Our Strongest Bid

[lamford]

Isn't that effectively covered if he says that it includes all hands that meet ER25 -- there's no requirement for defensive strength there.

The trouble is that not all hands meet ER25. Junky balanced 16 counts and 10-counts with 8 clear-cut tricks are included. The lowest ER of the former is 23 and the lowest ER of the latter is I think 21 (my and SB's efforts to compose a 20 have fallen on stony ground).

[barmar]

The trouble is that not all hands meet ER25. Junky balanced 16 counts and 10-counts with 8 clear-cut tricks are included. The lowest ER of the former is 23 and the lowest ER of the latter is I think 21 (my and SB's efforts to compose a 20 have fallen on stony ground).

I said "includes ER25 hands". That's not the same thing as "2♣ showsan ER25 hand", because it also includes 16+ HCP hands, and 8 CCT hands.

 

I suspect the expectation of the regulators was not that players would combine these. Rather, they would decide on a type of hand they would use 2♣ with, and ensure that their criteria meets one of these restrictions. E.g. Precision is sanctioned by the 16+ HCP criteria.

 

But the way it's written, nothing prevents players from adopting an agreement that combines them like this. And apparently there's nothing preventing methods to determine which type of hand opener actually has.

 

I question whether this is an effective system, though. In the given auction, the 4♥ rebid is described as "minimum". That can probably also be pretty wide ranging, and I suspect North was lucky when he guessed right not to look for slam. I suspect the players of this system are more likely to be hoist on their own petard, and it's wrong to cherry-pick the time when they got lucky with it.

[mycroft]

I assume, like we do here, that "strong is '22+ or equivalent PT w/defence' ", or "Precision 1♣ is 16+, maybe as low as 14 with say AKxxx AKxxx in the majors".

 

I fully expect that most if not all "strong 2♣" agreements in the EBU are "some from column A, some from column B, some from column C" agreements - as would mine or yours. And that is as it should be - "HCP is not the only way to evaluate hands", as they say; "length takes more tricks than Aces", as they say.

 

SB's issue is that he is:

• Playing that *all* bids that meet any of the three criteria are opened 2♣ (although how this could actually work in the normal hands eludes me; I'm sure that lamford's SB plays better than Your Humble SB);
  
• Carefully using definitions used for legality (but never used outside of that) to (mis-)describe his agreement to the opponents, in the hopes that they will misdefend (as opposed to playing an outlandish agreement in the hopes that it is difficult to defend against); and
  
• Obnoxiously claiming that this is IOTTMCO, and (likely) that, in fact, if the opponents describe their 2♣ opener as "strong, artificial and forcing to game or 2NT", but would open this hand anything *but* 2♣, they're the ones that are not carefully describing their agreements.

I, too, think that the *agreement* to open this hand 2♣ is legal under the "strong" definition - I've said so from the start. Deliberately crafting an explanation designed to produce a false expectation in the opponents, where such a misapprehension is to his advantage, is the problem.

 

It's like the pair who, pre-Announcements, played, and marked as such on their card, 1NT:

 

12-14 VUL

15-17 NV

 

and just hoped people would read what they expected to read. I don't know how much it got them, but after they had to Announce their NT ranges, they switched to "normal" variable PDQ, I'm told.

[Vampyr]

I said "includes ER25 hands". That's not the same thing as "2♣ showsan ER25 hand", because it also includes 16+ HCP hands, and 8 CCT hands.

 

These hands are all ER25

 

Last night a player opened 2♣ which was a Weak Two in a major or an Acol Two in any suit. His Acol Two was a balanced 17-count with some thing like ♥AKJxx. The ER25 breaks down on so many different hands in so many different ways.

[Vampyr]

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.

 

Yes, one strange aspect of the ruling was that the players had not discussed their requirements for a 2♣ opener, had not seen each other bid one and had not, in fact, ever played together before. Opener was not sure whether she had ever knowingly played Benjy previously. Yet the players were assumed to have an agreement.

 

Anyway, all Benjy players have "8 playing tricks" on their card, in their explanations, and one presumes, especially going by the large number of players who opened 2♣ in the event, even if it was their only strong bid, in their hand.

[WellSpyder]

I said "includes ER25 hands". That's not the same thing as "2♣ showsan ER25 hand", because it also includes 16+ HCP hands, and 8 CCT hands.

As Vampyr says, these hands are all ER25. It may not be entirely obvious from the quotes that have been provided, but the terminology in use here talks about the EXTENDED rule of 25 (ie ER25 rather than just R25) precisely because this rule extends the R25 to include the other two hand-types you mention.

[lamford]

As Vampyr says, these hands are all ER25. It may not be entirely obvious from the quotes that have been provided, but the terminology in use here talks about the EXTENDED rule of 25 (ie ER25 rather than just R25) precisely because this rule extends the R25 to include the other two hand-types you mention.

