Our Strongest Bid

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=sahadk65432ck5432&w=skj942h97542daqc6&n=s3hkqjt863djtcqjt&e=sqt8765hd987ca987&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2c(strong, FG)p3h(positive)p4h(MIN)ppp]399|300[/hv]

Matchpoints. Table Result 4H-1. Lead 7♠.

 

East-West were unhappy at the description of the South hand as game-forcing on this deal from a North London Club last week, but South, who looks and behaves like a Secretary Bird, knew he was on firm ground. North went one off in 4H, but West, Peter the Pedantic Parrot, when he found this was a bottom, asked for a ruling on whether the South hand was game-forcing. He would have overcalled 2S if it had been described differently and all East-Wests had made 12 tricks in at least game in spades, a couple bidding slam and getting doubled. The TD arrived, but SB waved him away. "No need to waste your time, TD", he said. "Any hand that meets the extended rule of 25 qualifies. Blue Book 5C3(b) says 'any hand', which is unambiguous. There is no requirement for suit quality or clear-cut, sure or playing tricks once that has been met. Can we get on with the next board please, and can you give East-West a PP for deliberately wasting time, please."

 

"I am not so sure," replied the TD, "describing that hand as a game-forcing 2C looks like MI to me." E-W might well have bid to their cold spade slam if North had been more descriptive.

 

How do you rule?

[wanoff]

It depends on whether or not, North has given their agreement in full. Also if they have previously opened 2C with similar hands (s)he should say.

[Trinidad]

Being allowed to have a certain agreement and explaining that agreement are two entirely different things.

 

Rik

[lamford]

North described it as "artificial, strong and FG except a 2NT rebid would be 23-24 balanced and could be passed". All as SB advised him to say and which was indeed the agreement. This hand was indeed their minimum but Blue Book compliant.

[billw55]

I'm with SB this time. The agreement was correctly explained and legal per the words of the regulation. Bad bridge is not an infraction.

[pran]

East-West were unhappy at the description of the South hand as game-forcing on this deal from a North London Club last week, but South, who looks and behaves like a Secretary Bird, knew he was on firm ground. North went one off in 4H, but West, Peter the Pedantic Parrot, when he found this was a bottom, asked for a ruling on whether the South hand was game-forcing. He would have overcalled 2S if it had been described differently and all East-Wests had made 12 tricks in at least game in spades, a couple bidding slam and getting doubled. The TD arrived, but SB waved him away. "No need to waste your time, TD", he said.

[...]

How do you rule?

First of all I give SB a substantial PP for his remark. Knowing the laws he should know far better than trying to wave the TD away.

I leave the rest of the ruling to those who are familiar with the relevant regulations.

[sanst]

The hand meets the requirements of the Extended Rule of 25, given in the Blue Book. If NS have the agreement that a 2♣ opening bid is GF, and I haven't seen any proof to the contrary, there is nothing wrong with the bid and the explanation. Whether it's good bridge? I don't think so, but then I don't think that this rule is good for deciding the strength of a hand. A 4333 18HCP hand meets the requirements, but I wouldn't consider it any stronger than a good 1NT.

That SB again acts outrageously by telling the TD to go away and demanding a PP for EW, is nothing new, but he is uncorrectable, no matter what PP's and DP's he gets. The TD should know better than to decide whether the hand is GF. That's up to the player. If N knows SB's habits and he he more often bids hands like this one as GF, he should have included that in the explanation. But I can't remember ever have seen such a hand before.

[Zelandakh]

Did North give a reason for not making a slam try after 4♥? After all, a minimum according to the explanations appears to be 23 balanced and it seems unlikely that 4♥ will be the optimal contract in that case.

[barmar]

ER25 is still better than the situation in ACBL, where the rule is "If you think it's "strong", you can open 2♣." There may be some corner cases like this where crappy hands just barely meet the requirement. But most of the time players who bid like this will be hoist on their own petard when they don't find a suitable hand opposite. When it happens to work out, it's rub of the green.

[lamford]

The hand meets the requirements of the Extended Rule of 25, given in the Blue Book. If NS have the agreement that a 2♣ opening bid is GF, and I haven't seen any proof to the contrary, there is nothing wrong with the bid and the explanation. Whether it's good bridge? I don't think so, but then I don't think that this rule is good for deciding the strength of a hand. A 4333 18HCP hand meets the requirements, but I wouldn't consider it any stronger than a good ANT.

