[lamford]

Cyberyeti, on 2019-December-05, 02:45, said:

You said EW were two of Middlesex's finest players, but were they a regular partnership ? If not it's much more difficult to rule against them, as they're less likely to have an agreement or previous experience that they would open hands like this 2♣.

The characters and exact auction were made up for the purpose of the story, although people complained on Bridgewinners that they could be identified from the scoring program. The 2C bid, explanation of "strong" and ruling of -3 IMPs are all as per the event. They were a reasonably regular partnership. One of them stated he had never been dealt an 8-5-0-0 one loser hand before, but he would have opened 2C on it as well.

[sanst]

As the authors of the Blue Book should know, and TDs too, is that the Milton Work count (A=4, K=3 etc.) is an easy but rather poor method to establish the worth of a hand. Besides, “strong” is anyway in the eye of the beholder (and the RA). In Holland “strong” is defined as at least a king above average.
When I trained to become a director, we were told that you, when called at a table, you should ask yourself three questions:

[1]Is there an infraction?
[2]Is there damage to the NOS?
[3]Is the damage (partly) caused by the infraction?

In this case the answer to 2 is “no”; the remark about RR not bidding 2♠ is self-serving.
Something else: the fact that E and W both agree that such a hand should be opened 2♣ doesn’t prove that they have an agreement to do so. Hands like these are rare and probably never discussed, not even by the sages who wrote the Blue Book. I’m wondering which card they would put on the table or, for that matter, anyone playing a strong club system. I can’t imagine anyone playing bridge at a reasonable level not opening this hand with a strong bid.
There’s also a problem if E opens 1♥ and NS reach 4♠ with W passing with ♣Axxxxx and nothing else. And a 4♥ opening is even worse.

[KingCovert]

sanst, on 2019-December-05, 10:27, said:

As the authors of the Blue Book should know, and TDs too, is that the Milton Work count (A=4, K=3 etc.) is an easy but rather poor method to establish the worth of a hand. Besides, “strong” is anyway in the eye of the beholder (and the RA). In Holland “strong” is defined as at least a king above average.
When I trained to become a director, we were told that you, when called at a table, you should ask yourself three questions:

[1]Is there an infraction?
[2]Is there damage to the NOS?
[3]Is the damage (partly) caused by the infraction?

In this case the answer to 2 is “no”; the remark about RR not bidding 2♠ is self-serving.
Something else: the fact that E and W both agree that such a hand should be opened 2♣ doesn’t prove that they have an agreement to do so. Hands like these are rare and probably never discussed, not even by the sages who wrote the Blue Book. I’m wondering which card they would put on the table or, for that matter, anyone playing a strong club system. I can’t imagine anyone playing bridge at a reasonable level not opening this hand with a strong bid.
There’s also a problem if E opens 1♥ and NS reach 4♠ with W passing with ♣Axxxxx and nothing else. And a 4♥ opening is even worse.

At least a king above average? But, the average hand in bridge is something like a balanced 9.5 HCP hand... Yikes.

[nige1]

pran, on 2019-November-26, 03:52, said:

In Norway any opening bid (except 1♥ and 1♠) below 2NT shall be announced regardless of what information it conveys.I find that very sensible with today's mixture of conventions.

pescetom, on 2019-November-26, 11:07, said:

In Italy it's almost the same, the exception is only valid for 5-card majors (4-card is announced). I've been fighting to eliminate the exception which seems to me a pointless source of confusion, otherwise this scheme works well.

pran, on 2019-November-28, 09:46, said:

In Norway you are expected to announce precisely the same information that you would have given in response to a question (for instance after an alert).

Sven Pran tells us that in Norway, the 2♣ opener's partner would routinely announce its meaning. Presumably -- "G/F or 23+" -- or whatever the actual partnership agreement.
IMO, TFLB should stipulate a similar announcement protocol for all calls.as a first tentative step towards

• demolishing the unnecessary Local regulation Tower of Babel and
• reducing pointless controversy,

[blackshoe]

Patrick Darricades recently came out with Optimal Hand Evaluation, in which he asserts that all hand evaluation methods are flawed. Including his, although he says it's accurate 95% of the time. :-)

IAC, it's an interesting book.

