Brighton 8 (EBU)

[blackshoe]

I did consider approachng the EW pair at a later round and warning them that they needed to disclose their methods more fully, but I decided against it. It might stoke the idea that the ruling you get depends on which director happens to answer your call.

As it clearly did in this case. A more dangerous precedent would be that it might stoke the idea that if you don't like one director's ruling, you should go find another director.

[lamford]

The relevant regulation states that opening bids from 2♣ to 3♠ that don't promise an anchor suit or an unspecified suit of at least five cards must conform to the "extended rule of 25" as follows:

It seems to me that this is only a requirement if the bid is described as strong and artificial. As far as I can see one can open 2 of anything, showing, much as you suggest, under 7C1B(iv): Any combination of meanings that show either or both of 1) at least five cards in an unspecified suit which may not be the suit opened <snip>

 

So, playing 2♣ or 2♦ to show an unspecified five-card suit of defined strength appears to be legal. The putative infraction is describing it as "Benjamin" or "strong".

 

If all the Benjy players started putting something like "unspecified five-card or longer suit, 7-22 HCP" on their CCs, then opponents would be less informed, I fear. On another note, the use of "may not" in the above clause 7C1B(iv) is ambiguous, in that "may not be" can mean "need not be", but could also mean "must not be". I presume the former meaning is intended, in which case "need not be" should be substituted in the next edition.

[StevenG]

Those who formulate the regulations have decided that since the term "8PT" is traditionally associated with a strong hand then it will not do as a description of a pre-emptive hand.

I can't see that this is stated anywhere in the (brand-new) Blue Book. Are players expected to be psychic?

[gnasher]

As far as I can see one can open 2 of anything, showing, much as you suggest, under 7C1B(iv): Any combination of meanings that show either or both of 1) at least five cards in an unspecified suit which may not be the suit opened <snip>

 

So, playing 2♣ or 2♦ to show an unspecified five-card suit of defined strength appears to be legal.

Almost, but you seem not to have taken account of the words "which may not be the suit opened".

 

You are allowed an ER25 strong option as well, so it's legal to play 2♣ as a non-ER25 hand with diamonds, hearts or spades, or an ER25 hand with clubs. Similarly, you can play 2♦ as a non-ER25 hand with clubs, hearts or spades, or an ER25 hand with diamonds.

 

In the OP they opened 2♣ holding diamonds, so I agree that it's permitted to agree to open 2♣ on this hand.

 

The putative infraction is describing it as "Benjamin" or "strong".

That's not the only possible infraction. If they agreed to play an illegal method and then used it, they have broken the rules, regardless of whether the hand fell within the parameters of a method that would be permitted.

 

If we agree to play a 2♥ opening as a weak two in a major, and then I open it on a hand with spades, that's still against the rules, even though it's legal to play a 2♥ opening as showing spades only. This is no different.

[lamford]

Almost, but you seem not to have taken account of the words "which may not be the suit opened".

I did, and commented on the wording. On reflection I think it is intended to mean "must not be the suit opened". But people may not realise that and may not think the Blue Book will contain an ambiguous phrase. VixTD did not seem to realise that it could not include the suit opened in his précis of what was permitted. And I guessed wrong too.

 

And yes, an illegal method will be punished even if the bid is not illegal. But they can certainly agree to open this hand 2♣ if properly described.

[campboy]

I did, and commented on the wording. On reflection I think it is intended to mean "must not be the suit opened". But people may not realise that and may not think the Blue Book will contain an ambiguous phrase.

Well, they might not think the phrase is ambiguous. But they will probably realise that if the suit is "unspecified" it can hardly be necessary to add that it isn't always the suit opened. They might even be familiar with the preamble to the laws in which "may not" is defined to be a strong prohibition.

[VixTD]

In the OP they opened 2♣ holding diamonds, so I agree that it's permitted to agree to open 2♣ on this hand.

It's not permitted just because they happened to have diamonds in this instance. The meaning of the opening bid encompassed a strong two in clubs and so it is not allowed unless it meets the requirements of ER25. (I'm sure this is what you meant - i.e. it would be permitted to open 2♣ on this hand, so long as there was no possibility the long suit was clubs.)

 

On reflection I think it is intended to mean "must not be the suit opened". But people may not realise that and may not think the Blue Book will contain an ambiguous phrase. VixTD did not seem to realise that it could not include the suit opened in his précis of what was permitted.

No, I did realise that, but it clearly didn't apply in this case as the EW pair include the suit bid as one of their possible suits.

 

I did wonder for some time whether "which may not be the suit opened" should be understood as "which doesn't have to be the suit opened" or "which must not be the suit opened". I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be the latter. At least it's an improvement on the ghastly "has a specification that does not include holding at least four cards in the suit bid...." of OB12G7(b)(2).

[nige1]

Those who formulate the regulations (not local TDs, Nigel) have decided that since the term "8PT" is traditionally associated with a strong hand then it will not do as a description of a pre-emptive hand.

