever the preferences of some players.

[jallerton]

2♣ was artificial and strong, one- or two-suited with eight or nine playing tricks or 23-24 hcp balanced. They have a stronger opening bid available in 2♦, which is artificial and game-forcing.

 

The problem with Burn's description is that a hand something like KQJ10xxx AKxx xx none would certainly qualify, on the ground that it has 8-9 playing tricks, and it seems that dealing with the rare case of eight solid is certainly not full disclosure. 23/24 balanced or 8/9 playing tricks with opening values seems to be correct, if you believe "strong" is deceptive, although I don't - players have a duty to familiarise themselves with the definition of strong therein. The implication of the OB is that strong is qualified by adding "8/9 playing tricks" to show that it is a 10B4(a) hand, so I think you will find those that just peruse the OB using this form of wording. And it is very clear that all of (a), (b) and ( c) are subsets of "strong". Do you disagree with this?

 

Yes. To a lot of people strong implies top cards. The EBU regulation allows "strong" 2-bids without the top cards subject to adequate disclosure. Not mentioning the lack of top cards strength is not adequate disclosure.

 

It doesn't happen too often, but I agree with Paul on this one. The Orange Book expressly defined the word "strong" in the context of 2-level opening bids. If a player describes as "strong" an agreement which meets this Orange Book definition of "strong", how can that be misinformation?

 

Note that the 2♣ bid was not described as showing a "strong Two" which might be interpreted as having a more specialised meaning.

 

Of course, some people might have different ideas of what different words mean. If someone tells me that they are playing "intermediate" jump overcalls then I always ask then what their definition of "intermediate" is; most answers differ. The same goes for "strong" jump overcalls.

 

In the case in this thread, if South had wanted to know what was meant by "strong", she could have asked. Her statement to the TD: "had she known it could have been as weak as this she would have made the obvious double of the final contract" is probably more accurately replaced by: "had she known all four hands she would have made the obvious double of the final contract".

[VixTD]

In the case in this thread, if South had wanted to know what was meant by "strong", she could have asked. Her statement to the TD: "had she known it could have been as weak as this she would have made the obvious double of the final contract" is probably more accurately replaced by: "had she known all four hands she would have made the obvious double of the final contract".

Actually South argued further that had she known it could have been as strong as both EW agreed it should have been (i.e. the same hand with another suit stopped) she would also have doubled. So her idea of "strong" is even further removed from this.

[lamford]

It doesn't happen too often, but I agree with Paul on this one.

Actually, I think I agree with your opinion well over half the time on here (and no, I have not kept records); and the same in EBU appeals booklets. So I suppose the reverse must apply.

[kevperk]

Some people here use "strong" to refer to meeting the requirements in the OB. Some use it to refer to the high card strength of the hand. Since the meaning being referenced may not be clear to the recipients, full disclosure dictates that more be done to insure the correct meaning is understood.

[dburn]

One of the less desirable consequences of announcements - indeed, one of the less desirable consequences of any regime that requires disclosure to conform to some rule set, rather than to some notion of telling the opponents what your methods are - is that the principle of full disclosure will fail to be implemented within the rule set.

 

This would not matter very much if players were encouraged to follow the principle of full disclosure, rather than to conform to the rule set. Unfortunately, in England players are not only encouraged to conform to the rule set, but are actively discouraged both from telling the opponents what their methods are and from finding out what their opponents' methods are. If the guy to my left can open eight solid and a king with a bid that will be described by the guy to my right as "strong", then I (well, not I personally, for I've seen their sort before, but "I" as someone who might be cowed into not bidding when I ought to bid) would have a legitimate grievance if it turns out that I failed to bid when I ought to bid on some marginal hand.

 

It is not even enough as a practical matter for my RHO to say "strong within the parameters of OB X.Y.whatever". The very fact that he has uttered the word "strong" will place my partnership, unless very experienced, on the back foot - any overcall we make will be considered obstructive rather than constructive, and we may well fail to realise the full potential of our hands just because someone told us that his partner's 13-hcp opening with no sure defensive tricks was "strong".

 

That is why I said (and still say, despite lamford's objection) that if a partnership can make an opening that will be described as "strong" despite the absence of very much strength at all outside the long suit, it is proper for that possibility to be disclosed despite the "fact" that full disclosure would "focus on the wrong hand type". The very fact that the opener might have the wrong hand type is precisely the point on which full disclosure should cast light.

 

I had better stop here, for otherwise I might be compelled to agree with bluejak twice in one evening. Mind you, he is the guy who thinks that disclosure should be implemented by rule sets, while I think it should be implemented conversationally. East is East, and...

[PeterAlan]

dburn, I agree that the problem arises in the nature of the regulatory regime and in the expectations generated by the word "strong", but I'm not sure that the answer lies in anything other than adapting one's expectations.

 

The traditional Acol strong 2 (in a suit, as opposed to the conventional 2♣) was a "hand of power and quality", which implied both strength in offence and (reasonable) strength in defence. The OB definition of "strong", by way of contrast, embraces a much wider spectrum, ranging from hands such as the one in question (which has plenty of offensive strength, but very little defensive) to some balanced 16 counts, which could well have little offensive strength but considerable defensive.

