[bluejak]

This is a live case where I have been asked for a view - a ruling really - more as a matter of principle than for any other reason. The effect of this ruling on the actual scores will be negligible. So I am asking for your assistance.

---

I believe that was the auction. Something like, anyway. East led a heart, and declarer made ten tricks.

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. Unlike the ACBL's 'strong is in the eye of the beholder' a strong opening in the EBU must conform to the 'Extended Rule of 25', which, according to the Orange book, is

Quote

10 B 4 Strong openings are often described as ‘Extended Rule of 25’ which means the minimum allowed is any of:

a) subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal highcard strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks, or
b) any hand meeting the Rule of 25 or
c) any hand of at least 16 HCPs

Examples:
♠ A K Q J x x x x ♥ x x ♦ x x ♣ x does count as 8 clear-cut tricks.
♠ A K Q x x x x x ♥ x x ♦ x x ♣ x does not.

Clear-cut tricks are clarified as tricks expected to make opposite a void in partner’s hand and the second best suit break.

Further examples:
AKQxxxxx (7 CCT), KQJxxxx (5), AQJ98xx (5), KQJTx (3), KQJTxxx (6), AKT9xxxxx (8), KJTxxx (2)

The opening 2♣ was described as a game force or a balanced 23+ count. West also suggested that even if the 2♣ was not illegal, it was mis-described, and he would have bid on the first round if he had known it could be that weak. He suggested that after

---

whatever happened, N/S would not reach the high-scoring 4NT.

Any ideas please? It is pairs, a club night, reasonable or better players by club standards.

[AlexJonson]

If I were West I would be more interested in the consequences of (2C)-4H... than whining about the opponents 2-level opening style.

Given that I made my choice to pass and back in, I'd count myself unlucky the opps were able to still land in 4NT.

As for the TD, the opening bid is reasonable (IMO), he intends to force to game and has a massive hand. In my opinion the TD confirms the result and warns West.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree the opening bid was mis-described.
I don't understand West's bidding, or his argument. West was unable to bid over a strong 2C opening, but was prepared to bid 3H on the next round, when it is more dangerous to do so? Why is he now suddenly going to come in over 2C described as "23+, a game force, or an 8-playing trick hand"?

[campboy]

Agree that it was misdescribed, and agree with the scepticism about West doing anything different. Was he asked why he would bid differently?

[nigel_k]

I don't agree with a rule that sets the same standard for an Acol 2♣ and a precision 1♣. But given the rule exists, the bid is obviously legal. However, words mean different things depending on context. So the legal definition of 'strong' for the purposes of deciding whether a bid is permissible isn't necessarily decisive when deciding whether an explanation is adequate. In my opinion, the word 'strong' would not be an adequate description of a 2♣ opening if the partnership agreement is that any 8 playing trick hands qualifies regardless of high cards. And the rules having a definition of 'strong' in a different context would not change that.

In the actual example, we don't know their agreement. It may well be that North didn't expect a hand like South's to open 2♣ and the description was in line with their agreement. Strictly speaking, 'game force' is not a description at all. But in ordinary usage, when you say 'game force or balanced 23+' what is being described is an Acol 2♣ opening and the description is adequate as long as the partnership requirements for a 2♣ opening are similar to what most people would understand as the requirements for an Acol 2♣.

The given South hand isn't close to meeting those requirements so I would rule incorrect explanation (subject to determining their actual agreement). It was possibly naive of West to pass 2♣ but maybe he felt that pass and bid later was the only way to convey a strong hand and with West having the benefit of the doubt I don't see why you would not adjust.

[sfi]

Doesn't this hand meet the rule of 25? It seems to be fine under part (b) of the definition, and thus I would rule that there is no misexplanation and no adjustment. Calling a hand with 9 clear tricks 'strong' doesn't seem unreasonable either.

West clearly demonstrates an awareness that distributional hands of this sort of strength can be opened 2♣, so I'm not sure why they are using this hand to make a point. In any case, words fail me about West's choice of actions at the table.

[blackshoe]

The hand meets rule of 25, so it is a legal 2♣ opening on that basis. If it did not meet the rule of 25, or if the requirement was rule of 26, then whether the bid is legal depends on whether the "subject to proper disclosure" clause in part (a) of the regulation was met. I do not think it was.

Like others, I'm not convinced West would do anything different if he had heard the hand might be "8 1/2 playing tricks and as few as 14 (or probably fewer - whatever describes the absolute minimum high card strength that would open 2♣) but I am prepared to hear his arguments why he would — and possibly to be convinced by them.

On the evidence presented, I would rule the bidding legal, caution NS to make sure they properly disclose their agreement, and caution West to be sure he knows what he would do differently given a different or more accurate explanation, and why. Particularly given that his suggested scenario relies on his partner raising to the four level on crap.

