[lamford]

---

Table result 6♥= Lead K♦

SB played a match today in the North London teams knockout, which had recently adopted the new Blue Book. In his room, with SB South, the auction went 1S-All Pass, scoring +230, with East judging well not to bid because of his singleton heart. When he scored up, SB was keen to find out exactly what was explained for 2C in the other room on the auction shown, and North, Timothy the Toucan, stated it was "artificial and strong, not necessarily having 16 HCP or 12 HCP with 5 controls, but if it doesn't have that it will have game in his own hand, either in a suit or no-trumps".

"I suspected as much", said SB, "while the disclosure by North was indeed fulsome, the failure to guarantee either 16 HCP or 12 HCP with 5 controls makes it an illegal agreement. They could have played two multis, but they chose not to do so." "OSCAR!", he bellowed at OO. "Can you scrap this board please and fine the miscreants 3 IMPs?" "And I think that means we win the match by 2 instead of losing it by 16, I believe".

How do you rule?

[pran]

 lamford, on 2017-August-19, 17:05, said:

---

Table result 6♥= Lead K♦

SB played a match today in the North London teams knockout, which had recently adopted the new Blue Book. In his room, with SB South, the auction went 1S-All Pass, scoring +230, with East judging well not to bid because of his singleton heart. When he scored up, SB was keen to find out exactly what was explained for 2C in the other room on the auction shown, and North, Timothy the Toucan, stated it was "artificial and strong, not necessarily having 16 HCP or 12 HCP with 5 controls, but if it doesn't have that it will have game in his own hand, either in a suit or no-trumps".

"I suspected as much", said SB, "while the disclosure by North was indeed fulsome, the failure to guarantee either 16 HCP or 12 HCP with 5 controls makes it an illegal agreement. They could have played two multis, but they chose not to do so." "OSCAR!", he bellowed at OO. "Can you scrap this board please and fine the miscreants 3 IMPs." "And I think that means we win the match by 2 instead of losing it by 16, I believe".

How do you rule?

In my environment: PP to SB and table result stands
(If your Blue Book makes this auction illegal I should scrap that book. We have no problem with 2♣ opening showing major suit{s} and a maximum of 4 losers).

[lamford]

 pran, on 2017-August-20, 01:09, said:

In my environment: PP to SB and table result stands
(If your Blue Book makes this auction illegal I should scrap that book. We have no problem with 2♣ opening showing major suit{s} and a maximum of 4 losers).

You are being asked to rule, however, in a jurisdiction in which the minimum requirement for a "strong" 2C is 16 HCP or 12 HCP and 5 controls.

[sanst]

 lamford, on 2017-August-20, 02:39, said:

You are being asked to rule, however, in a jurisdiction in which the minimum requirement for a "strong" 2C is 16 HCP or 12 HCP and 5 controls.

I'm with Pran on this one. If your Blue Book has a nonsensical rule, get rid of it. It's obvious from your examples that this requirement is idiotic and has nothing to do with bridge. I'm almost tempted to say something about the Brexit.

[lamford]

I should have said. North London is in England, not Norway or the Netherlands. Apologies for failing to make this clear.

[lamford]

 sanst, on 2017-August-20, 02:54, said:

I'm with Pran on this one. If your Blue Book has a nonsensical rule, get rid of it. It's obvious from your examples that this requirement is idiotic and has nothing to do with bridge. I'm almost tempted to say something about the Brexit.

Getting rid of a rule in the Blue Book, or the entire Blue Book, requires a decision of the EBU L&E. I suppose that would be LExit, not BRexit. The North London club voted at its General Meeting to adopt the EBU level 4 regulations on conventions, and, currently, it is not legal to (agree to) open the South hand a strong 2C unless 2C includes a "non-strong" option. Surely you are not advocating retrospective legislation. Poor old SB followed the Blue Book, and suffered.

[pran]

 lamford, on 2017-August-20, 02:39, said:

You are being asked to rule, however, in a jurisdiction in which the minimum requirement for a "strong" 2C is 16 HCP or 12 HCP and 5 controls.

 lamford, on 2017-August-20, 03:22, said:

I should have said. North London is in England, not Norway or the Netherlands. Apologies for failing to make this clear.

Oh, I was fully aware of the jurisdiction but I was shocked to read this limitation for agreements on a strong 2♣ opening bid.

(And I would never accept any invitation to act as TD with such rules in force.)

[lamford]

 pran, on 2017-August-20, 04:40, said:

Oh, I was fully aware of the jurisdiction but I was shocked to read this limitation for agreements on a strong 2♣ opening bid.

(And I would never accept any invitation to act as TD with such rules in force.)

The TDs are volunteers and without them the club could not run. The club is entitled to opt out of the EBU system regulations, and the Committee will decide whether to do so at its next meeting. Meanwhile the TD has to rule on the above.

