[lamford]

---

This was a hand from a matchpoint event at a local club recently - the one where the club's equivalent of SB had made such a fuss about the diamonds. This South was the equivalent of Walter the Walrus - no bidding judgement, but quite capable of working out 16 HCP or the Extended rule of 25. West could not get into the bidding, as immediate bids would have been weak hands, and double of 3C would have been takeout, but was unhappy about the explanation of the South hand as strong, despite the additional disclosure. The +400 he scored for 3C - 8 was inadequate compensation for the missed vulnerable game or even slam, and an outright bottom. Walter could find no reasonable rebid other than 3C, and the TD wasn't sure what he would have bid either. "As the rustic said to the motorist, I would not start from here", was his response, but that did not help him rule on the hand.

North was SB, who carefully explained the bid as shown, when asked by West. He was keen to get the wording exactly right, as he would soon pounce if the opponents transgressed, and he knew the TD would not give him the benefit of any doubt.

The club's senior kibitizer, Oscar, thought it was a curious hand in that the opponents could make slam in the suit in which the opponents had legally opened a level-3 Benjy 2C, and rebid that suit at the three level!

How would you rule?

[campboy]

Did West understand the explanation? If not, why didn't he ask what it meant?

The reason I consider this different to the other thread is that "extended rule of 25" is obviously a technical term; "strong" is not and it is unreasonable to expect people to understand it to cover potentially anything that satisfies the ERo25. This explanation also makes it clear that it is not unusual for a 2♣ opening to have 16 HCP, and that it may have fewer.

I also don't think much of West's reasoning. 5♣ immediately might by agreement show a weaker hand, but that isn't going to stop it making. In fact, it seems the only reason for passing initially is that it makes it easier to find a slam, and that is more of an issue if the bid could be weaker, not less.

[StevenG]

Result stands as NS have done nothing wrong. Would there be a problem if South, playing Precision, had opened the hand 1♣?

[PeterAlan]

 campboy, on 2011-May-21, 05:20, said:

The reason I consider this different to the other thread is that "extended rule of 25" is obviously a technical term; "strong" is not and it is unreasonable to expect people to understand it to cover potentially anything that satisfies the ERo25.

Orange Book 2010 said:

11 G 3 General
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).
...
11 G 4 Withdrawal of some previously permitted agreements
The rules for strong hands in 11 G 3(a) have been rationalised and simplified. As a consequence certain agreements that were previously permitted may no longer be so.
(a) An artificial opening which shows an Acol Two is no longer a ‘strong hand’ unless it shows at least ‘Extended Rule of 25’ (see 10 B 4). ...

When the OB itself is written using an unqualified "strong" as a technical term in these ways I think we just have to adjust our understanding of what it is being used to mean. If we all have to play according to detailed Orange Book rules then it's unreasonable for people who have to abide by and be fully aware of those detailed rules when alerting, announcing, describing and disclosing their own agreements to be able to say that they are not properly aware of them when receiving the corresponding information from the other side.

When are you going to come up with a name for this fantasy club of yours, Paul? The Dragons?

[lamford]

 PeterAlan, on 2011-May-21, 06:18, said:

When are you going to come up with a name for this fantasy club of yours, Paul? The Dragons?

The Griffins, I think

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2011-May-21, 05:20, said:

I also don't think much of West's reasoning. 5♣ immediately might by agreement show a weaker hand, but that isn't going to stop it making. In fact, it seems the only reason for passing initially is that it makes it easier to find a slam, and that is more of an issue if the bid could be weaker, not less.

I would not be that happy about bidding 5C immediately at these colours if South had the balanced 23-24 with something like AKx AKQx QJxx Ax. That seems like -500, when partner might well be beating four of a major, and we might be beating 3NT. So, passing was quite reasonable. And I would worry that a jump to 5C on the second round, in the suit that South had shown a benjy 2C, might be misinterpreted. Not to mention the chances of the clubs being 6-0 with just as bad a result.

