[campboy]

nigel_k, on 2011-October-06, 21:44, said:

As I mentioned above, 'game forcing' doesn't say anything much about what the hand might contain. A 4♥ opening is also 'game forcing'. But when you open 2♣ and describe it as 'game force or balanced 23+', the opponents will quite reasonably expect an Acol 2♣ opening and South doesn't have anything close to that.

It would not be acceptable to describe a normal 4♥ opening, or an artificial opening that could include a normal 4♥ opening, as "game forcing" in the EBU, since "forcing" means "forcing from strength" unless otherwise specified. I think similar reasoning applies to this 2♣ bid (assuming that is an acceptable hand for it). If partner has a hand too weak to respond to 1♣ it is very unlikely that game can be made but rather more plausible that a game contract will be a good sacrifice, especially if a double can be avoided.

[blackshoe]

Why should you? Because if you don't, you put yourself, sooner or later, in the ACBL's position — that "strong" means whatever the player making the bid thinks it means.

I think it's incumbent on modern partnerships to voluntarily disclose what their minimum (in terms of high card strength) 2♣ openings look like. This is, IMO, much more so in the EBU than in the ACBL, with the latter's current unfortunate (again, IMO) interpretation of "strong".

Put it another way: why should those who are aware of the history of the Acol system (both the 2♣ opening and the "Acol 2" openings) have to second guess whether you think a solid suit with 8 (or 9) playing tricks is enough for 2♣, when their experience suggests it is not?

[Trinidad]

Apologies if this sounds sarcastic but:

Do other people here have more information on the actual NS system? North said that his agreement with South was that the 2♣ bid was "Game forcing or 23+ balanced". Now people claim that this was misinformation. How can anybody say that? Does anybody have any information that the NS agreement was something other than "Game forcing or 23+ balanced"? If so, please come forward (preferably with quotes from their system book or something similar).

If the NS agreement indeed is that NS cannot pass below game, unless South shows a "23+ balanced hand", then there was nothing wrong with the explanation.

Rik

[Trinidad]

campboy, on 2011-October-07, 03:48, said:

It would not be acceptable to describe a normal 4♥ opening, or an artificial opening that could include a normal 4♥ opening, as "game forcing" in the EBU, since "forcing" means "forcing from strength" unless otherwise specified. I think similar reasoning applies to this 2♣ bid (assuming that is an acceptable hand for it). If partner has a hand too weak to respond to 1♣ it is very unlikely that game can be made but rather more plausible that a game contract will be a good sacrifice, especially if a double can be avoided.

Since when does forcing mean "forcing from strength"? "Game forcing" means that you are not allowed to pass out the hand below game level (unless you double the opponents). I didn't see anybody pass below game level, but maybe somebody else did .

Rik

[sfi]

dcrc2, on 2011-October-07, 01:32, said:

Dammit, and I looked so carefully! Sorry!

I empathise - it took me several times before I was sure. That diamond suit doesn't really seem like 3 cards, does it?

[campboy]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-07, 05:44, said:

Since when does forcing mean "forcing from strength"? "Game forcing" means that you are not allowed to pass out the hand below game level (unless you double the opponents). I didn't see anybody pass below game level, but maybe somebody else did .

It means "forcing from strength" in the EBU because the regulations on disclosure say so (Orange book 3B6).

[iviehoff]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-07, 05:41, said:

North said that his agreement with South was that the 2♣ bid was "Game forcing or 23+ balanced". Now people claim that this was misinformation. How can anybody say that?

As I said my careful post #18, the issue is not that the explanation is false, but rather that it may not amount to full disclosure, in relation to the specific instructions on disclosure provided by national authority. "Game forcing or 23+ balanced" is the traditional description of an Acol 2C opening. However the hand in question does not conform to a typical Acol 2C opening, which is a hand of strength with both defensive and offensive quality. The EBU has made clear, that if people wish to include hands such as these within strong options for 2-bids, they must be careful to give full disclosure. Within the cultural context of the UK where Acol is the system of the great majority, it is a regulation that makes sense. People playing an Acol 2C bid in the typical way should not have to give a detailed spiel; those who seek to use the traditional abbreviated explanation must learn that they cannot use those words literally, because culturally they mean something else.