SB, being a minimalist when it comes to disclosure, is quite keen to just reply with the fully compliant "any ER 25 hand" if he can get away with it, and has written to the L&E to ask them if this is full disclosure. Last time he used the phrase an opponent replied "I'm none the wiser", to which SB immediately retorted, "No, but you are better informed."

[Zelandakh]

SB, being a minimalist when it comes to disclosure, is quite keen to just reply with the fully compliant "any ER 25 hand" if he can get away with it,

Is there really no ER25 that he would ever open with any other call?

[lamford]

Is there really no ER25 that he would ever open with any other call?

Yes, there is; for example his opening 5NT would show a one-loser hand with both minors and would satisfy ER25, or even ER30 probably. A few hands would open at the five or six level and another small number would open 4NT, specific ace. No ER25 hand passes nor does any open at the one-level. So, the 2C bid does always show an ER25 hand but is not bid on the complete set of all ER25 hands.

[Zelandakh]

Yes, there is; for example his opening 5NT would show a one-loser hand with both minors and would satisfy ER25, or even ER30 probably. A few hands would open at the five or six level and another small number would open 4NT, specicific ace. No ER25 hand passes nor does any open at the one-level. So, the 2C bid does always show an ER25 hand but is not bid on the complete set of all ER25 hands.

No ER25 hand would ever open at the 3 or 4 level, or with 5 of a minor? The disclosure issues usually come in the line between preemptive calls and strong ones. If SB always chooses 2♣ when it qualifies over an alternative preemptive call then it actually makes his disclosure position very easy.

[lamford]

No ER25 hand would ever open at the 3 or 4 level, or with 5 of a minor? The disclosure issues usually come in the line between preemptive calls and strong ones. If SB always chooses 2♣ when it qualifies over an alternative preemptive call then it actually makes his disclosure position very easy.

The whole purpose of SB using 2C is to keep the opponents out, and con them into passing, so he will always open 2C on an ER25 hand, the more pre-emptive the better. ♠J ♥2 ♦QJT98xxx ♣KQJ would be ideal, a hand that most would open 3D, 4D or 5D.

[Zelandakh]

The whole purpose of SB using 2C is to keep the opponents out, and con them into passing, so he will always open 2C on an ER25 hand, the more pre-emptive the better. ♠J ♥2 ♦QJT98xxx ♣KQJ would be ideal, a hand that most would open 3D or 4D.

If the opps are aware that any ER25 hand will be opened 2♣ then they will be less likely to be "conned", hence the importance of disclosing fully. But it is nice of you to admit that SB was trying for a con rather than merely using the letter of the Law to obtain an advantage, which is the more common MO. That would tend to support my position of throwing the book at him in this instance. Is the owner of this North London club really so desperate for every paying member as to continue to put up with this?

[lamford]

If the opps are aware that any ER25 hand will be opened 2♣ then they will be less likely to be "conned", hence the importance of disclosing fully. But it is nice of you to admit that SB was trying for a con rather than merely using the letter of the Law to obtain an advantage, which is the more common MO. That would tend to support my position of throwing the book at him in this instance. Is the owner of this North London club really so desperate for every paying member as to continue to put up with this?

SB would ONLY use the letter of the Law to obtain an advantage. In agreeing how to explain 2C he thought he was just following the Blue Book, and he is quite happy to switch to "any hand that meets ER25". The fact that opening 2C cons the opponents into passing is an added bonus from his point of view, and SB sees it as a perfectly legitimate tactic, like his psyche at a "no psyches" club in Wyoming. The last time the committee considered his membership, he had just donated a trophy for the Rabbits Cup, a novices event in which he does not play, and they voted 5-4 not to expel him.

[barmar]

Yes, one strange aspect of the ruling was that the players had not discussed their requirements for a 2♣ opener, had not seen each other bid one and had not, in fact, ever played together before. Opener was not sure whether she had ever knowingly played Benjy previously. Yet the players were assumed to have an agreement.

As I've mentioned in numerous other threads, the laws on disclosure and MI are based on a presumption that pairs actually have reasonably firm agreements that can be disclosed. In individuals, or with pickup partners who have not had extensive discussion, their agreements are often vague to nonexistent. They'll frequently just agree to a convention by name, or check off a box on the CC as they fill it out, but that doesn't mean their understandings of it are consistent.

 

It's difficult to apply the same disclosure rules as we would for regular partners. And maybe it's not even fair to attempt to do so. The spirit of full disclosure is that the opponents should have about the same information as the partners, so if the partnership is not on the same page, the opponents are not really disadvantaged. Although when a player hears his partner's explanation, he'll be aware that they have a misunderstanding, while the opponents have no way of knowing that something is amiss. The laws say that he should eventually reveal that his partner made a misexplanation, but since they didn't actually have an agreement, he could avoid this by deciding that his bid was the mistake, not the explanation. As long as he doesn't use the UI from the explanation in his further bidding, it's probably all legal.