[campboy]

 PeterAlan, on 2011-May-21, 06:18, said:

When the OB itself is written using an unqualified "strong" as a technical term in these ways I think we just have to adjust our understanding of what it is being used to mean. If we all have to play according to detailed Orange Book rules then it's unreasonable for people who have to abide by and be fully aware of those detailed rules when alerting, announcing, describing and disclosing their own agreements to be able to say that they are not properly aware of them when receiving the corresponding information from the other side.

People do not generally have to be aware of the detail of the OB definition of "strong". If my methods are well above the minimum permitted for an artificial strong bid, why do I have to know what the minimum actually is? Even if you think everyone should know the OB definition, it is certainly the case that many people don't and they will very naturally expect it to mean something different. Describing your methods in a way which you know is liable to be misunderstood does not sound like good disclosure to me.

Further, if we were expected to understand "strong" in an explanation as having that definition then I believe the definition would need to appear in the section of the OB about disclosure (sections 3-5) not merely in the sections on permitted methods (10-11) as at present.

[lamford]

 campboy, on 2011-May-21, 07:16, said:

Even if you think everyone should know the OB definition, it is certainly the case that many people don't and they will very naturally expect it to mean something different. Describing your methods in a way which you know is liable to be misunderstood does not sound like good disclosure to me.

This is poor reasoning. Disclosure should use the terms in the OB, regardless of what you think the opponents would think those terms mean. Of course the OB should spell out the form of words to be used, but the disclosure by North in this case was full and more than adequate. No doubt Dburn would just have stated: "is likely to have an outside king if he has a solid suit somewhere."

[Jeremy69A]

Quote

Disclosure should use the terms in the OB, regardless of what you think the opponents would think those terms mean

If my partner opened 2C I would explain it as GF or 23-24 balanced rather than a hand which complied with the Extended Rule of 25. That's not a comment on the language in the OB but rather that I am trying to communicate partner's hand to, perhaps, some not great players who don't have the OB as their bedtime reading.
I did once play with a partner who alerted and explained a Precision 1D extremely precisely. No-one could have criticised his disclosure. Unfortunately he was drowned out by the snoring of the opposition as the explanation entered it's second hour.

[PeterAlan]

 campboy, on 2011-May-21, 07:16, said:

Even if you think everyone should know the OB definition, it is certainly the case that many people don't and they will very naturally expect it to mean something different.

But how am I supposed to know what your "something different" is? It won't be the same as someone else's either. And do you even know yourself - do you actually have a well-defined differentiation between the opponents' hands you regard as strong and those you don't?

So it comes down to two things: you have to know what what I'm meaning by strong (when I use it), and I have to ensure that what I mean by strong at least meets the minimum criteria laid down by the EBU (no problem here).

Regarding the first of these, there are two different types of occasion when it might arise. The first is in announcing natural 2-bid openings that meet the Extended Rule of 25. The second is when providing fuller disclosure, whether that's what I put on the SC or what I say in answer to an enquiry.

When announcing a natural 2-bid opening that might only be authorised under OBN 10B4(a) (ie not necessarily either 16HCP or Rule of 25) it seems to me that there's no alternative under OB 5D1 to saying "strong". For both the reasons that Lamford's given in the Crockfords Final 1 thread and in the interests of better disclosure - it at least makes clear that you're not straying outside Extended Rule of 25 territory - I don't think it's right to use 5D2 to say something like "strong, might be intermediate". So I think that "strong" in the context of an announcement has to mean no more and no less than "meets the Extended Rule of 25".

When providing fuller disclosure, there's actually no need ever to use the word "strong" at all: just state what the details of the agreement are. I could accept that in cases where the partnership agreement is to open such low HCP 8+ playing trick hands with a strong 2-bid (natural or otherwise, such as Benji-style) then it's necessary to spell out exactly what could apply. However, speaking personally and given the number of Benji-system pairs out there, I would get pretty weary if I heard "8+ playing tricks, might only have the normal high card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks" every time we asked about an alerted 2♣ or had the auction explained to us: I would rather just hear "strong, 8+ playing tricks" with the standard ERo25 meaning of "strong" being taken as understood. If I really wanted to know about HCP etc limits I could look for elaboration (at risk of creating UI). Given that 10B4(a) has now been there for nearly 4 years, and there's been so much publicity about it (it was very clearly and deliberately publicised at the time of the change, both in English Bridge and elsewhere), I would be in favour of dropping the words "subject to proper disclosure" from it. And I really can't believe that someone playing in the Crockfords Final weekend was completely oblivious to that change.

