[weejonnie]

An appeals committee was called at a bridge club in Northern England over an appeal by a well-known visitor at an EBU sanctioned event held there over the weekend.

The deal in question was uninteresting.

---

After South dealt and passes, West quickly became declarer in 3NT. After the opening club lead he quickly took three losing finesses into the South hand and ended up with 10 tricks for a below average score. (Yes I know this is bad play). With a mellifluous tongue he turned to South.

"You had everything?"
"Yes - but the hand was balanced and we have an agreement not to open under any circumstances with fewer than 12 points - even pre-empting in 1st position and our 2-bids are all strong. We find we need a bit extra."
"Director Please", came the usual bellow".
"NS are playing an illegal convention. The blue book states quite categorically that:-

"A pass before any player has bid must not show , or usually have , any values"

"The probability that a hand has fewer than 12 points is 56.24% and the probability that a hand has 7 - 11 points is 35.68%. Thus most of the time South is going to have some values. (In fact the chance that he has 8+ points - and so qualify for a legal level 4 1 opening hand is nearly 50% of all the hands under 12 points). My partner and I open on all 8+ point hands (that conform to the rule of 18 in 1st & second) and many weaker ones, so do our utmost to obey this instruction. I demand an AV+, AV- in accordance with EBU guidelines."

The TD declined and the player, who would have won the event but for the hand in question, appealed.

[manudude03]

We have 5D1 for this:

Quote

It is generally allowed to vary a permitted understanding by making it more restrictive. Thus if
a certain call is shown as playable in Sections 6 or 7 subject to a certain minimum strength
then it may be played with a higher minimum. Similarly suits may be played as longer than the
minimum shown.

I would be keeping the deposit here.

[sanst]

Quote

From the Blue Book
7A2 Pass
A pass before any player has bid must not show, or usually have, any values
A pass directly after a natural, non-forcing one-level suit opening bid must not show, or usually have, any values.
7A3 Strength of Opening One-level Bids
A one-level opening bid in a suit, whether forcing or not, must by agreement show 8+ HCP and, in first and second position, follow the Rule of 18. Natural 1NT opening bids must show 9+ HCP.

I have no idea who concocted paragraph 7A2 of the BB, but I suppose it was Delphi's oracle and nobody dared to say anything that might show that he or she didn't understand it. This is pure gibberish and I don't know how to interpret this regulation. Besides, there seems to be a contradiction with the next paragraph.
I think that this hand isn't worth opening unless you play a (very) weak 1NT. Should a Regulatng Authority force me to open a hand like this, I would pick up another hobby or play bridge outside their jurisdiction. Such a rule has nothing to do with bridge.

[helene_t]

So if my first seat pass is more likely to have at least one honour than not to have any, I am in breach of the regulation?

Of course not. But then again, as Joost implies, the expression "any values" is poorly chosen.

[barmar]

So does SB himself make a habit of opening unless he has a Yarborough? Or has he been violating 7A2 for years?

I guess 7A2 is intended to prohibit forcing-pass systems, but I agree with all the responses that it's poorly written. The second sentence also seems poor; assuming we reinterpret "any values" to mean the values normally associated with an opening 1 bid (as the first sentence presumably intended), it means we have to bid like the life novices who feel they have to double if they have opening strength but no suit worth overcalling with.

[helene_t]

WBF's HUM definition is (!) better here: it is about methods in which a bid is weaker than a pass: the definition of a pass can include hands with values, but the values must not be a reason to pass.

[weejonnie]

Maybe South should be playing Lucas 2s (4-7 HCP), and a Multi 2♦ (4-7 points, weak 2) + aggressive pre-empts - but I assume that 'distribution' would count as values (although it bumps up the average HCP for a pass).

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2017-January-23, 07:54, said:

I demand an AV+, AV- in accordance with EBU guidelines."

The TD declined and the player, who would have won the event but for the hand in question, appealed.

TD decision upheld, player fined 10% of a top for disrespect to the TD.