[dcrc2]

I don't see any evidence that the bid was misdescribed. It seems entirely consistent with an agreement of "23+ or game forcing" and South having taken a bit of a punt. The hand is not the typical dross that falls under 10B4a, after all. Even if it could be shown that N/S have an implicit agreement that such a hand is acceptable for 2♣, the explanation seems borderline OK to me. And the hand is so unusual that it seems highly unlikely that the partnership will have seen enough similar hands for an implicit agreement to have been formed.

(It doesn't meet the rule of 25 though. It has 14 HCP + 10 cards in the two longest suits = 24)

[Trinidad]

It is clearly legal to have the agreement that the South hand qualifies for a 2♣ opening. It meets two out of three criteria (a and b) where only one is needed.

Then the question remains whether the explanation "game force or a balanced 23+ count" is adequate. If the system is such that 2NT is the only non forcing rebid for South, and all other bids are forcing to game, then it is the right description. It's as easy as that. The fact that West wouldn't force to game on the South hand is irrelevant.

If West accuses NS that the agreement is misdescribed, perhaps West knows more about the NS system and why it is a misdescription. Does West somehow know that NS can stop below game on unbalanced hands? If not, West doesn't have any reason for his accusation. As a TD, I would tell him that.

I understand that West is miffed about the bad result, but that is entirely due to the fact that he focussed on the values that South didn't have rather than on the values that he had himself. It made him forget to bid his hand.

Finally, I don't see any reason why the EBU L&EC is worried about this. There is a set of rules describing what agreements are legal. Either the hand fits the rules or it doesn't. Act accordingly. Then there is the question about the explanation. It is either correct or incorrect. Act accordingly. This was an easy case as far as I can see. The hand did fit the rules and the explanation seemed to be eminently correct. Next board.

Rik

[Trinidad]

dcrc2, on 2011-October-06, 17:55, said:

I don't see any evidence that the bid was misdescribed. It seems entirely consistent with an agreement of "23+ or game forcing" and South having taken a bit of a punt. The hand is not the typical dross that falls under 10B4a, after all. Even if it could be shown that N/S have an implicit agreement that such a hand is acceptable for 2♣, the explanation seems borderline OK to me. And the hand is so unusual that it seems highly unlikely that the partnership will have seen enough similar hands for an implicit agreement to have been formed.

(It doesn't meet the rule of 25 though. It has 14 HCP + 10 cards in the two longest suits = 24)

It has 8+3=11 cards in the two longest suits. Added to the 14 HCP's that makes 25.

Rik

[mrdct]

dcrc2, on 2011-October-06, 17:55, said:

(It doesn't meet the rule of 25 though. It has 14 HCP + 10 cards in the two longest suits = 24)

According to my abacus, 8 + 3 = 11 - so clearly this hand satisfies the 'Extended Rule of 25'. He is also quite OK on the clear-cut tricks rule.

I don't see anything misleading about the explanation of "game force or balanced 23+" which seem to be exactly what he's holding.

It's useful to also look at '11 G 3' which states, "Two of a suit openings may be played as any one of the following: (a) Strong: Any combination of meanings provided that it promises a minimum strength of ‘Extended Rule of 25’ (see 10 B 4) ..."

As far as I can see, the concept of a "game forcing" opening bid isn't defined in the Orange Book, but "Strong" is the only category under which a 2♣ opening of this nature would be permitted in a Level 2, 3 or 4 event so I'm at a loss to think how West could've been in any doubt as to the sort of hand-types South could hold.

As the TD, I would advise the table that the 2♣ opening conforms to the Orange Book requirements and is therefore legal and the explanation of it as "game forcing or balanced 23+" is sufficient, although as a matter of best practice North-South would do better to include a broad description of the 'Extended Rule of 25' in their explantion; particularly against inexperienced opponents. As a moot point, I would suggest to West that at these colours an immediate action over 2♣ is indicated irrespective of its meaning so even if there was some deficiency in the explanation of 2♣ any damage is self-inflicted.

[Vampyr]

nigel_k, on 2011-October-06, 16:07, said:

I don't agree with a rule that sets the same standard for an Acol 2♣ and a precision 1♣.

I totally agree. In fact, I made a fool of myself recently by stating that this was not the case, because it seemed too stupid to be true, and was astonished to discover that it was.

Quote

But given the rule exists, the bid is obviously legal.

Yes, clearly. The problem is with the explanation. But the further problem is that the agreement may well not be detailed enough to determine whether this was a "deviation" or a system bid.

[mrdct]

Vampyr, on 2011-October-06, 21:11, said:

The problem is with the explanation. But the further problem is that the agreement may well not be detailed enough to determine whether this was a "deviation" or a system bid.

Maybe South here could take a leaf out of the book of South in another currently active thread and say to West, "what part of 'game forcing' don't you understand?".