[BudH]

Is the term "controls" defined in the Blue Book? An ace, a king, a king/queen, a singleton, and a void could easily be considered to be "5-plus controls" - unless it is specifically defined to only be ace = 2 and king = 1.

[lamford]

 BudH, on 2017-August-20, 08:50, said:

Is the term "controls" defined in the Blue Book? An ace, a king, a king/queen, a singleton, and a void could easily be considered to be "5-plus controls" - unless it is specifically defined to only be ace = 2 and king = 1.

It is specifically defined as ace=2, king=1. I am surprised you have not already a Blue Book Poster for your club wall so that UK visitors can be prepared.

http://www.ebu.co.uk...2017-poster.pdf

[weejonnie]

5 C 3 To be considered a ‘Strong’ opening bid or overcall, the minimum allowed by agreement is either or both of:
(a) any hand of at least 16 HCP
(b) any hand of at least 12 HCP with at least five controls.

Partnerships who agree that an artificial opening (such as 2♣) may be made with a hand with a lot of playing strength but limited high cards (such as eight solid spades and little else) must disclose this clearly. For example, the opening could be described as “Either a strong hand or eight playing tricks in a major”. This applies even if the minimum agreed strength is in line with (b) above.
There is no restriction on the strength of a natural two-level or higher opening bid but similar requirements for full disclosure apply.

Had TT included "unless the suit is clubs" after the "artificial and strong, not necessarily having 16 HCP or 12 HCP with 5 controls" and before ", but if it doesn't have that it will have game in his own hand, either in a suit or no-trumps".

Then it would be OK. SB Knows the reason why. Otherwise if you have this agreement then it is an illegal agreement.

Note that EW can get out for -800 in a minor suit grand slam sacrifice and TTs explanation no doubt persuaded them not to compete.

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2017-August-20, 09:24, said:

Had TT included "unless the suit is clubs" after the "artificial and strong, not necessarily having 16 HCP or 12 HCP with 5 controls" and before ", but if it doesn't have that it will have game in his own hand, either in a suit or no-trumps".

Then it would be OK. SB Knows the reason why. Otherwise if you have this agreement then it is an illegal agreement.

Note that EW can get out for -800 in a minor suit grand slam sacrifice and TTs explanation no doubt persuaded them not to compete.

There was no mention on the poster of the need for the player to add "unless the suit is clubs" at the end of the statement made by TT, and I expect the NS agreement was that hands with 11 or 12 playing tricks in clubs would have been opened 2C. The poster says "for example", and the Toucan can be forgiven for thinking that his announcement was compliant. After all, "artificial and strong, not necessarily having 16 HCP or 12 HCP with 5 controls, but if it doesn't have that it will have game in his own hand, either in a suit or no-trumps" is an accurate rendition of what pretty much everyone plays. And I don't think TT adding "unless the suit is clubs" would have made the slightest difference to EW's decision to compete.

[weejonnie]

 lamford, on 2017-August-20, 09:46, said:

There was no mention on the poster of the need for the player to add "unless the suit is clubs" at the end of the statement made by TT, and I expect the NS agreement was that hands with 11 or 12 playing tricks in clubs would have been opened 2C. The poster says "for example", and the Toucan can be forgiven for thinking that his announcement was compliant. After all, "artificial and strong, not necessarily having 16 HCP or 12 HCP with 5 controls, but if it doesn't have that it will have game in his own hand, either in a suit or no-trumps" is an accurate rendition of what pretty much everyone plays. And I don't think TT adding "unless the suit is clubs" would have made the slightest difference to EW's decision to compete.

Oh I agree TT's explanation of the agreement was far more comprehensive than you would expect at most levels of bridge - unfortunately unless he further restricts his partner's hand then (under the EBU rules) it is still an illegal agreement, since it can include ♠5 ♥ - ♦ KQJT98 ♣ AKQT98.

But it is no different from agreeing to open a hand 1♥ 1st in hand with ♠ T9 ♥ AQT98 ♦ T9 ♣ QT98 (comes to 17 and thus fails rule of 18)

Maybe the L&EC should have included 'or 10 clear-cut tricks in a major or 11 clear-cut tricks in a minor' (see old ER25 meaning for 'clear-cut tricks' as part of the definition of 'strong'. I would have no problems with that.

[pigpenz]

Bridge is bridge no matter how they try to regulate it with rules
alot of people would open 2♣

I opened 2♣ with
♠Q
♥AKJT98
♦VOID
♣KQJT98

pretty similar and I was told I was wrong, but I felt I had pretty
close to 9-10 trickes regardless of what someone else may feel

[BudH]

 lamford, on 2017-August-20, 09:20, said:

It is specifically defined as ace=2, king=1. I am surprised you have not already a Blue Book Poster for your club wall so that UK visitors can be prepared.

http://www.ebu.co.uk...2017-poster.pdf

If I ever play outside the ACBL and make it to EBU land, I'll make sure I'll look up the details in the "Blue Book"!