I can't see that this is stated anywhere in the (brand-new) Blue Book. Are players expected to be psychic?

I decided it did have eight clear-cut tricks and the points normally associated with a one-level opener, but that it was not being adequately disclosed, and as that disclosure is part of the regulation permitting its use, it was not a permitted call.

As I was on my way back to the table I found they had finished the hand and collared another TD for a ruling rather than wait for me. I overhead them read from the Blue Book and then say "Yes, that's fine, it's got eight clear-cut tricks". I left them to it.

I agree with StevenG's implication that EBU rulings should comply with explicit rules in the Blue Book. The director seems to have done the necessary homework and ruled straight from the new book.

[lamford]

I did wonder for some time whether "which may not be the suit opened" should be understood as "which doesn't have to be the suit opened" or "which must not be the suit opened". I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be the latter. At least it's an improvement on the ghastly "has a specification that does not include holding at least four cards in the suit bid...." of OB12G7(b)(2).

Given that it is relatively easy to make it unambiguous, it is not that much of an improvement. Overall, however, the Blue Book does seem simpler and clearer.

[nige1]

But people may not realise that and may not think the Blue Book will contain an ambiguous phrase.

:) The thought-police strike again :) IMO the rule-books should simply describe procedures, using "must" or "should" where necessary (not both -- one or the other -- consistently).

[lamford]

You are allowed an ER25 strong option as well, so it's legal to play 2♣ as a non-ER25 hand with diamonds, hearts or spades, or an ER25 hand with clubs. Similarly, you can play 2♦ as a non-ER25 hand with clubs, hearts or spades, or an ER25 hand with diamonds.

I presume one can play 2C as game-forcing, or a weak two in a suit other than clubs, and 2D as strong balanced, weak with a major, or a club pre-empt. That looks harder to defend against than normal multis, and I am surprised that I have not come across it at level 4. One can, instead, include pre-emptive "Benji" hands with the 2C or 2D bid, except that one cannot include the suit bid there.

[mycroft]

I believe the argument is "this agreement is legal, as this hand has 8 clear-cut tricks, and also the described 8 playing tricks" - but calling it "Benjamin" is misleading because the 8PT hand doesn't have any defence.

 

Given I just said that "NF Stayman" with a hand that LHO would never have considered bidding Stayman on isn't misexplaining, I would be on shakier ground than others if I gave that argument. But I have issues with this in the ACBL as well (more so, I would assume).

 

It's not the Blue Book ruling of "ER25" that is (mostly) in issue - of whether this is legal; it's whether it was adequately explained. The third leg of that stool is "is it good bridge?" but (if you search my history) that also isn't relevant to whether it's legal or whether it's adequately explained.

[Finch]

Well, they might not think the phrase is ambiguous. But they will probably realise that if the suit is "unspecified" it can hardly be necessary to add that it isn't always the suit opened. They might even be familiar with the preamble to the laws in which "may not" is defined to be a strong prohibition.

 

This is certainly a hint.

 

Those who haven't learned the law book but have read the Blue Book might have continued on the same page to read the notes to what 2-level bids are permitted, to find (my emphasis)

"Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit which may or may not have length in the suit opened are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted."

 

This follows on from the para saying that any ER25 hands are allowed, although the quoted sentence would have been improved had it specified 'non-ER25' hands.

[jallerton]

It doesn't say "enough high card strength to make the hand a one-level opening". It says "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening". Does xxx xxx AKQJ Jxx have the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening? If it doesn't, then nor does the hand in the original post. Maybe I'm reading the rules too literally, though.

 

No, you are not reading the rules too literally. Readers should be entitled to assume that regulations mean whatever they say. I agree that "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening" could be anything between 8 and 12 HCP. A few years ago I wrote to the L&EC, requesting that they define what they considered to be "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening" in this context. They refused to provide an answer! It's hard to see why they bothered going into so much detail as to what constitutes "8 clear cut tricks" when it's not clear whether even the example hands they quote meet the "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening" criterion.

 

You can often check their CC for this. Many put 11+ or 12+ as their minimum opening range for an opening bid and, if they put nothing, then they are subject to the director's whim (I probably mean assessment).

 

Yes, but the phrase "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening" does not have the same meaning as "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening for this pair".

[paulg]

but the phrase "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening" does not have the same meaning as "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening for this pair".

As you point out, only one of these may be defined.

[blackshoe]

If we agree to play a 2♥ opening as a weak two in a major, and then I open it on a hand with spades, that's still against the rules, even though it's legal to play a 2♥ opening as showing spades only. This is no different.

If you agree to play a 2♥ opening as a weak two in either major, and that agreement is illegal in the event in which you're playing, it's illegal whether or not you ever open 2 of a major.

[lamford]

"Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit which may or may not have length in the suit opened are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted."

