BBO Discussion Forums: Blue Balls - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Blue Balls SB goes South

#1 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,416
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2017-August-14, 10:05


IMPs. Table result NS 2-5, EW+250

SB travelled to Eastbourne to play with RR in the team event, and had a huge swing on this board. SB's preparation for the event consisted mainly in getting RR to memorise the recommended wording on the Blue Book poster, displayed in the Winter Gardens, which showed the changes which came into effect on August 1st, and the Rabbit explained the 2C bid as "a strong artificial opening which may have less high-card strength than traditional strong hands and allowed by agreement to be either or both of any hand of at least 16 HCP or any hand of at least 12 HCP with at least five controls." He barely paused for breath, and the opponents were a bit taken aback by such full disclosure from RR. North's 2D was explained as "any hand with less than 10 HCPs, says nothing about diamonds". SB elected to pass (which of course he intended to do all along) and West could find no sensible way into the auction. The +250 was small recompense for EW for the missed black-suit slam, but West, an elderly gentleman who had retired to Eastbourne some decades ago, was unhappy. "You announced the 2C bid as artificial and strong", he complained,"but South had a sub-minimum weak NT". "Let us move on please," responded SB, "We have seven more boards to play. If you cannot be bothered to read the EBU poster, then there is little point in our giving you such full disclosure".

How do you rule?
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#2 User is offline   sanst 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 832
  • Joined: 2014-July-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Deventer, The Netherlands

Posted 2017-August-14, 11:52

Seems that SB is right. So "Next board, please". Whether this is a sensible rule, is not the question. The elderly gentleman should complain to the EBU.
Playing in England a couple of years ago, we had the agreement that a 2-level opening bid showed strength in the suit of the call or a weak hand in the suit above it. That was not allowed, but that a 2-opening is allowed that can be made on a hand like this or on a hand with 30 HCP seems a lot stranger to me.
Joost
0

#3 User is offline   nige1 

  • 5-level belongs to me
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,128
  • Joined: 2004-August-30
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Glasgow Scotland
  • Interests:Poems Computers

Posted 2017-August-14, 13:47

SB is right. Most local regulations are a waste of time and paper. System-regulations are among the worst offenders.
0

#4 User is offline   gszeszycki 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 207
  • Joined: 2008-September-01

Posted 2017-August-14, 15:14

I am all in favor of heads of all kinds of agencies deciding to pass rules/regulations w/o showing them to the ones that will be affected by those rules/regulations. How else can I get a chuckle reading about SB???????:) too bad government idiot rules can be dangerous.
1

#5 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,416
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2017-August-14, 15:21

View Postsanst, on 2017-August-14, 11:52, said:

Playing in England a couple of years ago, we had the agreement that a 2-level opening bid showed strength in the suit of the call or a weak hand in the suit above it. That was not allowed, but that a 2-opening is allowed that can be made on a hand like this or on a hand with 30 HCP seems a lot stranger to me.

Indeed. If you (agreed to) open 2C (strong or Benjy) on AKQT9xx KQJT9x none none, and described it as strong, you would be awarded -3 IMPs (or Ave-), as the hand has only 15 points and only 4 controls. Before the 1st August you could have successfully argued it was 8 "clear-cut" tricks, but the change has made the hand illegal! De piscibus e sartigine in prunas desilentibus.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#6 User is offline   jallerton 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 1,796
  • Joined: 2008-September-12
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2017-August-15, 15:14

View Postlamford, on 2017-August-14, 15:21, said:

Indeed. If you (agreed to) open 2C or an Acol 2S on AKQT9xx KQJT9x none none, and described it as strong, you would be awarded -3 IMPs (or Ave-), as the hand has only 15 points and only 4 controls. Before the 1st August you could have successfully argued it was 8 "clear-cut" tricks, but the change has made the hand illegal! De piscibus e sartigine in prunas desilentibus.


Not entirely correct. This freak hand is ideal for an Acol 2 opening. I would open 2 (natural and forcing) and then jump to 6 on the next round, trusting partner to bid a grand holding A but to disregard any high cards in the minors. I would not expect to lose any IMPs unless team-mates make an unwise double in the other room. The only way -6IMPs might be awarded would be to an opponent for a frivolous appeal. Of course, all natural 2-level openings are permitted at EBU Levels 2, 4 and 5.
0

#7 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,416
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2017-August-16, 06:01

View Postjallerton, on 2017-August-15, 15:14, said:

Not entirely correct. This freak hand is ideal for an Acol 2 opening. I would open 2 (natural and forcing) and then jump to 6 on the next round, trusting partner to bid a grand holding A but to disregard any high cards in the minors. I would not expect to lose any IMPs unless team-mates make an unwise double in the other room. The only way -6IMPs might be awarded would be to an opponent for a frivolous appeal. Of course, all natural 2-level openings are permitted at EBU Levels 2, 4 and 5.

