[Trinidad]

 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?

 barmar, on 2011-October-07, 15:11, said:

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

The question is not whether the hand did fit the agreement. The question is whether the explanation fits the agreement. My question is why anyone thinks that the explanation does not fit the agreement.

Rik

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2011-October-07, 15:35, said:

The question is not whether the hand did fit the agreement. The question is whether the explanation fits the agreement. My question is why anyone thinks that the explanation does not fit the agreement.

I thought I was agreeing with you. When they admitted that the hand doesn't fit their agreement, they were confirming that the agreement is that the hand should be stronger than what he actually held, which is consistent with the explanation.

[c_corgi]

I wonder what N/S think is the correct way to bid the hand. Auctions beginning 1C seem unlikely to paint a complete picture. They have to try something!
If they do form an agreement to open 2C with these hands and describe it as "extended rule of 25", doesnt this suggest that they go out of their way to open 2C with hands that qualify, rather than occasionally - even reluctantly - opening 2C with extremely high playing strength freaks?

[Trinidad]

 barmar, on 2011-October-07, 15:42, said:

I thought I was agreeing with you.

I guess you thought right and I misunderstood your post.

Rik

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2011-October-07, 15:00, said:

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?

I think we need to be very careful here -- if a hand type is rare enough, can opening 2♣ (or whatever) every time it comes up still be considered deviating?

Quote

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?

No. Apparently you cannot psyche any artificial bids in the ACBL; the EBU do not have any such prohibitions.

Quote

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.

[lamford]

Players will continue to use the term "strong" whatever the Orange Book says, I suspect. And they can hardly be blamed for doing so when 10B4 begins "Strong Openings are often described as" ... and then goes on to give examples. Expecting the average player to do something other than make sure their hand conforms to a), b) or c) is unrealistic. They will not read the small print. If someone opened 2C with 16-18 balanced, and just described it as strong, I am sure they would be deceiving their opponents far more than the player who described our example hand as "strong", but under 10B4c there is no extra requirement for proper disclosure. "Subject to proper disclosure" is a requirement for all explanations, and 2C is not alerted, so why have it there? Because it is the hand type that many open with 2C. And almost all of them just say "strong".

I would agree that the explanation must indicate which of 10B4(a), (b) or ( c) applies, and the form of words should be something like "Eight-playing tricks in a suit, extended rule of 25 or 16+ HCP", or any subset of those. But everyone will then argue that nobody has ever heard of the extended rule of 25. Perhaps we should just have a word which means all that. I know, how about "strong". And educate everyone as to what it means.

And a much more important question. How does one avoid the copyright symbol, ©, appearing when using ( c ), other than the improvised extra space?

[blackshoe]

That's a bbcode artifact. Some boards have a way to turn off bbcode for a particular post, but then none of the fancy stuff (like the hand viewer, or suit symbols) will work. Which may be why I can't find an option to turn it off here, although I think there used to be one. What I usually do is use square [] or curly {} brackets.

[bluejak]

One last point.

One of the problems with dealing with Acol 2♣ openings is that if players play them as they were designed then the defenders will never have a strong hand, ok, very rarely [Gilbert & Sullivan comes to mind], and many pairs play that any defensive bid is weak. I do myself actually. If I happen to get a strong hand - for example a balanced 16 count - I pass and await developments.

Now, it is not unreasonable to have an agreement that this is a worthwhile defence to an Acol 2♣ which has a lot of top card strength, but that a different approach should be made to a Benjamin 2♣, where the hand is likely to be a lot weaker in top cards but with compensating distribution [in Benjamin players open 2♦ with an Acol 2♣].

I realise that a lot of posters do not believe there was MI, but let us suppose for a moment that we decide there was MI. Given that as a premise, do you think the claim of damage has any basis? The idea being that over a traditional Acol 2♣ West would pass with his hand, but over a Benjamin 2♣ he might bid?

[aguahombre]

Have no objection to that 9-trick hand opening 2C. But why would anyone think nine tricks consisting of a long minor is properly described by the term "game-forcing"?