[mycroft]

I don't like the WBF agreement, as it (arguably) makes K/S illegal (there are many hands where if I must open 1m, I will pass instead, where if I could open 1M, it's an auto-open, and if it were balanced, it would be an auto-1NT). Similarly, I'll throw the book at the SB as soon as he shows up playing 9-11 NTs and he passes. I like the rewording that the ACBL committee rewriting the charts came to:

Quote

• An opening pass that is Forcing.
• An opening pass in first or second seat that shows a stronger hand than an opening 1-level bid with the same shape.

Yeah, that might still catch the 9-11 NTers if they pass balanced 12s, but oh well.

[barmar]

mycroft, on 2017-January-23, 10:46, said:

Yeah, that might still catch the 9-11 NTers if they pass balanced 12s, but oh well.

I'm trying to imagine anyone with that bidding style, outside a SB hypo.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-January-23, 09:33, said:

it means we have to bid like the life novices who feel they have to double if they have opening strength but no suit worth overcalling with.

That is indeed what it says. I must get started changing my agreements with all partners.

[lamford]

If North South were playing an otherwise legal method of four weak twos, say 0-8 with at least four in the bid suit, and a 11-13 NT at all positions, with all hands meeting the rule of 18 opening the bidding, then the only hand that would pass would be one such as this South hand, 4-4-3-2 or 4-3-3-3 9 counts or 4-3-3-3 10 counts. Very sensible to pass such hands, but illegal, because a pass would now always promise values. Deleting the "any" in "any values" would not address the lacuna.

[cherdano]

Man, your title had me worried. But fortunately, SB didn't make it all the way North across Hadrian's wall.

[lamford]

cherdano, on 2017-January-23, 17:03, said:

Man, your title had me worried. But fortunately, SB didn't make it all the way North across Hadrian's wall.

Well, the SBU were at the Camrose; are they not the union of Secretary Birds?

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2017-January-23, 16:42, said:

Very sensible to pass such hands, but illegal, because a pass would now always promise values.

Not if you had the freedom to pass 4333 0 counts. Just because your 2 level openings are "0-8, 4+ suit" does not mean that every qualifying hand has to be opened that way.

[WellSpyder]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-25, 03:56, said:

Not if you had the freedom to pass 4333 0 counts. Just because your 2 level openings are "0-8, 4+ suit" does not mean that every qualifying hand has to be opened that way.

Yes, but now you have a disclosure issue. "0-8, 4+ suit" does not sound like adequate disclosure if you don't open some hands that fit this description.

[helene_t]

mycroft, on 2017-January-23, 10:46, said:

I don't like the WBF agreement, as it (arguably) makes K/S illegal

Yes, WBF should have added "... with the same shape" as in the ACBL regulation.

[Zelandakh]

WellSpyder, on 2017-January-25, 04:40, said:

Yes, but now you have a disclosure issue. "0-8, 4+ suit" does not sound like adequate disclosure if you don't open some hands that fit this description.

If a pair plays a 10-12 1NT opening but chooses for whatever reason not to open some 10hcp balanced hands, do they also have a disclosure issue? Similarly for a pair that opens "Rule of 19" but might downgrade some hands - singleton honours, etc. The "disclosure issue" is much simpler in this case to fix as well, because the types of hands that do not choose the call are easy to categorise and add to the description.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2017-January-23, 07:54, said:

"A pass before any player has bid must not show, or usually have, any values"

However we interpret "any values", this clause is inherently flawed, in that all passes usually have some values. Lord Yarborough won money by offering 1000-1 against a hand having no honour card, so almost always a pass has some values. Therefore all bidding systems that fail to open on 1+ HCP are illegal. Four weak twos, 0-10, 4+ in a suit, and a 11-12 NT is fully compliant as there is no "value-showing" pass in the middle!

The correction, I think, is to change "any values" to "the values normally associated with an opening one bid".

[WellSpyder]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-25, 05:39, said:

If a pair plays a 10-12 1NT opening but chooses for whatever reason not to open some 10hcp balanced hands, do they also have a disclosure issue? [....]

Yes.