[weejonnie]

There was interesting discussion of the following hand at the local bridge club.

---

West led A♦ 'to look at dummy' and eventually also looked at -550.

"Director Please"

The TD came over.

"South opened a hand that included a 'weak' 2♥ or 2♠ otherwise all hands are ER25. If you count the hand you will see that he has 15 points (insufficient for ER25), 24 points when you add the two longest suits, nowhere near 8+ clear cut tricks and he certainly hasn't a weak 2 in hearts. North has confirmed that he, too would have opened 2♣ on that hand. This is an illegal agreement and I want my AV+ please."

South replied. "On our convention card it clearly states that any hand not meeting ER25 will be regarded as being 'weak' - see here. West has already confirmed to you that the hand is not one that meets ER25 and therefore according to our partnership agreement is is a weak 2 in hearts (we don't use the word 'intermediate' anywhere on our CC). The opponents were not misinformed and therefore there should be no score adjustment. Although the EBU lay down stringent requirements for a hand to meet ER25 and thus counted as being 'strong' (with which we always comply (now)), they (unlike the WBF) have no such definition for 'weak' or 'intermediate' - other than the obvious English grammar of 'not strong'.

West replied. "In the Blue book a 6-12 opening would be described as 'weak to intermediate'"

South noted "This comes under announcements - but our 2♣ is conventional; and, just to note, if 6-12 points is noted as 'weak to intermediate', what word do the EBU use for hands of strength 13 - 15 that don't meet ER25?"

How do you rule?

[TylerE]

Whatever S meant, and I'm not versed enough in EBU rules to...rule. I want to at least draw and quarter them though. Perhaps hang them first.


I think the W double is SEWoG. I mean, he has, what, If you're charitable, 2.25 defensive tricks?

[sanst]

The Blue Book doesn't give a definition of 'weak', but there are a few instructions that should be obeyed. There is 2A1"All partnership understandings, including implicit understandings and practices of the partnership (including those that arise by partnership experience), must be fully disclosed to opponents" and 2B6 "The use of the words such as ‘standard’, ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ to describe the partnership understanding of a call, and especially a play of the cards, should be avoided as it is often capable of misinterpretation".
To call a hand like this "weak" is a deliberate attempt to mislead the opponents and deserves a very serious PP.
West's double is cerainly not a SEWoG. That takes a lot more. Read Ton Kooijman's "Commentary to the 2007 edition of the Laws of Duplicate Bridge" at http://www.hkcba.org...commentary.pdf.
I just wonder how W knew by looking at the dummy, just after he had led, that South's hand didn't meet tge requirements of ER25. Surely that was only after the play.
I would change the score to NS 3NT made, and a penalty of 100% for misleading the opponents.

[Vampyr]

This problem is caused by the word "weak", which the EBU do condone as an announcement. Here, though, an explanation is asked for, so the agreement in full should be given; no need to hide behind such words as "weak", especially if you have defined it for yourself. I think this at least approaches an attempt to deliberately mislead.

[pran]

I don't believe this, a regulation that is applicable to hand evaluation does not define the maximum HCP for a "weak" hand?

Does the BB define the minimum HCP for a hand to be designated as "strong"?

[weejonnie]

pran, on 2017-January-15, 08:05, said:

I don't believe this, a regulation that is applicable to hand evaluation does not define the maximum HCP for a "weak" hand?

Does the BB define the minimum HCP for a hand to be designated as "strong"?

Maybe, maybe not: - 'Strong OPENINGS are often described as "Extended Rule of 25"' - so in the BB there are many cases where a blanket licence is given for hands that meet this rule (or ER24)(See page 20).

There is no requirement that a 'strong' opening or overcall so described must meet the requirements of ER25 - however you could play KQJT9876543 x x - as "Strong but does not necesarily meet ER25" or "Benji - 8 playing tricks in Spades, but may not meet ER25" (the latter is definitely preferable - and see below for my thoughts on HCPs"

The WBF give definitions of Weak (High card strength below an average hand (10HCP) and Strong (King or more above 10) which I assume will apply to all WBF events. If the EBU Intend that these definitions are to apply (and they probably/ possibly do but don't seem to make that clear to the average club player) then a jump overcall of 11-13 points would have to be described as "intermediate to strong" - but of course better to describe it as "11-13 points, 6 card suit, 6 or 7 losers" (or your more precise definition). Equally a weak 2 in a major (6-10) has to be announced (technically) as 'weak to intermediate' - now how many people do that!? (And for fun sake - if you add 3 points, so the range is the same (9-13) then you have to say "weak to strong"!) (Note that you must not say anything further when you 'announce'.)

It is now clear, I think, that you cannot just say "weak, intermediate, or strong" when asked to describe e.g. a jump overcall although many people at our club ask "How strong is that?" and get back the sort of answer you should might expect UNLESS the point range fully fits in with WBF guidelines. So, for example, when asked about a multi 2♦ you can't say "23-24 balanced, strong 2 in a minor or a weak 2 in a major" (Which by the way would be illegal unless you agree that the diamond suit hand matched ER25") - unless your minor suit call promised 13 points and the weak major call denied 10+"

Thus: -

AK9876
AK987
65

Can be announced or described as 'Strong....'