[weejonnie]

 pigpenz, on 2017-August-20, 11:34, said:

Bridge is bridge no matter how they try to regulate it with rules
alot of people would open 2♣

I opened 2♣ with
♠Q
♥AKJT98
♦VOID
♣KQJT98

pretty similar and I was told I was wrong, but I felt I had pretty
close to 9-10 trickes regardless of what someone else may feel

It is similar - the only difference is that the singleton is a Queen - so the hand comes to 16 HCP and is therefore 'Strong' under the EBU definition (see above). So in the EBU there is no problem in agreeing to open such a hand. Yes the Queen of spades may be worthless - but at least it means that the opponents haven't got it and you'll force out an Ace or King with it. Whoever told you it was wrong is in error - no one can force you to play their system or use their method of hand evaluation - as long as you comply with the laws of bridge and the rules imposed by your regulating authority. Basically you have a 'no holds barred' or 'a line in the sand' option with bridge.

"The rules" imposed by an RA are an attempt to make bridge enjoyable for as many of their members as possible. Happy members continue to play bridge. Many people do not want to have to learn how to defend against 'fert' bids or come accross extremely complicated systems where they have to work out how to defend 'on the hoof' - for only one or two hands an evening. Even at the highest level (level 5), the EBU impose some restrictions on what can be played.

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2017-August-20, 12:25, said:

"The rules" imposed by an RA are an attempt to make bridge enjoyable for as many of their members as possible. Happy members continue to play bridge. Many people do not want to have to learn how to defend against 'fert' bids or come across extremely complicated systems where they have to work out how to defend 'on the hoof' - for only one or two hands an evening. Even at the highest level (level 5), the EBU impose some restrictions on what can be played.

I think the main motivation is to make the game as fair as possible. I don't think the average player wants to read the minutiae of the Blue Book, and they are much less likely to continue to play bridge if they lose 3 IMPs on this board to a Secretary Bird. People got used to the extended rule of 25, and, if one wanted to make things simple, one could just have that rule. People can still open a multi 2C to include non-strong hands, but the vast majority won't bother, and few will even go as far as The Toucan. As far as the ruling is concerned, I agree with you that one has to rule in favour of SB, but I have recommended to the committee that they opt out of the requirements of the Blue Book (which they are entitled to do). I was surprised that pran and sanst would disregard a regulation because they do not agree with it.

My partner and I have got round the regulations by including all game forces that have five spades or hearts but are not "strong" within 2C, and included the game force with clubs or diamonds which is not "strong" with our multi 3NT opener, showing SAT in a major or a non-compliant FG in a minor. Nothing then stops us from "deviating" by opening 2C instead with a FG with clubs, as long as this is just as much of a surprise to partner as the opponents. It will save room compared with opening 3NT and having to rebid 5C.

And I agree with you that some aspect of the 8 clear-cut tricks should have remained!

[lamford]

 weejonnie, on 2017-August-20, 10:34, said:

But it is no different from agreeing to open a hand 1♥ 1st in hand with ♠ T9 ♥ AQT98 ♦ T9 ♣ QT98 (comes to 17 and thus fails rule of 18)

There is a difference. One is allowed to deviate from system, and one is allowed to agree to open 1H on ♠ 32 ♥ AQJ32 ♦ 32 ♣ Q432. One can therefore decide to deviate from the agreed methods because of the good intermediates. Repeated deviations can, of course, lead to implicit agreements.

The difference is that most people don't regard the hand which is not "strong" but is a game force with clubs as a deviation, so they are "agreeing" to open this hand illegally. The Toucan could have legally said that if they get dealt a game force with clubs which is non-compliant, we have to either open 1C or deviate from our system by opening 2C. The RA can specify that the 2C bid cannot be deviated from, but I am not aware that they have done so.

[blackshoe]

 pigpenz, on 2017-August-20, 11:34, said:

Bridge is bridge no matter how they try to regulate it with rules alot of people would open 2♣

I opened 2♣ with
♠Q
♥AKJT98
♦VOID
♣KQJT98

pretty similar and I was told I was wrong, but I felt I had pretty close to 9-10 trickes regardless of what someone else may feel

Looks like ten tricks to me.

Wrong in the legal sense, or wrong in the bridge sense?

[blackshoe]

If I were still in England, I would structure my agreement to conform exactly to the Blue Book. Then I would have no problem deviating from that agreement. 2♣ bids come up rarely so unless SB wants to keep a couple of years worth of records, he can't claim my deviation on any particular day constitutes an illegal agreement.

BTW, on the OP case, I'd give the SB what he wants (less the fine for illegal agreement) and then I'd fine him a full board for telling me how to do my job. Call it "disrespect for the TD" if you want.