 

I agree that this is a consequence of the introduction of announcements, which mean that every announceable (ie natural) 2-suit opening bid has to be categorised one-dimensionally as "weak", "intermediate" or "strong". The boundaries delineating the hands defined in OB 10B4 as "strong" were presumably settled where they were because it was felt that to describe the borderline hands as "intermediate" would be more misleading, and more descriptive two-dimensional announcement categories weren't feasible let alone practical. The real problem is that an agreement to open any 8+ PT hand in this way is very wide-ranging, so if one is opened against you then you have no real indication of its defensive strength; all you can assume (where, as here, the bid also embraces 23-24 balanced) is that it's strong in offence. In that respect, it's a bit like a Multi without any weak options, but if we manage to cope with full-blown Multis why can't we cope with more limited, better-defined ones?

 

Suppose that a pair's agreement is that all such 8+ playing trick hands [meeting OB 10B4(a)] are opened with a natural 2-bid in the suit in question. Then each would have to be announced under OB 5D1 as "strong" (together with whatever "forcing" agreement applied). Now consider the case where all such hands, as here, are bundled into one artificial opening 2-bid (2♣), which is alerted rather than announced. Surely consistency requires that the same term is used when the SC / partner of the opening bidder is required to describe the bid [delineating "the range into which the bid falls"]?

 

This leads me reluctantly to the view that what has to change is the expectation of what "strong" means, to bring it into line with whatever the OB says it is from time to time. Maybe it's because I've not been playing very long, and have grown up with essentially the current OB and its announcements, but I don't think that I have a problem with this. And it strikes me as slightly odd that one is expected to know the requirements of sections 4, 5 & 10 of OB in their fullest possible detail when making one's own side's announcements, alerts, disclosures and explanations, but can not be assumed to have the same knowledge when receiving them. (I realise that you only need to be fully aware of the sections applicable to your own agreements, but these are the general rather than the agreement-specific ones.)

[lamford]

It is not even enough as a practical matter for my RHO to say "strong within the parameters of OB X.Y.whatever". The very fact that he has uttered the word "strong" will place my partnership, unless very experienced, on the back foot - any overcall we make will be considered obstructive rather than constructive, and we may well fail to realise the full potential of our hands just because someone told us that his partner's 13-hcp opening with no sure defensive tricks was "strong".

Are you not really arguing that the inclusion of hands in the "strong" section of the OB that are not viewed by some people as strong is an error, and "intermediate to strong" is perhaps a better description of them? One cannot expect players to explain their methods other than succinctly after a wide-meaning opening bid.

[mjj29]

Suppose that a pair's agreement is that all such 8+ playing trick hands [meeting OB 10B4(a)] are opened with a natural 2-bid in the suit in question. Then each would have to be announced under OB 5D1 as "strong" (together with whatever "forcing" agreement applied). Now consider the case where all such hands, as here, are bundled into one artificial opening 2-bid (2♣), which is alerted rather than announced. Surely consistency requires that the same term is used when the SC / partner of the opening bidder is required to describe the bid [delineating "the range into which the bid falls"]?

 

If this includes 8 tricks hands with only opening strength I would expect them to be announced 'intermediate to strong' and not just 'strong'. OB 5D1 does not specify which hands should be announced as 'strong' and which should be announced as 'intermediate'. The new 5D2 does allow for 'intermediate to strong' etc for wide ranging openings, which I think this qualifies as.

 

Given that would be the announcement if it were natural I would hope for some mention of the "intermediate to ..." in the description of the artificial 2 clubs.

[lamford]

Given that would be the announcement if it were natural I would hope for some mention of the "intermediate to ..." in the description of the artificial 2 clubs.

But then the SB will claim MI because it should have been described as "strong". A keen student of the OB, he will argue that he would not have bid, and gone for 1100, except the term "intermediate" made it seem safer to come in. And it is ridiculous to include intermediate in a hand that can be 23-24 balanced.

[f0rdy]

 

Huge numbers of people in the EBU play something like the agreements you mention, ...

 

Is that true though? I think this is the crux of the matter; my impression of most people I've come across playing something they call Benji is that they think 2C is X-Y balanced, or an acol two in any suit. That is, "a hand of power and quality", or whatever the commonly quoted phrase is.

If opposition is accustomed to that use of the name Benji, they will not be expecting to see a solid pre-empt opened 2C, whichever of "8-9 playing tricks", "strong", or "meeting the requirements of OB10.4" you use to describe it.

I assume that is why, in permitting this style of intermediate+ multi 2C, the EBU include a phrase asking its practitioners to take even more care of full disclosure than normal, precisely because it tends to involve the unexpected use of a convention's name.

 

It would be nice if this principle could be extended to the use of "Michaels" on semi-balanced hands, or "we play normal take-out doubles" from someone who doubles a natural 1S opening on KJxx Ax Kxxx Qxx. The difference is that those who play either of these "treatments" tend to know no better; in my experience, those who play a Benji 2C as promising only offensive strength have a tendency to be decent (or better) players, and understand the disclosure issues at least a little.

 

Of course, it would all be much easier if we could drop all but the most uncontroversial convention names, and revert to descriptions. The most astounding misuse of a convention name I've come across recently happened as we sat down at one pair's table for a 2-board round:

Them: "We play Benji Acol"

Us: "OK, we play 5cM, weak NT, 3 weak twos"

Them: "But you might want to look at our 2C, it could be a weak two in diamonds"

Me to partner (raised eyebrow): "OK, we'll play 2D as X, double as Y"

Them: "Oh, and our 2N opening is a bad pre-empt in either minor"

Me: "..."