Our Strongest Bid

[wanoff]

Blue Book 2 A 1

All partnership understandings, including implicit understandings and practices of the

partnership (including those that arise by partnership experience), must be fully disclosed to

opponents.

 

What part of 'Fully disclosed' do Barmar and the rest not understand ?

Against weak opponents you might even explain what the extended rule of 25 actually means ie crap such as AQ KQ K Jxxxxxxx.

 

bye

[blackshoe]

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.

How does one win four tenths of a trick?

[barmar]

How does one win four tenths of a trick?

Ask the parents in the average family, who have 2.5 children.

[blackshoe]

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."

What part of "full disclosure" does the SB not understand? What would he say to an opponent who responded to his "strong" explanation with "I don't understand what that means. Please explain further"?

[blackshoe]

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".

If that's how SB replies to an opponent's "please explain further" then his 50% of a top DP for disrespecting the TD just went to 100%.

[barmar]

What part of 'Fully disclosed' do Barmar and the rest not understand ?

I think I may have misunderstood what was going on. From the ensuing posts, I'm now in the anti-SB camp (that was close!).

 

The Blue Book describes what agreements are allowed. But you can't just refer to it in an explanation -- it's not adequate to say "our strong 2♣ conforms to one of the definitions of 'strong' in the BB." The BB allows a variety of agreements, and the opponents need to know what your specific agreement is, not just that it's one of the ones that are allowed.

[Trinidad]

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.

And you consider this a credible explanation when North passes 4♥ with a hand that really cannot have more than 6 losers?

 

I think it would be appropriate to add "Though the auction is mechanistically forcing to game regardless of my hand (except after a 2NT rebid by opener), opener doesnot need the values to make a game force sensible." or "It meets the EBU definition of a strong bid, but it doesn't need to meet the sensible bridge player's definition of a strong bid."

 

Full disclosure is something that you don't hold back on.

 

Rik

[lamford]

If that's how SB replies to an opponent's "please explain further" then his 50% of a top DP for disrespecting the TD just went to 100%.

No, and also effectively in reply to Rik's post, if SB were asked to explain further, he (and his partner) would state that all hands that meet one or more of the three requirements in the Blue Book, as having 16 HCP, meeting the extended rule of 25, or having 10 HCPs and 8 clear-cut tricks will be opened a FG 2C, without exception. If asked he will give another example of a hand that he recently opened a FG 2C which was ♠QJ ♥QJ ♦KQ32 ♣KQ432 which also had the effect of talking the vulnerable opponents out of 4M (although it did lead to a hopeless 3NT-4, that was still a useful 11 IMP pick-up). Another hand which had 10 HCP and eight clear-cut tricks was ♠J ♥2 ♦KQJT9 ♣QJT987 which again talked the opponents out of 4M.

 

As SB responded to the TD, "Only a retard will be unable to establish the full set of hands on which we will open 2C from my partner's comprehensive and exhaustive explanation. It is not my job to comply with the spirit of the Law, only its letter".

 

Personally I agree with Mycroft, Trinidad and Barmar that this behaviour is unacceptable, but there is absolutely nothing the regulatory authorities can do about it. They are hoisted on their own petard.

[Lanor Fow]

I don't believe game forcing is a correct description of any hand that fulfills part 1 or 2 of the ER25. This part of a desciription of what can be considered strong according to regulations, not what is a GF hand. Even if it were just these two parts, I would not consider this disclosure enough when asked about the bid, and would rule MI.

 

It is even clearer if the bid can conform to part three (10+ points and 8 clear cut tricks) of the definition of ER25, as this specifically states "subject to proper disclosure". It would not be enough to describe a bid containing hands that fit part three and not parts 1 or 2 'Strong', and certainly not enough to describe them as 'GF or 23+bal'.

 

As others have said, just because SB can legally open these hands 2c, doesn't stop him having to disclose correctly.

 

I would accept 'All hands that fit ER25' assuming that SB was happy to explain ER25 and they did open all hands that fit ER25 2c, but this was not what was said at the table and when you inquire about a bid, you should be told what the bid systemically means. This was not done.

[lamford]

I would accept 'All hands that fit ER25' assuming that SB was happy to explain ER25 and they did open all hands that fit ER25 2c, but this was not what was said at the table and when you inquire about a bid, you should be told what the bid systemically means. This was not done.

If SB's partner explained "all hands that fit ER25" he would get a blank look from everyone at our club except perhaps the three County Directors. And he would also need to cover the other two hand-types as well, and perhaps give an explanation of clear-cut tricks, and how they differ from sure tricks and playing tricks. Maybe recite the "further examples" in the Blue Book.

 

As I wrote: "North described it as artificial, strong and FG except a 2NT rebid would be 23-24 balanced and could be passed". "Strong" is defined by the Blue Book. That North explanation is far more than the vast majority of players give who just say "Strong" or just say "game forcing". If North goes into further detail, we would not get two boards played in the fifteen minutes allowed.