But whether we take such a view or not, there's no way that I can ever be expected to understand or take account of what you might regard as "strong", and it's pointless to suppose that my disclosure can ever involve such a notion. Everyone has to understand that.

 campboy, on 2011-May-21, 07:16, said:

Further, if we were expected to understand "strong" in an explanation as having that definition then I believe the definition would need to appear in the section of the OB about disclosure (sections 3-5) not merely in the sections on permitted methods (10-11) as at present.

I would agree with this.

[nige1]

 StevenG, on 2011-May-21, 05:20, said:

Result stands as NS have done nothing wrong. Would there be a problem if South, playing Precision, had opened the hand 1♣?

Agree. IMO, if we must endure system-regulations, then they should be expressed in simple terms like Milton Work HCP and Suit-lengths. Thus "Rule of 25" is fine -- few opponents are familiar with the phrase but it is easy enough to explain. More sophistication is out of place in the rules of a game. Anyway the rules should not concern themselves with subtle nuances of judgement.

[campboy]

 PeterAlan, on 2011-May-21, 11:25, said:

But whether we take such a view or not, there's no way that I can ever be expected to understand or take account of what you might regard as "strong", and it's pointless to suppose that my disclosure can ever involve such a notion. Everyone has to understand that.

You can't be expected to know what your opponent will understand by "strong". You can be expected to take account of the fact that he is likely to understand something other than what you mean, and so use a different term.

There are, as you say, a lot of Benji players out there. A significant number of them will open hands with little to no defensive strength but lots of playing tricks; others take a more traditional view. You seem to want both groups to give the same explanation of "strong, 8+ playing tricks"; I think they ought to give different explanations. I also think this is what "subject to proper disclosure" is intended to accomplish: its presence in 10B4a suggests that the sort of explanation that someone might give for a benji opening which does not include those low-pointcount hands would not be considered adequate for one that does.

[FrancesHinden]

 PeterAlan, on 2011-May-21, 11:25, said:

And I really can't believe that someone playing in the Crockfords Final weekend was completely oblivious to that change.

This was the final of the Crockfords Plate, i.e. the event for non-seeded teams who lost their first match, so might well include some inexperienced players.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2011-May-21, 09:57, said:

Disclosure should use the terms in the OB, regardless of what you think the opponents would think those terms mean.

Nonsense. The purpose of disclosure is to disclose. If you describe a bid as "strong" because you think that this will accurately convey your agreements to the opponents, that's fine. If you explain something in a way that you know is likely to be misinterpreted, that's not fine at all, regardless of whether it's within the rules.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2011-May-22, 03:37, said:

Nonsense. The purpose of disclosure is to disclose. If you describe a bid as "strong" because you think that this will accurately convey your agreements to the opponents, that's fine. If you explain something in a way that you know is likely to be misinterpreted, that's not fine at all, regardless of whether it's within the rules.

But here there was a specific North-South agreement that the bid was strong in that all hands that were 16+HCP and all hands that conformed to the extended rule of 25 were opened 2C. Therefore this agreement was exactly and precisely disclosed - perhaps the extended rule of 25 could be explained more fully, but the opponents can always ask. They had no agreements regarding suit quality as you can see. Any other form of disclosure would be incorrect. And note that the term "rule of 25" is in the beginner's manual "Standard English", in wikipedia, and on the EBU website, so it is about as well-known as the footballer who is taking legal action against Twitter.

[PeterAlan]

 gnasher, on 2011-May-22, 03:37, said:

Nonsense. The purpose of disclosure is to disclose. If you describe a bid as "strong" because you think that this will accurately convey your agreements to the opponents, that's fine. If you explain something in a way that you know is likely to be misinterpreted, that's not fine at all, regardless of whether it's within the rules.