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2019-December-05, 13:44, said:

Sven Pran tell us that in Norway, the 2♣ opener's partner would routinely announce its meaning. Presumably -- "G/F or 23+" -- or whatever the actual partnership agreement.
IMO, TFLB should stipulate a similar announcement protocol for all calls.as a first tentative step towards

• demolishing the unnecessary Local regulation Tower of Babel and
• reducing pointless controversy,

Local (and of course we are not talking about clubs or counties, but instead countries) regulations are designed for the people they serve. If system regulations were in the Law Book, you can say goodbye to your Multi and your 1NT opening that may contain a singleton, and don’t forget to limit your weak twos to a 5-point range. Do not be surprised when the subsequent book bans 4–card majors and weak NT...

I do not know how you have so frequently fallen foul of the regulations when playing in other countries. It pays to do a little research beforehand. I have played in roughly 15 countries, which is not a lot but probably above average, and also EBL events. I haven’t had any problems. I think that your experiences are not typical.

[nige1]

Vampyr, on 2019-December-05, 18:27, said:

Local (and of course we are not talking about clubs or counties, but instead countries) regulations are designed for the people they serve. If system regulations were in the Law Book, you can say goodbye to your Multi and your 1NT opening that may contain a singleton, and don't forget to limit your weak twos to a 5-point range. Do not be surprised when the subsequent book bans 4–card majors and weak NT...

I do not know how you have so frequently fallen foul of the regulations when playing in other countries. It pays to do a little research beforehand. I have played in roughly 15 countries, which is not a lot but probably above average, and also EBL events. I haven't had any problems. I think that your experiences are not typical.

• Vampyr might be mistaken about WBF systems policy,
• Players should comply with Bridge regulations -- even when they disagree with them -- as I do.

[lamford]

For the avoidance of doubt, the Secretary Bird and the Rueful Rabbit did not play in the event, indeed they are mythical characters, and the auction and narration are entirely made up. The hand is as dealt, and the ruling of 60-40 to NS in one match for the use of an illegal agreement is true as per the link. I unreservedly apologise to the North player at the table where the 2C bid was opened, Graham Orsmond, for suggesting that he might have called the TD or gloated over the matter. It had not occurred to me that anyone would link the story here with the result at the table, but I should have considered that possibility.

[pescetom]

I just hope for you the Director is not called Jeremy

[Vampyr]

nige1, on 2019-December-05, 19:02, said:

• Vampyr might be mistaken about WBF systems policy,
• Players should comply with Bridge regulations -- even when they disagree with them -- as I do.

It is not WBF systems policy that would be incorporated into the law book; it is the ACBL’s.

[lamford]

pescetom, on 2019-December-06, 07:22, said:

I just hope for you the Director is not called Jeremy

I checked on the EBU director list, and on the entry form. And I also checked that there was no R. Rabbit and no S. Bird playing. I do know an S Bird, but she did not enter. Nevertheless there was some confusion on Bridgewinners as Oswald the Ostrich did not realise they were fictional ...

[lamford]

sanst, on 2019-December-05, 10:27, said:

Something else: the fact that E and W both agree that such a hand should be opened 2♣ doesn’t prove that they have an agreement to do so. Hands like these are rare and probably never discussed, not even by the sages who wrote the Blue Book. I’m wondering which card they would put on the table or, for that matter, anyone playing a strong club system. I can’t imagine anyone playing bridge at a reasonable level not opening this hand with a strong bid.
There’s also a problem if E opens 1♥ and NS reach 4♠ with W passing with ♣Axxxxx and nothing else. And a 4♥ opening is even worse.

I agree. The classic meaning of 2C-2D-3M, explained in Bridge World many years ago, was a solid suit and cue-force, asking partner to cue aces in ascending order. Here we could have a perfectly good auction 2C-2D-3H-4C-7H, taking a slight risk of partner being void in hearts or having ♣ Ax and one suit not coming in. Of course if we know partner will just say "strong", that will not work.

[pescetom]

lamford, on 2019-December-06, 10:08, said:

I agree. The classic meaning of 2C-2D-3M, explained in Bridge World many years ago, was a solid suit and cue-force, asking partner to cue aces in ascending order. Here we could have a perfectly good auction 2C-2D-3H-4C-7H, taking a slight risk of partner being void in hearts or having ♣ Ax and one suit not coming in.

We play 2♣ - 2♦ -3♥ that way, but the cues are indifferentiated Italian so the auction might be 2♣ - 2♦ - 3♥ - 4♣ - 4♦ - 4NT - 7♥. East knows that West has both minor Aces so the risk seems reduced to hearts or clubs misbehaving.