[Trinidad]

As SB responded to the TD, "Only a retard will be unable to establish the full set of hands on which we will open 2C from my partner's comprehensive and exhaustive explanation. It is not my job to comply with the spirit of the Law, only its letter".

 

Personally I agree with Mycroft, Trinidad and Barmar that this behaviour is unacceptable, but there is absolutely nothing the regulatory authorities can do about it. They are hoisted on their own petard.

There is still the letter of Law 40B6a:

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

 

Usually, regulating authorities write in their regulations something to the effect that a pair needs to be forthcoming and try to understand the opponent's problem when answering to questions. I assume that the Blue Book does the same, even though Law 40B6a basically says it all.

 

And to be clear: No, the fact that one is allowed to open this hand 2♣ in the EBU is not general bridge knowledge. So, on the "Only a retard..." phrase, SB is simply wrong.

 

How come this guy is still playing in North London? With how much money is he sponsoring the club? ;)

 

Rik

[Lanor Fow]

The BB specifically says that part three is subject to proper disclosure, which 'artificial, strong and FG except a 2NT rebid would be 23-24 balanced and could be passed' doesn't fit.

 

I don't believe it's sufficient for any hand fitting parts 1 and 2, but it's certainly not for part 3 (or why would they put in 'subject to proper disclosure').

 

SB is opening many more hands 2c than most people who describe it as 'strong' or 'GF'. Whilst this description is not wonderful in the majority of cases, it's misleading in SBs case where his agreement is so different than the usual one here.

[Zelandakh]

No, and also effectively in reply to Rik's post, if SB were asked to explain further, he (and his partner) would state that...

Why do opps need to ask 20 questions just to be given a correct explanation? 2♣ was alerted, the opps asked for an explanation and they are entitled to full disclosure immediately. The SB is failing not only the spirit but also the letter of the law (regs) here and because he has seemingly made a deliberate attempt to cheat obfuscate the agreement I am all for throwing the book at him.

[lamford]

Why do opps need to ask 20 questions just to be given a correct explanation? 2♣ was alerted, the opps asked for an explanation and they are entitled to full disclosure immediately. The SB is failing not only the spirit but also the letter of the law (regs) here and because he has seemingly made a deliberate attempt to cheat obfuscate the agreement I am all for throwing the book at him.

SB's argument, with which I agree, is that the explanation "strong" is sufficient on its own, as that means "any hand that complies with the Blue Book definition of strong". It is not clear what "full disclosure" means even if his hand was eight clear-cut tricks in a suit and 10 HCP or more. It has to be that, if it is a "part 3" 2C and that is the agreement. And that is what "strong" means. What more disclosure can there be? And if SB or his partner answers "ANY hand complying with Blue Book 5C3", should he then be asked to recite that (he is able to do so, of course, but his partner may struggle)?

[Trinidad]

SB's argument, with which I agree, is that the explanation "strong" is sufficient on its own, as that means "any hand that complies with the Blue Book definition of strong".

No, "strong" does not mean that. The Blue Book "strong" means "'strong' for a definition of regulating the legality of a convention".

 

At the bridge table we use the bridge players' meaning of the word "strong", which is different, because it has a different purpose. As an example, a "strong NT" rarely meets the EBU definition of "strong". And if someone tells, before starting the play that they play "a strong NT", when their 1NT range is 20-22 then that is MI.

 

So, the correct explanation would be "strong, but could be as weak as...".

 

As I said earlier, regulating conventions and explaining them are two different things.

 

Rik

[lamford]

So, the correct explanation would be "strong, but could be as weak as...".

 

As I said earlier, regulating conventions and explaining them are two different things.

 

Rik

I can accept that. Then I think that SB's partner just has to say "any hand complying with the requirements of Blue Book 5C3", and to recite those. After all that is the exact agreement.

[Zelandakh]

You would be correct if SB was announcing the 2♣ opening but the opening is alerted, not announced. Upon questions being asked it is correct to give full disclosure and not use terms that can easily be misinterpreted. It is well-established that if you do use such terms and the opps inadvertently misinterpret them that you leave yourself open to a MI ruling. This case is worse though because SB, knowing the rules as well as he does, has specifically coached a partner not to provide full disclosure and that is something that I would personally consider a very serious breach of protocol, particularly in combination with the long history of rudeness and disputes.

[lamford]

You would be correct if SB was announcing the 2♣ opening but the opening is alerted, not announced. Upon questions being asked it is correct to give full disclosure and not use terms that can easily be misinterpreted. It is well-established that if you do use such terms and the opps inadvertently misinterpret them that you leave yourself open to a MI ruling. This case is worse though because SB, knowing the rules as well as he does, has specifically coached a partner not to provide full disclosure and that is something that I would personally consider a very serious breach of protocol, particularly in combination with the long history of rudeness and disputes.

So what should SB say when 2C is opened in this particular partnership? His partner will use the same phrase, of course.