[blackshoe]

The last time the committee considered his membership, he had just donated a trophy for the Rabbits Cup, a novices event in which he does not play, and they voted 5-4 not to expel him.

Timely donation, that. :P

[blackshoe]

It's difficult to apply the same disclosure rules as we would for regular partners. And maybe it's not even fair to attempt to do so. The spirit of full disclosure is that the opponents should have about the same information as the partners, so if the partnership is not on the same page, the opponents are not really disadvantaged. Although when a player hears his partner's explanation, he'll be aware that they have a misunderstanding, while the opponents have no way of knowing that something is amiss. The laws say that he should eventually reveal that his partner made a misexplanation, but since they didn't actually have an agreement, he could avoid this by deciding that his bid was the mistake, not the explanation. As long as he doesn't use the UI from the explanation in his further bidding, it's probably all legal.

I think if he decides they really didn't have an agreement, he still needs, at the appropriate time, to call the director and explain that in his view they don't have an agreement. In fact, he should probably do that even if his hand matches his partner's explanation.

[barmar]

I think if he decides they really didn't have an agreement, he still needs, at the appropriate time, to call the director and explain that in his view they don't have an agreement. In fact, he should probably do that even if his hand matches his partner's explanation.

Well, that's where it becomes difficult to decide what's actually going on. They agreed to play a particular convention. Does the explanation that disagrees with his bid mean they didn't actually have an agreement, or that one of them made a mistake in bidding or explaining? In two of those cases the opponents should get a corrected explanation.

[blackshoe]

Well, I suppose the bidder could think 'oh, yeah, we did agree to play <whatever>… If he goes on to think "and I've misbid" then he shouldn't say anything. If he goes on to think "but my understanding of <whatever> doesn't match what partner said" then he needs to correct the explanation. In the latter case, of course, the director may decide they really didn't have an agreement. What he should do in that case may depend on how the correction is worded. If the bidder just says "my understanding of <whatever> is blah, blah, blah", that's one thing. If he sticks in "we had 90 seconds to agree system, we agreed to play <whatever> by name, but did not discuss any further details" then he's essentially already told the opponents that they don't have an agreement.

[barmar]

Well, I suppose the bidder could think 'oh, yeah, we did agree to play <whatever>… If he goes on to think "and I've misbid" then he shouldn't say anything. If he goes on to think "but my understanding of <whatever> doesn't match what partner said" then he needs to correct the explanation. In the latter case, of course, the director may decide they really didn't have an agreement. What he should do in that case may depend on how the correction is worded. If the bidder just says "my understanding of <whatever> is blah, blah, blah", that's one thing. If he sticks in "we had 90 seconds to agree system, we agreed to play <whatever> by name, but did not discuss any further details" then he's essentially already told the opponents that they don't have an agreement.

My general point is that when the partnership hasn't had extensive discussion, this can come up for many bids. Should they just stop explaining, since they don't have firm agreements about anything? But most opponents would feel aggrieved if they answered "no agreement" to so many requests for explanation.

 

You're not allowed to give just the name of a convention as the explanation. But isn't that what you're doing if you explain "We agreed to play <whatever>, but didn't discuss it any further"?

 

LIke I said, there's just this big disconnect between the presumptions in the disclosure laws and regulations, and feasibility among not-regular partners.

[blackshoe]

My general point is that when the partnership hasn't had extensive discussion, this can come up for many bids. Should they just stop explaining, since they don't have firm agreements about anything? But most opponents would feel aggrieved if they answered "no agreement" to so many requests for explanation.

 

You're not allowed to give just the name of a convention as the explanation. But isn't that what you're doing if you explain "We agreed to play <whatever>, but didn't discuss it any further"?

 

LIke I said, there's just this big disconnect between the presumptions in the disclosure laws and regulations, and feasibility among not-regular partners.

Oh, I agree on the disconnect.

 

In the "didn't discuss it further" case, I think the bidder who has a difference of opinion with his partner on the meaning of the convention should provide his own opinion as to that meaning. It should be clear to the opponents or anyone else that the difference of opinion exists. It's also true that the bidder is telling everyone what he has in his hand, and normally he's not required to do that, but here I think perhaps he is.

[Vampyr]

Oh, I agree on the disconnect.

 

In the "didn't discuss it further" case, I think the bidder who has a difference of opinion with his partner on the meaning of the convention should provide his own opinion as to that meaning. It should be clear to the opponents or anyone else that the difference of opinion exists. It's also true that the bidder is telling everyone what he has in his hand, and normally he's not required to do that, but here I think perhaps he is.

 

All of this is mildly interesting, but does not apply to the hand or ruling mentioned above, so perhaps belongs in a different thread.