That SB again acts outrageously by telling the TD to go away and demanding a PP for EW, is nothing new, but he is uncorrectable, no matter what PP's and DP's he gets. The TD should know better than to decide whether the hand is GF. That's up to the player. If N knows SB's habits and he he more often bids hands like this one as GF, he should have included that in the explanation. But I can't remember ever have seen such a hand before.

Is it acceptable to explain the hand as strong and FG or should SB's partner also have to explain that any hand that conforms to the extended rule of 25 are included?

[lamford]

Did North give a reason for not making a slam try after 4♥? After all, a minimum according to the explanations appears to be 23 balanced and it seems unlikely that 4♥ will be the optimal contract in that case.

North thought that any better hand than South's would have cued 4C or 4D, and North pointed out that he could not even make game, so a slam-try was out of the question. SB thought his hand was a game-force as partner would pass 1D with xxx xxx Qx Qxxxx and 5C was almost cold opposite a poor 4 count.

[lamford]

I'm with SB this time. The agreement was correctly explained and legal per the words of the regulation. Bad bridge is not an infraction.

SB says that he is pleased you agree with him, but if bad bridge got a complete top with nobody suggesting how EW can get in to the auction safely, he wonders what percentage he would score with good bridge ...

[Zelandakh]

North thought that any better hand than South's would have cued 4C or 4D, and North pointed out that he could not even make game, so a slam-try was out of the question.

This is the point. It looks to be clear that the South hand is not unexpected for North and that their agreement really includes preempts qualifying for the ER25 as well as genuine game forces. That SB has schooled North to give an explanation that specifically does not divulge this, we seem to be in a situation where SB needs to be given a pretty severe penalty and, given the reaction towards the TD and the volume of altercations, a warning about their future club membership.

[Vampyr]

ER25 is still better than the situation in ACBL, where the rule is "If you think it's "strong", you can open 2♣." There may be some corner cases like this where crappy hands just barely meet the requirement. But most of the time players who bid like this will be hoist on their own petard when they don't find a suitable hand opposite. When it happens to work out, it's rub of the green.

 

Is ER25 so good when AKJ98xxx --- xx AJ10 doesn't qualify but AKJ98xx Q xx AJ10 does?

[StevenG]

Is it acceptable to explain the hand as strong and FG or should SB's partner also have to explain that any hand that conforms to the extended rule of 25 are included?

I think you have to wait until they open 2♣ and then stop before game before you can penalise them. Because they did go to game, there is no clear failure to disclose properly.

[lamford]

Is ER25 so good when AKJ98xxx --- xx AJ10 doesn't qualify but AKJ98xx Q xx AJ10 does?

The problem is that there may be hands with only 3 clear-cut tricks, the one in this thread, that qualify under ER25, and hands with 7.4 clear-cut tricks, such as none x AJT8 AKT98xxx which just misses out on both. That is incomparably stronger than the hand in this post, but does not qualify, and because the suit is clubs, it needs to be 8 clear-cut tricks by agreement. The best break is any 3-2 which is 8 tricks. The second-best break on the Barden method is any 4-1 which is I think 6.4 clubs tricks and only one diamond trick a total of 7.4. I actually think the best break is QJ doubleton (no losers) in either hand. The second-best break is therefore equally, QJx, Qxx, Jxx, stiff Q and stiff J, all six tricks. I presume Barden would just consider the worst 4-1s and class this as exactly 7 clear-cut tricks.

[mycroft]

SB, yes, it is legal to have an agreement to open this 2♣. However, the agreement that your partner described does not include this hand in it, and the fact that you coached your partner into giving a carefully worded incomplete explanation implies that you intended to mislead by omission. I'm not going to rule "illegal agreement" - neither the one you have nor the one you describe is illegal (after all, the other way to handle this is that you psyched your agreement, which even you know is illegal, so I'm sure you weren't doing that). Boring misinformation case, nothing to see here, except your comment trying to influence the director to not investigate your potential infraction is, given our experience, a clear violation of L72B3 and L74B5. I'll come back with the ruling on the hand, and after consulting the black book, how we're going to handle the imPropriety.

 

TL;DListen: You've finally hit one of my bugbears (about carefully phrased "disclosure"), I'd say sorry about the bricks about to fall, but that would also be "incomplete disclosure".

 

cf. "Psychic Ogust", "Difference between legality and Alertability/disclosure" in current history.