I agree they are difficult to defend against. But BB section 7C1B(iv) contradicts the above in that a three-suit-multi without an 'anchor' suit is permitted: "Any combination of meanings that show either or both of 1) at least five cards in an unspecified suit which [must] not be the suit opened. <snip>"

 

So, one can play that 2C and 2D show one of three suits (not including the suit opened) of at least five cards with presumably any strength. One might show a six-card suit and the other a five, for example. Or am I missing something?

[billw55]

If they are hard to defend against, IMO all the more reason to allow them in tournaments. Fine, club bridge can be a protected social event, but tournaments should be competitive.

[lamford]

If they are hard to defend against, IMO all the more reason to allow them in tournaments. Fine, club bridge can be a protected social event, but tournaments should be competitive.

I think one argument is that a two-board round, which is the most common type of tournament bridge played by perhaps half the populace, should have relatively simple conventions. These events are usually level 4 in Britain, while some top events are level 5. The contradiction in the Blue Book was the main issue I was raising, having conceded the grammatical issue.

[campboy]

I agree they are difficult to defend against. But BB section 7C1B(iv) contradicts the above in that a three-suit-multi without an 'anchor' suit is permitted: "Any combination of meanings that show either or both of 1) at least five cards in an unspecified suit which [must] not be the suit opened. <snip>"

Perhaps you are merely pointing out that the use of "may" is inconsistent here, but the sentence Frances quoted is intended to describe opening bids which have (non-strong) options some of which involve length in the suit opened, and which have no anchor suit. None of the options in what you describe involves length in the suit opened. Of course it is possible that when opening 2♦ to show a weak two in some other suit you will happen to hold four diamonds by coincidence, but that is true even for a normal multi and is addressed by the sentence immediately following the one Frances quoted.

[lamford]

Perhaps you are merely pointing out that the use of "may" is inconsistent here, but the sentence Frances quoted is intended to describe opening bids which have (non-strong) options some of which involve length in the suit opened, and which have no anchor suit. None of the options in what you describe involves length in the suit opened. Of course it is possible that when opening 2♦ to show a weak two in some other suit you will happen to hold four diamonds by coincidence, but that is true even for a normal multi and is addressed by the sentence immediately following the one Frances quoted.

I have accepted that the "may not" in 7C1B(iv) is interpreted as "must not", so let us not cloud the issue by continuing to discuss that. I was drawing attention to the statement in the Blue Book, as quoted by Frances:

 

"Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit which may or may not have length in the suit opened are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted."

 

An opening bid of 2C or 2D showing an unspecified 5-card suit other than the suit opened, has no 'anchor' suit, may or may not have length in the suit opened and is particularly difficult to defend against. But it is permitted. And it is different to a normal multi in that the suit can be one of three, but not the suit opened.

 

Or do we think "may or may not" is different to the expected meaning here? Using "may not" to mean "must not" would be very confusing here!

 

PS I think I have worked out what the BB is intending to say. Is it:

 

"Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit which either promise or deny length in the suit opened are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted"?

Edited September 21, 2013 by lamford

[campboy]

An opening bid of 2C or 2D showing an unspecified 5-card suit other than the suit opened, has no 'anchor' suit, may or may not have length in the suit opened and is particularly difficult to defend against. But it is permitted. And it is different to a normal multi in that the suit can be one of three, but not the suit opened.

But the only way it can have length in the suit opened is by coincidence: you have a weak hand with hearts which happens to have a club side-suit. The full paragraph that Frances' quote comes from is

 

Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit which may or may not have length in the suit opened are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted. However, players are permitted to open (say) 2♦ showing a weak two in either major while coincidentally also holding diamond length, as long as they have no specific understanding to do so.

[lamford]

But the only way it can have length in the suit opened is by coincidence: you have a weak hand with hearts which happens to have a club side-suit.

So you think the following statement is true: "Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit which may or may not have length in the suit opened are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted."? I do not, and it should say, "which are only permitted if length in the suit opened is not promised or denied." The next sentence does not clearly correct the error in the previous sentence. And whether or not you have length in the suit opened does not make them any harder to defend against. The lack of an anchor suit does.

[VixTD]

I agree with StevenG's implication that EBU rulings should comply with explicit rules in the Blue Book. The director seems to have done the necessary homework and ruled straight from the new book.

I think they neglected or ignored the requirement in the regulation for proper disclosure.

[barmar]

"Opening suit bids with no 'anchor' suit which may or may not have length in the suit opened are particularly difficult to defend against, which is why they are not permitted."

 

An opening bid of 2C or 2D showing an unspecified 5-card suit other than the suit opened, has no 'anchor' suit, may or may not have length in the suit opened and is particularly difficult to defend against. But it is permitted. And it is different to a normal multi in that the suit can be one of three, but not the suit opened.

"X is prohibited because it has quality Y" does not necessarily mean "all treatments with quality Y should be prohibited." What's usually going on is that Y is just one of several criteria used to decide whether to allow a treatment. It may strongly suggest prohibiting, but it's not sufficient by itself or there may be mitigating factors (e.g. a convention that's very popular might be allowed even though it's difficult to defend against).