[bluejak]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-07, 05:41, said:

Do other people here have more information on the actual NS system? North said that his agreement with South was that the 2♣ bid was "Game forcing or 23+ balanced". Now people claim that this was misinformation. How can anybody say that? Does anybody have any information that the NS agreement was something other than "Game forcing or 23+ balanced"? If so, please come forward (preferably with quotes from their system book or something similar).

If the NS agreement indeed is that NS cannot pass below game, unless South shows a "23+ balanced hand", then there was nothing wrong with the explanation.

In England a lot of people play an Acol 2♣ or a Benjamin 2♦. These bids traditionally show either 23+ HCP, balanced, or an unbalanced game force with at least five Quick tricks. These bids are generally described either by name, or as "23+", or as "23+ or game forcing". The problem comes when a pair decides to open 2♣ on hands where they can make game because of their distribution but not high-card strength. That would be all right legally so long as they conform to the "Extended Rule of 25" but they still have to inform their opponents of what they are doing. In my view to say "23+ or game forcing" implies the Acol 2♣ approach.

I appreciate people will say that if responder is not allowed to pass below game it is game forcing but the trouble with that is that such players are hiding what they play by a description which will be misunderstood. Note that I do not say that such players do so deliberately but I am sure that the description needs modifying. It is similar to the EBU definition of "strong": if it is not 16 HCP or Rule of 25 then it is only allowed "subject to proper disclosure" which means that if you agree to open weaker hands with good distribution you should say so.

Now it was not clear to me quite what this pair was playing: they both agreed the actual hand was not a 2♣ opening! But I would expect this pair to play a 2♣ opening as an Acol 2♣, and if they had told me 23+ or game forcing I would have understood an Acol 2♣. The actual hand is nowhere near an Acol 2♣.

So, at first sight it looks like a legal opening but MI to me. What do I do?

[gordontd]

bluejak, on 2011-October-07, 08:28, said:

Now it was not clear to me quite what this pair was playing: they both agreed the actual hand was not a 2♣ opening! But I would expect this pair to play a 2♣ opening as an Acol 2♣, and if they had told me 23+ or game forcing I would have understood an Acol 2♣. The actual hand is nowhere near an Acol 2♣.

It sounds from what you write as though the actual hand is a deviation from their agreement, so isn't really evidence of misinformation in any case.

bluejak, on 2011-October-07, 08:28, said:

So, at first sight it looks like a legal opening but MI to me. What do I do?

Had they said "strong, artificial, and forcing to game" (assuming as I said before that they really do play it as forcing to game), I really can't see in what way that would be inaccurate. What they actually said doesn't seem to me to differ from that in any material way.

[iviehoff]

gordontd, on 2011-October-07, 09:02, said:

Had they said "strong, artificial, and forcing to game" (assuming as I said before that they really do play it as forcing to game), I really can't see in what way that would be inaccurate. What they actually said doesn't seem to me to differ from that in any material way.

But even that description fails to disclose that it might be a hand rich in tricks but relatively weak in points and defence, and I think we are instructed to disclose if we are making "strong" bids on that kind of hand.

I do agree with you, in terms of what Bluejak should do, is make his mind up whether this is a misbid or MI, and then proceed accordingly.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on 2011-October-07, 08:28, said:

[Story why this is MI snipped]
So, at first sight it looks like a legal opening but MI to me. What do I do?

We can agree to disagree on the MI part. It is relevant in general, but for this particular case it isn't. For the length of this post, let's just assume that there was misinformation (MI).

The meaning of the 2♣ opening is irrelevant for West. It should be obvious for him to enter the auction whether the 2♣ opening is "Acol, ~22+ HCPs, GF" or "at least a (very) good preempt (but still legal)". The MI didn't have anything to do with West's pass. West should have bid hearts regardless of the meaning of 2♣. The infraction didn't cause any damage. No damage = no adjustment. The only thing that you could do (in theory) is to give NS a PP for misinformation.

I already wrote earlier that the table result is entirely due to the fact that West focussed on the values that South didn't have rather than on the values that he had himself. That hasn't changed. (I think that during the auction he was already mentally occupied with the fact that he was going to call the TD after the hand. It blocked his abilities to play bridge. "Another one of those so called Acol 2♣ openings. I am sick of it, I will call the TD after the hand. Pass for now.")

So, the short answer to your question: "What do I do?" is: Nothing.