I'm finding all these pleadings on behalf of those who want to be able to go on "misinterpreting" the word "strong" when it's well-defined in the Orange Book, and expecting everyone else to accommodate them, a little synthetic. Such people can never be satisfied, since as I said above (1) I can never know what they do interpret as "strong", (2) they probably don't know themselves, and (3) it varies from pair to pair. The only ways round this are either to accept that "strong" means exactly what the OB says or to stop using it in descriptions altogether. The latter seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, especially when OB 5D1 mandates its use when announcing natural 2-bids. As my children would say: Get over it. Move on.

I'm all in favour of full disclosure, and we can discuss what else needs to be said about certain hands, but attacking the use of "strong" isn't the way to go about it.

[gnasher]

 PeterAlan, on 2011-May-22, 03:59, said:

I'm finding all these pleadings on behalf of those who want to be able to go on "misinterpreting" the word "strong" when it's well-defined in the Orange Book, and expecting everyone else to accommodate them, a little synthetic. Such people can never be satisfied, since as I said above (1) I can never know what they do interpret as "strong", (2) they probably don't know themselves, and (3) it varies from pair to pair. The only ways round this are either to accept that "strong" means exactly what the OB says or to stop using it in descriptions altogether. The latter seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, especially when OB 5D1 mandates its use when announcing natural 2-bids. As my children would say: Get over it. Move on.

I'm all in favour of full disclosure, and we can discuss what else needs to be said about certain hands, but attacking the use of "strong" isn't the way to go about it.

I wasn't attacking the use of the word "strong". Now was I pleading on behalf of people who misinterpret it. I was objecting specifically to the assertion that "Disclosure should use the terms in the OB, regardless of what you think the opponents would think those terms mean." If you describe something in a way that you know or expect will be misinterpreted, you're not playing something that I'd recognise as bridge.

I'm not saying that this is what happened in the original case, or in Pauls' hypothetical case - my objection is to the principle that Paul stated.

[dburn]

 lamford, on 2011-May-21, 09:57, said:

No doubt Dburn would just have stated: "is likely to have an outside king if he has a solid suit somewhere."

No, I wouldn't. If I could open this hand 2♣, I would explain it as "16 plus points with any distribution, or any hand meeting the rule of 25, or any hand with eight sure tricks and 12 points upwards". If my opponents did not know what the rule of 25 was, I would tell them.

I would also, for avoidance of doubt, explain 3♣ as "natural, but not necessarily a solid or even a particularly strong suit". I am aware that I do not have to do this according to the Orange Book, but I would do it anyway.

[lamford]

 dburn, on 2011-May-22, 05:30, said:

No, I wouldn't. If I could open this hand 2♣, I would explain it as "16 plus points with any distribution, or any hand meeting the rule of 25, or any hand with eight sure tricks and 12 points upwards". If my opponents did not know what the rule of 25 was, I would tell them.

I would also, for avoidance of doubt, explain 3♣ as "natural, but not necessarily a solid or even a particularly strong suit". I am aware that I do not have to do this according to the Orange Book, but I would do it anyway.

And when partner puts down: ♠ AKQJxxxx ♥ xx ♦ xx ♣ x "... [which] does count as 8 clear-cut tricks.", the example minimum hand in the OB, despite your laudable attempts at full disclosure, SB will get it recorded as a deviation by the vigilant VixTD, as it did not meet any of the specified hands in your description.

And I presume that you would only explain 3♣ if asked, and you would not alert it, as otherwise SB will have the TD along again.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2011-May-22, 04:28, said:

If you describe something in a way that you know or expect will be misinterpreted, you're not playing something that I'd recognise as bridge.

I share your view of the way bridge should be played, but what we are deciding here is how the rules should be applied. SB is quite entitled to play bridge in his own sad way, and certainly if he is following the OB to the letter, he cannot be criticised.

Another example is that the current rules are that four-level transfers do not get alerted after a 1NT opener, so that 1NT - 4H (unalerted) will get past the person who would have taken some action if it was alerted. There is an interesting ethical question here, should we deliberately break the alerting rules to the benefit of the opponents, or should we follow them. My partner and I adopt the former stance, as we think the Law is an ass. And sorry to go off-thread.