Strong

[lamford]

[hv=pc=n&s=shaqjt9876543dca2&w=sqj976hkdqj975ct9&n=s8543h2dt632ck653&e=sakt2hdak84cqj874&d=s&v=b&b=7&a=2c(%22strong%22)p2dp3h(cue%20force)p4c(a%20or%20k)p7hppxrppp]399|300[/hv]

IMP pairs; Table result 7Hxx=; NS+2940

 

The Rabbit, East should have bid at his first or second turn on this hand from a North London Club on Tuesday, but was frightened by the announcement of "strong" for the South hand. The club had recently adopted the amended EBU rules for the definition of "strong" which are 16+ HCP or 12+ HCP with 5 controls, which will come into effect later this year. However, as many members had complained about people opening "strong" bids on trash like the South hand here, they had decided to adopt the new rules early. SB, West, a keen student of any changes in the announcing or alerting regulations, was quick off the mark. "You should have bid there, RR", he started. "We had a cheap save in 7S for -500. And as for your fatuous final double, words fail me!"

 

And I think we need a director. "Owl!" called SB loudly. "And you won't need the Law Book, just bring our last committee minutes from the noticeboard." Oscar the Owl arrived. "South, ChCh, has psyched an Acol 2C bid, which we decided to bar at this club, and furthermore it was announced as "strong" without getting anywhere near the minimum standards of 12 HCP and 5 controls. They have now abolished the "eight clear-cut tricks" which was a nonsense anyway. Can we have our 3 IMPs, please?" "And I think you should form an orderly queue at the end of the evening as there will be plenty of East-Wests looking to collect their bonuses."

 

OO was a bit unhappy at SB's belligerent attitude, but he did go away to consult. How would you rule?

[The_Badger]

Given that many players of a certain standard 'psyche' or perhaps, more accurately, open 2♣ on a non-2♣ hand, South's interpretation is better than most.

 

He has certain game in his hand, and, a Kaplan and Rubens count of 22.55. Let the result stand I say. East/West's argument is just sour grapes. (Said with a certain amount of tongue in cheek by me.)

[Vampyr]

In the EBU it is not permitted to ban psyches, as it is illegal and the EBU care about such things. In any case, "XX-YY balanced or game forcing" the announcement I actually currently use, would be fine. "Strong" isn't.

[Cyberyeti]

In the EBU it is not permitted to ban psyches, as it is illegal and the EBU care about such things. In any case, "XX-YY balanced or game forcing" the announcement I actually currently use, would be fine. "Strong" isn't.

 

I'm not sure your announcement would pass the lawyers. Some years ago GF was defined as "game forcing through strength" ♠KQJ to 11 may be a reasonable game force, but should not be expected to be covered by the announcement "game forcing" as it is not what people expect.

 

Imagine announcing a Namyats 4♣ as GF with hearts, true but not useful.

[Vampyr]

I'm not sure your announcement would pass the lawyers. Some years ago GF was defined as "game forcing through strength" ♠KQJ to 11 may be a reasonable game force, but should not be expected to be covered by the announcement "game forcing" as it is not what people expect.

 

Imagine announcing a Namyats 4♣ as GF with hearts, true but not useful.

 

"Game-going" Perhaps? Or maybe just a hand that wishes to play in game. LOL the Laws and Ethics Committee had a chance to,get this right. Oh well.

[StevenG]

The club had recently adopted the amended EBU rules for the definition of "strong" which are 16+ HCP or 12+ HCP with 5 controls, which will come into effect later this year.

Where is this published?

[lamford]

Where is this published?

It hasn't been yet. But it will come into effect at the beginning of August in the new Blue Book. The meeting was a few days ago. Clubs are free to adopt the rules on allowable methods as they see fit, however.