Rik

[hrothgar]

iviehoff, on 2011-October-07, 02:57, said:

The EBU has in general made clear that if you are using apparently strong 2 bids, even with meanings that are technically strong, but which are not hands of strength and quality, it is incumbent on you to give proper disclosure. In my view, proper disclosure was therefore not given. The reasons for this conclusion are quite long, and follow below.

There are two separate issues here, and we must be careful not to confuse them.

One is, what are the permitted conventions, and
The other is, the explanation given to a bid.

The term "strong" has two uses in the EBU, one in defining what is a permitted convention, and the other is in making certain explanations, especially the announcement "strong" that must be used for certain bids.

The EBU permits certain multiple meaning 2-bids subject to the requirement that they fit into certain option groups, where a number of the options are defined as "strong", in which case they must conform to the EBU's definition of "strong". In particular, at Level 3, (and from context that is likely where we are at) a 2-bid is not allowed to have a mix of strong and other meanings, except in the case of the multi 2D. So in the case of a 2C bid, if it has a strong meaning, then all the other meanings must be strong in the EBU sense. And in the case of the multi-2D, you have to construct it from options which are weak and strong, and the strong meanings have to be strong in the EBU sense. So even if the word "strong" is not used, you are entitled to assume that it is at least strong in the EBU sense.

Silly question:

If all this is true (and I have no reason to assume otherwise)...
Is the partnership legally allowed to open said hand by agreement.

From the sounds of things we're dealing with an illegal convention and not a disclosure issue

[c_corgi]

What are the criteria for deciding whether proper disclosure over and above 23+ balanced or GF? It seems that this is the root of the problem. If there are no official criteria, then it seems unreasonable to impose any. The standards for what qualifies as permissable for such a 'strong' opening appear quite rigorous in themselves, and since this hand qualifies under 'rule of 25' the wording of the regulation suggests that proper disclosure is not relevant (being pertinent only to the 'clear cut tricks' clause), so misinformation seems out of the question.

Regarding EBU terminology of 'Forcing' meaning 'forcing through strength', I interpret this as opposed to forcing but potentially part of an escape/signoff mechanism. In this case the game forcing nature of the hand is based on strength (its playing strength) and not subject to Orange Book 3B6. Is this correct?

[RMB1]

c_corgi, on 2011-October-07, 09:52, said:

What are the criteria for deciding whether proper disclosure over and above 23+ balanced or GF? ...

I have always interpreted the Orange Book statement about proper disclosue to mean that if your opening 2C/2D may contain hands that meet "8 clear cut tricks" but do not meet Rule of 25 or 16+ HCP, then something in the description should indicate a "8 clear cut tricks" hand, which does not sound like a Rule of 25 / 16+ HCP hand.

I have always favoured a statement about the minimum distributional hand that would make the opening: "could be an 8 trick hand with a long suit and nothing much more than an ace outside".

c_corgi, on 2011-October-07, 09:52, said:

If there are no official criteria, ...

Not an official answer (although perhaps I am an official).

[blackshoe]

RMB1, on 2011-October-07, 10:37, said:

I have always favoured a statement about the minimum distributional hand that would make the opening: "could be an 8 trick hand with a long suit and nothing much more than an ace outside".

This.

[mycroft]

1) we have explicitly seen that this hand is legal to the regulations - it meets "rule of 25", and one of the "extended" criteria for ERo25.
2) this particular hand is commonly known to be a problem, and has been I believe explicitly stated as a problem. It's legal, but if you play 2♣ on these hands by agreement, it needs to be disclosed explicitly in the explanation. This is analogous to the (insane, but I've seen people play it) agreement that 1NT is (semi-)balanced, 15-17, *counting short-suit distribution points*. Legal, but if you describe it as 15-17, people will misunderstand, and it's your responsibility to explain in a way that the opponents can understand.
3) some people are saying that "the explanation is perfectly correct". Yeah, sure, but the stereotypical Hollywood court oath is "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." This is truth, and nothing but the truth, but by no means the whole truth, and is lying by omission. Perhaps unintentionally, likely without a thought that anyone (never mind almost everyone) would think differently, but untruth by omission anyway. *And* it's a very good way, if you're of a devious bent, to add to the preemptive power of the 2♣ opener by "forgetting" to mention the "extra-strong preempt" variant.