[lamford]

SB, yes, it is legal to have an agreement to open this 2♣. However, the agreement that your partner described does not include this hand in it, and the fact that you coached your partner into giving a carefully worded incomplete explanation implies that you intended to mislead by omission.

Not so. Just announcing "strong" would have been enough. As SB pointed out, that has a specific meaning of ONE of:

a) 16 HCPs

b) Extended rule of 25

c) 10 HCPs and 8 clear-cut tricks in a suit

 

As SB said to the TD, off the record, "I am not paid to recite the Blue Book because the opponent is too lazy to look up what "strong" means in advance."

[Cyberyeti]

Describing a bid as game forcing is always insufficient, that doesn't describe the hand at all, merely how partner treats it.

 

The conjunction of strong GF has taken a well understood connotation in context of a 2♣ bid of something other than the sort of hand opener has. If you play weird methods, you need to describe them better.

[eagles123]

the law is ***** there's already been 600+ post discussion on bridgewinners about how ***** the law is, do we really need another point proving mission?

[mycroft]

This is the same argument put in a different shell and equally wrong.

 

Whether your agreement is legal or not is one issue. Terms that are defined to allow simple(ish) descriptions of what is legal and what is not are fine, but irrelevant to disclosure.

 

How you describe it to the opponents is another issue. The opponents need to be able to understand what your bids mean, and since "strong" - by that definition - is imprecise (so, which ONE of: do you use?) it can not be full disclosure. If SB stated that "we will open all ER25 hands with 2♣", then a) I'm not sure people would believe him, but b) he'd be complete, if that were in fact their agreement.

 

SB is not paid to recite the Blue Book. Nor is he required to. He is, however, required to fully disclose his agreements, and he must insure that those agreements are Blue Book legal for the game he is playing. He has carefully done exactly one of those things.

 

"artificial, strong and FG except a 2NT rebid would be 23-24 balanced and could be passed." Find anyone who believes that that disclosure of their agreement - which, I agree, is BB legal - matches their actual agreement, if this hand is part of it - which, I agree, is *also* BB legal - and who is not SB or one of his paid cronies, and you might have a case. "We will frequently open Rule of 25 hands 2♣ without concern over playing or defensive tricks" - now there you've got a case. But while it might have worked this time, because it's tough to overcall with these E-W hands IRL, it would blunt the preemptive power most of the time SB tries this, no?

 

"Yes, they know what 'strong' means in the Blue Book. They also know what 'strong' usually means for a 2♣ opener. If there is a potential for confusion, it is your requirement under Full Disclosure to resolve it, not theirs to magically guess what your definition of 'strong' is."

 

As I said the last time, this is a misinformation, or more accurately, creatively incomplete information, case; not an illegal call. That doesn't mean SB gets away with it, it just means he doesn't get the "use of illegal agreement" adjustments/penalties.

 

My go-to for this is what I call "Psychic Ogust"; 2M-2NT "asks about suit and hand quality", being the careful explanation to hide "frequently used as a preemptive raise, which we get away with a lot more than we should by our opponents not knowing about this tactic." Note that *all* responses are Blue Book legal (only openers and overcalls are regulated), so does that mean I can use "a permitted response" as full disclosure of all my responses?

[lamford]

the law is ***** there's already been 600+ post discussion on bridgewinners about how ***** the law is, do we really need another point proving mission?

As the opposite situation arose last Tuesday, where a hand was described as artificial, strong and FG, whereas it does not seem to meet that description but technically does, the other side of the coin is being presented. I think the fact that compliant Tottenham is opened 2C is much worse than the fact that some non-compliant very strong hands are not allowed.

[lamford]

This is the same argument put in a different shell and equally wrong.

<big snip>

does that mean I can use "a permitted response" as full disclosure of all my responses?

SB would reply: "I am told what to say by the Blue Book, and I just use the terminology therein and ensure that I fully comply. If the opponent does not like that, he can write to the L&E but should not bend my ear about it. I am not interested. If my explanation should be different, then it should be made clear in the regulations".

[blackshoe]

East-West were unhappy at the description of the South hand as game-forcing…

The description was not of the South hand it was of the partnership understanding regarding the meaning of the bid.

[pran]

That SB again acts outrageously by telling the TD to go away and demanding a PP for EW, is nothing new, but he is uncorrectable, no matter what PP's and DP's he gets.

Is an alleged fact that he is uncorrectable a valid reason for not imposing a PP?

 

IMHO this is instead a valid reason for consistently giving him a PP equivalent to 100% score on a board each time he acts like this.