[Zelandakh]

So what should SB say when 2C is opened in this particular partnership? His partner will use the same phrase, of course.

He should alert of course. If asked he should provide a full description of the agreement. You know the agreement better than I but I would imagine the explanation might include a statement to the effect that some hands with little defensive strength are included.

[barmar]

He should alert of course. If asked he should provide a full description of the agreement. You know the agreement better than I but I would imagine the explanation might include a statement to the effect that some hands with little defensive strength are included.

Isn't that effectively covered if he says that it includes all hands that meet ER25 -- there's no requirement for defensive strength there. This isn't like when players explain a bid by using a convention name, because players don't all have the same understanding of what a named convention includes. Using terms that are defined in the Blue Book should avoid that misunderstanding.

 

The original problem was that he simply explained it as "strong, game forcing", and assumed this would be understood as a hand meeting any of the 3 criteria in the BB. But if he actually lists each of the 3 criteria, and says that it can be any of those hands, what more does he need to say?

[mycroft]

So, why not the explanation SB gives to the bloody TD (post 33)? Which is what everyone who plays these kinds of games does - the explanation to the TD is magically much closer to "full" than the one the opponents get, and while I'm sure it's just a lack of understanding, it's amazing how consistently these lack of understandings of the requirements benefit the people with said lack.

 

I play 2♣ the same way SB *describes* (give or take. We have requirements for defensive power, in that "partner with a flat yarb should be confident that their game is going down, barring duelling voids or the like.") That's what everybody would expect. It also bears little resemblance to "we can open 2♣ with any hand that meets BB 'strong'." (or we can choose to open with a weaker bid if we think that will be better, or on a mixed strategy, or whatever) or, as the SB said to the TD, "we *do* open 2♣ with any hand that meets BB 'strong'."

 

Now, that won't help the punters, who have no clue what BB "strong" actually means; but it will put a light into their little heads that the SB is trying something on again, and ask for further explanation. If they don't get it (or SB decides that after another "half-complete" answer, further questions are "badgering", and calls the TD), the TD can explain - it is his job to read the BB for the players!

 

The difference between "our 2♣ opener promises a 'BB strong' hand, because by regulation, it must" and "our 2♣ opener is bid on *every* hand that meets 'BB strong', without exception" is legion, and without qualification (especially to players who would "blank look" on one of the *parts* of that definition (post 35) - if SB said both "strong means BB strong, I don't have to read the book for them" and "but they wouldn't understand ER25 if you required me to explain that", then that looks like an automatic "failing to fully disclose" penalty, as he knows himself that his explanation is not given in a way understandable to his opponents.

 

What SB is saying is equivalent to me stating (ACBL GCC) that my 1♥ overcall is "natural". They don't play me for 8642? Well, the definition is right up on top of the GCC, not my job to read it for them...

[steve2005]

I don't have access to blue book but if you say this hand meets definition of rule of 25 I believe you.

To say this hand is FG except if 2N rebid is bid is ridiculous.

[lamford]

I don't have access to blue book but if you say this hand meets definition of rule of 25 I believe you.

To say this hand is FG except if 2N rebid is bid is ridiculous.

He has changed his explanation now to "any hand with one of 16 HCPs, a hand meeting the extended rule of 25, or a hand with 10 HCP and 8 clear-cut tricks. It is strong and forcing to game except a 2NT rebid can be passed." Opponents are still terrified to bid over it!

[Zelandakh]

He has changed his explanation now to "any hand with one of 16 HCPs, a hand meeting the extended rule of 25, or a hand with 10 HCP and 8 clear-cut tricks. It is strong and forcing to game except a 2NT rebid can be passed." Opponents are still terrified to bid over it!

If they are terrified to bid after being given full disclosure then that really is their problem. That is not much different from being scared to bid over a 1NT opening. That is very different from deliberately hiding your real agreement from the opponents. Thankfully in my world I do not need to see any more SB threads for a while as he ought not to be back in the North London club for a while. Perhaps you will have us meet up at a national or international event instead though. :unsure: :lol:

[weejonnie]

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?

And I was just about to get warmed up.

 

The short answer is that the EBU have drawn a line in the sand about how you define a 'strong' hand. We may not agree with it, but at least it is easy for someone to work out relatively quickly. All EBU players should know what ER25 is. If they disagree then they should come up with a different definition of what is allowable before you use the word 'strong' and put it forward to the EBU - and 'I know it when I see it' is not IMHO expected to be allowed.

 

Many players in the past used the word 'strong' to try and psychologically prevent opponents from bidding. The now notorious hand (AKJ98765, X, X, AJT) does not meet the EBU definition under ER25. The other side are fully within their rights to ask the TD to see if there was a partnership agreement to open such hands as a 'strong' bid and, if the TD did find that out, the TD would naturally award a 3 IMP penalty as directed in the White book. There is a lot of posturing on bridgewinners. Terence Reese warned against a 'holier than thou' approach as this could affect table harmony if the offending side felt unable to reciprocate at a later stage.