It's like the people out here who explain 1♦ response to a Precision Club as "waiting". Accurate, but missing some very valuable information, that tends to inhibit competition in situations where it is likely that there *is* a competitive battle to fight. Or explaining Odd-Even discards as "odd positive, even negative". All complete truth - and wrong. (and yes, I realize these are much more gratuitous issues, but what if you'd never played in an environment where people played anything but lavinthal (straight or revolving) or Odd-Even, and didn't realize that "negative" *didn't* include suit-preference implications?)

Frankly, this is a case where it's worth the time to come up with a full, definitive answer to "what are the obligations of people who choose to use the extended part of the ERo25 for 2♣ openers", and what is the rectification if those obligations are not met; document it; publicise it; and enforce it.

Of course, I live in ACBL-land, so I know the chance of it happening here. In the EBU, it's more likely.

[mrdct]

bluejak, on 2011-October-07, 08:28, said:

Now it was not clear to me quite what this pair was playing: they both agreed the actual hand was not a 2♣ opening! But I would expect this pair to play a 2♣ opening as an Acol 2♣, and if they had told me 23+ or game forcing I would have understood an Acol 2♣. The actual hand is nowhere near an Acol 2♣.

So, at first sight it looks like a legal opening but MI to me. What do I do?

On the updated facts that by partnership agreement this sort of hand is not a 2♣ opening and the conclusion reached by the TD that they play their 2♣ opening as an Acol 2♣, this doesn't look like an MI situation to me. What we seem to be looking at is a deviation from system on the part of South so the thing to work out is whether or not NS have a CPU to open these sorts of hands. Assuming the TD can't establish the CPU, I think all the TD is advise NS to make sure they have their agreement sorted out and to properly disclose to their oppopents if they do decide that this sort of hand is acceptable to open 2♣.

[barmar]

mrdct, on 2011-October-07, 14:28, said:

On the updated facts that by partnership agreement this sort of hand is not a 2♣ opening and the conclusion reached by the TD that they play their 2♣ opening as an Acol 2♣, this doesn't look like an MI situation to me. What we seem to be looking at is a deviation from system on the part of South so the thing to work out is whether or not NS have a CPU to open these sorts of hands. Assuming the TD can't establish the CPU, I think all the TD is advise NS to make sure they have their agreement sorted out and to properly disclose to their oppopents if they do decide that this sort of hand is acceptable to open 2♣.

That's pretty close to the point I was going to make. Has South opened hands like this with 2♣ before? But how often does one get hands like this -- is one time enough to establish a partnership understanding?

Also, if it's agreed that the hand doesn't really fit their agreements, we need to determine if it's a "gross deviation", as that would make it a psyche. Does the EBU prohibit psyching strong 2♣ like ACBL does?

It certainly seems like NS could avoid this problem in the future simply by agreeing that their 2♣ bid shows an extended rule of 25 hand, and remembering to explain this properly. if this is the first time this has come up for them, I'd simply warn them to do so in the future.

[Trinidad]

mycroft, on 2011-October-07, 13:53, said:

3) some people are saying that "the explanation is perfectly correct". Yeah, sure, but the stereotypical Hollywood court oath is "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." This is truth, and nothing but the truth, but by no means the whole truth, and is lying by omission. Perhaps unintentionally, likely without a thought that anyone (never mind almost everyone) would think differently, but untruth by omission anyway. *And* it's a very good way, if you're of a devious bent, to add to the preemptive power of the 2♣ opener by "forgetting" to mention the "extra-strong preempt" variant.

What makes you think that NS have more elaborate agreements about 2♣ than what North explained? Could it not be that North has actually told the whole truth?

Rik

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-07, 15:03, said:

What makes you think that NS have more elaborate agreements about 2♣ than what North explained? Could it not be that North has actually told the whole truth?

In fact, the followup suggests that this is the case -- North and South both admitted that the hand didn't really fit their agreement.

There's nothing illegal about deviating from your agreements, so long as you don't do it enough to form an implicit understanding, in which case you're required to disclose it. The question is whether we can take freaks like this as evidence of a CPU -- if they're really rare, partner is not likely to cater to them any more than the opponents would.

Usually misdescribing your hand results in landing in the wrong spot, so you get what you deserve. In this case, West is annoyed because they somehow managed to stumble into the best contract. This is rub of the green.