We disclose 22+, 9 tricks for a major, or 10 for a minor. Perhaps proper disclosure by this pair would be something along those lines without using the term "game-force"..e.g. 23+, 8 tricks for a major, or 9 tricks for a minor. If the partnership, however, is committed to game regardless of whether opener has enough for game, only then would "game-forcing" seem appropriate ---though perhaps not really full disclosure.

[gnasher]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-08, 17:34, said:

One last point.

One of the problems with dealing with Acol 2♣ openings is that if players play them as they were designed then the defenders will never have a strong hand, ok, very rarely [Gilbert & Sullivan comes to mind], and many pairs play that any defensive bid is weak. I do myself actually. If I happen to get a strong hand - for example a balanced 16 count - I pass and await developments.

Now, it is not unreasonable to have an agreement that this is a worthwhile defence to an Acol 2♣ which has a lot of top card strength, but that a different approach should be made to a Benjamin 2♣, where the hand is likely to be a lot weaker in top cards but with compensating distribution [in Benjamin players open 2♦ with an Acol 2♣].

I realise that a lot of posters do not believe there was MI, but let us suppose for a moment that we decide there was MI. Given that as a premise, do you think the claim of damage has any basis? The idea being that over a traditional Acol 2♣ West would pass with his hand, but over a Benjamin 2♣ he might bid?

Yes, in those circumstances (MI occurred and EW had this agreement), clearly there would have been damage caused by by the MI, for exactly the reason given by West to the director.

The merits of EW's agreement are irrelevant. Even if it was a serious error to form such an agremeent, that error occurred prior to the putative misinformation.

[c_corgi]

I agree with gnasher regarding the damage issue.

West's argument is that his defence against "strong, artificial 2C openings" varies according to the exact composition, analagous to playing a different defence to 1NT depending on the range. It seems optimistic to play alternative defences in a situation where the opponents agreements are likely to be insufficiently defined for you to determine which one applies. In this situation for instance, it seems that N/S do not really know whether the hand is a valid 2C opener; what are the borderline hands, the inclusion of which in the 2C range will cause you to switch to defending against a 'weak' bid? Do you expect the opponents to have such a detailed agreement?

[Trinidad]

 bluejak, on 2011-October-08, 17:34, said:

One last point.

One of the problems with dealing with Acol 2♣ openings is that if players play them as they were designed then the defenders will never have a strong hand, ok, very rarely [Gilbert & Sullivan comes to mind], and many pairs play that any defensive bid is weak. I do myself actually. If I happen to get a strong hand - for example a balanced 16 count - I pass and await developments.

Now, it is not unreasonable to have an agreement that this is a worthwhile defence to an Acol 2♣ which has a lot of top card strength, but that a different approach should be made to a Benjamin 2♣, where the hand is likely to be a lot weaker in top cards but with compensating distribution [in Benjamin players open 2♦ with an Acol 2♣].

I realise that a lot of posters do not believe there was MI, but let us suppose for a moment that we decide there was MI. Given that as a premise, do you think the claim of damage has any basis? The idea being that over a traditional Acol 2♣ West would pass with his hand, but over a Benjamin 2♣ he might bid?

Yes, in that case there would be a basis for a claim of damage. However, IMO, it is not more than a basis.

After all, if it was so important to West to know whether the 2♣ opening was his favorite "strong = HCP" version or whether it could be the "strong = HCP or playing tricks" version, West could have asked a follow up question. Assuming that NS actually have an agreement, he would have gotten the explanation in the way he wanted it.

Let's not forget that West was well aware that there are players out there who play that 2♣ could be based on distribution. It is given in the OP:

 bluejak, on 2011-October-06, 15:13, said:

West said he was getting more and more annoyed with players opening distributional two-bids and calling them strong. It is an abuse that the EBU L&EC has been worrying about for some time.

So, yes, there would be a basis. But if it is important for West to know the precise NS style, he could have protected himself by asking the next question. So, I think I would not adjust.

(Maybe I am somewhat biased. I am used to explanations of 2♣ as: "Weak with both majors or something strong" or "weak two in diamonds or something strong" or "weak with five spades and a 4+ minor or something strong". In those cases the "something strong" is specified on the convention card, but opponents are rarely interested in the strong variations. I realize that this maybe different in a context where 2♣ always only is something strong, and the only variation is in how "strong" is defined.)

Rik