AK9876
AQ987
65
-

Can be announced as "Strong" under WBF guidelines" so presumably "Strong" under EBU guidelines, or alerted as "Strong but not necessarily complying with ER25"

AQ9876
AQ987
65
-

Is "Neither strong, nor weak", under WBF Guidelines - so presumably Announced as "Intermediate" under EBU Guidelines

KJT987
KQT98
65
-

Is "Weak..."

[sanst]

So it would be wise for the EBU to add "weak, intermediate and strong" to rule 2B6 of the Blue Book and to drop these terms in the rest of the text. It would probably also be wise to add a description of "full disclosure" to 2A1, requiring players to explain what HCP's, length and distribution has been agreed upon for a call.

[helene_t]

This is not an illegal agreement if the South hand is in the "weak" category, although the explanation is extremely poor.

The MI did not influence the results, though, so results stand.

How can West's double be a SEWoG? NS have both shown weak hands and then bid 3NT. Partner has double 3♥ for penalties while you have ♥KJ yourself so obviously partner must have something. You have 12 points while you could have had nothing. I don't even think pass would be an LA. If anything, East's double is a SEWoG but given that both opps have shown weakness and you have five trumps I think it's ok. Not that it matters since result stands anyway.

[blackshoe]

What, exactly, do WBF guidelines have to do with the regulations of a different RA? Does the BB explicitly mention these guidelines or incorporated them into EBU regulations? If so, then they are EBU regulations, and the fact that they match something in WBF regulations is irrelevant.

[weejonnie]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-16, 11:35, said:

What, exactly, do WBF guidelines have to do with the regulations of a different RA? Does the BB explicitly mention these guidelines or incorporated them into EBU regulations? If so, then they are EBU regulations, and the fact that they match something in WBF regulations is irrelevant.

I cannot find any definition of 'weak', 'intermediate', or 'strong' at level 2 or level 4 in either the white book or the blue book, although you are expected to 'announce' one of them (+- (not) forcing after 'strong'.) There IS an example of a '9-12' hand being advised to describe the call as 'weak to intermediate', and a precision 2♣ call (which is, I think 11-15) is described as 'intermediate' - even though it could reach the requirements of ER25. (There is no definition of 'intermediate' in WBF either - just 'weak' (<10HCP) and strong (>12HCP))

ER25 is NOT a definition of strong, IMHO: it is the definition of a hand of such playing strength that virtually any opening bid can be agreed to portray it - and not perfect! I would not really regard QJ3 AK32 K432 QJ as being a 'strong' hand, but it does qualify for ER25 - however AKJ98764 - XX - AJT (which will take a lot more tricks, isn't)

Maybe we should go back to the idea of adding 1 point for the 5th, 6th card of a suit and 3 for each longer one (or some variety e.g. add 1 for each card over 6) and include 'distributional points' in the ER25 definition.

[blackshoe]

weejonnie, on 2017-January-16, 15:13, said:

I cannot find any definition of 'weak', 'intermediate', or 'strong' at level 2 or level 4 in either the white book or the blue book, although you are expected to 'announce' one of them (+- (not) forcing after 'strong'.) There IS an example of a '9-12' hand being advised to describe the call as 'weak to intermediate', and a precision 2♣ call (which is, I think 11-15) is described as 'intermediate' - even though it could reach the requirements of ER25. (There is no definition of 'intermediate' in WBF either - just 'weak' (<10HCP) and strong (>12HCP))

ER25 is NOT a definition of strong, IMHO: it is the definition of a hand of such playing strength that virtually any opening bid can be agreed to portray it - and not perfect! I would not really regard QJ3 AK32 K432 QJ as being a 'strong' hand, but it does qualify for ER25 - however AKJ98764 - XX - AJT (which will take a lot more tricks, isn't)

Maybe we should go back to the idea of adding 1 point for the 5th, 6th card of a suit and 3 for each longer one (or some variety e.g. add 1 for each card over 6) and include 'distributional points' in the ER25 definition.

Is my inference from the WBF definitions you cite that "intermediate" means 10 to 12 incorrect?

I quite like Bergen's "starting points": HCP, plus or minus an adjustment for surplus of three or more "good" honors (aces and tens) or quacks, respectively), plus a point for each card over 4 in long suits,
minus a point for 'dubious honors' (Qx, Jx, QJ, KQ, KJ, K, Q, J), plus a point for good suits (3 honors in a four card or longer suit) or great suit (4 honors in 5 (4? I don't remember offhand) card or longer suit. I've also wondered if perhaps we need another category: "very strong". Without saying how to define that, I'd say a Precision 1♣ opener should be "strong" and an Acol (or SA or 2/1) 2♣ should be "very strong". I'm not sure either term would then fit a Benji 2♣ or Acol 2. Those are clearly "strong" under this thought, but not, I think, the bottom end of that. There also has to be some room for judgement. That seems, in the Precision case, to be built in to the definition of "strong" - I don't think many 13 counts would qualify for a Precision 1♣, but there might be some. I doubt that there are any 12 counts - and even if there are you have to draw the line somewhere. This seems a good place.

[barmar]

Note also that the meaning of "weak" depends on what it's modifying. Weak NT is typically something like 12-14 HCP, which is stronger than a weak suit opening. Even mini NT (10-12) just barely overlaps with most players' weak 2 bids.