[nigel_k]

mrdct, on 2011-October-06, 21:33, said:

Maybe South here could take a leaf out of the book of South in another currently active thread and say to West, "what part of 'game forcing' don't you understand?".

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.

[Vampyr]

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.

Yes, but loads of people haven't really discussed what sort of hands they might or might not have. So what can be done here?

[mrdct]

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.

Why would an opponent assume an Acol 2♣ opening (which is not game forcing) when the non-strong balanced option has been described as 'game forcing'? Moreover, the EBU has promulgated a fairly clear definition of what 'strong' is for a two-level opening and having 9 clear-cut tricks, at least opening values and conforming to the 'extended rule of 25' clearly qualifies as 'strong'. As I said before, I don't think the explanation of 'game forcing or 23+ balanced' is ideal disclosure but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it's a misexplanation.

[dcrc2]

Trinidad, on 2011-October-06, 18:08, said:

It has 8+3=11 cards in the two longest suits. Added to the 14 HCP's that makes 25.

Rik

Dammit, and I looked so carefully! Sorry!

That makes it even more clear there was no MI, in my opinion, as if we're not applying section (a) we don't have to worry about what "subject to proper disclosure" means.

[iviehoff]

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.

Where players are using single-suited 2-bids, they must be announced as "strong", "intermediate" or "weak". And in this context "strong" has the same meaning. And also I think it is reasonable to assume that if a player uses the term "strong", in relation to a 2-bid, he is using it in the EBU-defined sense, otherwise no one knows what he meant.

Now the player here did not say "strong", he said "game-forcing", which doesn't necessarily imply "strong" in the EBU sense. But he is using the bid with one strong option (23+ balanced), therefore all the options must be strong in the EBU sense. So, although he didnt' actually say "strong", we can be confident that when he says "game forcing", it must be at least "strong" in the EBU sense.

Now this hand is quite clearly "strong" in the EBU sense, it is Rule of 25 and has 9 clearcut tricks. You could take an ace away and it would still be "strong" in the EBU sense, so it is an A beyond minimally strong. But this is something of a red herring. We know it must be "strong", and it is "strong", even though the player didn't use the term. But players are still required to give proper disclosure of the types of strong hand they use a bid for. Because many players do not open hands like this using "strong" calls.

So the ultimate question is, did the use of the term "game forcing" suitably describe the kinds of hands so as to reveal to the opponents he might use it for this type of hand.

Now there is a back-story here which affects how people look at these things. The traditional "Acol 2" bid, whether a natural Acol strong 2, or used as part of a multi-meaning 2-bid like Benjamin 2C, has a traditional description which is often abbreviated to "8 playing tricks". But the proper understanding of an Acol 2 is "a hand of strength and quality with substantial defence", an implication which means that partner can usually judge that if the ops are bidding high they are sacrificing, not competing. But soe people are so used to the abbreviated description, and ill-informed of the intentions, abuse the Acol 2 bid to include the kind of hand shown here, a hand with high trick-taking ability, but little defence. We then had the argument, when it came to explanations, along the lines "All I said was 8 playing tricks, I never said it was a hand of strength and quality," whereas others would say "but it is implied, because that is the short code for the trad Acol 2." So the EBU came along and defined the term strong, so that if people wished to claim they were playing a "strong 2", or using a strong option in a Benjamin 2-bid, then it had at least to be "strong". But, nevertheless, people using it for hands that are not of strength and quality are required to give proper disclosure.

Now the player here did not even say "Acol 2-type", nor "8-playing tricks", what he said was "game-forcing". We know it must be strong, and it is, nevertheless it is not a hand of "strength and quality". Do we read into the term "game-forcing" an implication that this must be a "hand of strength and quality" with substantial defence? Or can the player reasonably claim he never said that. Clearly the ops read that into it, but was it reasonable for them to do so? It has been pointed out that "23+ or game forcing" is a traditional abbreviated description of the trad Acol 2C bid. I therefore think it is incumbent on the player to give proper disclosure if they are using the bid in a way that admits hands that are purely offensive. Using a traditional formulation that is used to describe the traditional Acol 2C fails to give that disclosure.

[gordontd]

I can't see much wrong with the description, if they really do play it as game-forcing. I'd ask them if North would have to bid on with a balanced Yarborough in the the auction 2♣-2♦-3♣.

Clearly it conforms to the Extended Rule of 25 (with something to spare), but some posters here seem to want to criticise NS because the EBU regulation doesn't say exactly what they think it should.

As others have said, West doesn't deserve much sympathy for failing to bid his hand. Would he still complain if North's ♦A had been in South's hand?

[StevenG]

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

Do we read into the term "game-forcing" an implication that this must be a "hand of strength and quality" with substantial defence?

No. Why should we? If all that is said is "game-forcing", then all that is meant is "game-forcing". I didn't play competitive bridge back in the days of Acol strong 2s, so why should I have to second-guess what people might erroneously read into an entirely accurate description?