That is ideal if you are playing strong twos in a major, but most are not. If you are playing Benjy, I don't think you are allowed to open (say a Benjy or reverse Benjy) 2C even if one of the hand types it includes is an Acol 2 opening. The poster says: "So any hand that conforms to this may be opened with a strong, artificial bid like a Benjamin. 2♣ <snip>" I do agree, however, that playing strong twos you can open this hand 2. I think the changes to the Blue Book on 1st August are detrimental.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#8 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-August-16, 09:44

View Postlamford, on 2017-August-14, 15:21, said:

Indeed. If you (agreed to) open 2C (strong or Benjy) on AKQT9xx KQJT9x none none, and described it as strong, you would be awarded -3 IMPs (or Ave-), as the hand has only 15 points and only 4 controls. Before the 1st August you could have successfully argued it was 8 "clear-cut" tricks, but the change has made the hand illegal! De piscibus e sartigine in prunas desilentibus.


The extended rule of 25 was not right, but it is hard to believe it has not been kept as one of the criteria for opening a "strong" hand. Of course it is a matter of disclosure. What I am wondering is if <some balanced range> or GF means the hand has to conform to the Blue Book definition or if disclosure must take some other form.

Meanwhile, the Laws & Ethics Committee should quit their day jobs and take their hilarious act on the road.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#9 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2017-August-16, 09:46

View Postjallerton, on 2017-August-15, 15:14, said:

Not entirely correct. This freak hand is ideal for an Acol 2 opening. I would open 2 (natural and forcing)


Somehow I don't think you normally have this bid available.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#10 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,416
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2017-August-16, 11:46

View PostVampyr, on 2017-August-16, 09:44, said:

The extended rule of 25 was not right, but it is hard to believe it has not been kept as one of the criteria for opening a "strong" hand. Of course it is a matter of disclosure. What I am wondering is if <some balanced range> or GF means the hand has to conform to the Blue Book definition or if disclosure must take some other form.

Meanwhile, the Laws & Ethics Committee should quit their day jobs and take their hilarious act on the road.

I actually think the old rule was pretty good.
(a) any hand of at least 16 HCP, or
(b) any hand meeting the Rule of 25 (or Rule of 24 where applicable), or
[c] subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains at least 10 HCPs and at least eight clear-cut tricks.

The last was defined, ambiguously, as using the "second-best" break opposite a void, but what was actually applied was "second-most-even" break opposite a void. I think perhaps the only change that was needed was in the definition of "clear-cut" tricks to be the least favourable of the "second-most-even" breaks opposite a singleton rather than a void. So, the infamous AKJ9xxxx none Tx AJT would qualify as the least favourable of the second-most-even breaks is Qxx opposite x with partner having a small singleton. Anybody looking at the hand would think they had seven spades and one club, with a bit more to boot. Now the hand gets in under the 12 points and 5 controls rule of course, but so do a lot of hands that should not qualify.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

#11 User is offline   blackshoe 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,562
  • Joined: 2006-April-17
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rochester, NY

Posted 2017-August-16, 20:39

Romex defines a strong 2 opening as "23-24 balanced with 8 controls, or any unbalanced hand with at least six controls and no more than 3 losers". The hand will not have primary diamonds (that hand would open 2). I suppose Axxxxxxxxxx A A - would qualify, technically, but I doubt that hand will ever show up. :-)
--------------------
As for tv, screw it. You aren't missing anything. -- Ken Berg
I have come to realise it is futile to expect or hope a regular club game will be run in accordance with the laws. -- Jillybean
0

#12 User is offline   StevenG 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 2009-July-10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bedford, England

Posted 2017-September-02, 05:16

I had this hand last night,



15 points, 4 controls. I suspect that I was one of very few players in the room who felt constrained not to open with a Benji 2.
0

#13 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2017-September-03, 13:25

View PostStevenG, on 2017-September-02, 05:16, said:

I had this hand last night,



15 points, 4 controls. I suspect that I was one of very few players in the room who felt constrained not to open with a Benji 2.

8 Playing tricks in an unspecified suit that is not clubs - what's the problem? It is only when the suit is clubs that there are 'problems'.

It could be a good tactic to prevent opponents bidding their solid 6 contract
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
0

#14 User is offline   StevenG 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 2009-July-10
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bedford, England

Posted 2017-September-03, 15:24

View Postweejonnie, on 2017-September-03, 13:25, said:

8 Playing tricks in an unspecified suit that is not clubs - what's the problem? It is only when the suit is clubs that there are 'problems'.

It could be a good tactic to prevent opponents bidding their solid 6 contract

The problem is that that is not our agreement. I was playing with a near-beginner in a temporary partnership. If you think it worth my while to try to teach her how to construct a Blue Book compliant form of Benji, ahead of helping her with basic carding and bidding (the purpose of this partnership), then EBU-world is even more crazy than I imagined.

I suspect you could count on one hand the number of players in the room who realised the problem with this hand, and the number with a legalistic agreement allowing it to be opened at the 2 level was almost certainly zero. Doubtless almost everybody else did open a Benji 2.

Also, my partner had the two relevant aces, and we had a grand slam in spades. Much harder for my partner to see the possibility after a 1 opener, although nobody else bid it and our small slam was a good score (involving my partner's first ever cue bid :) ).
1

#15 User is offline   weejonnie 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 2012-April-11
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:North-east England
  • Interests:Bridge Laws, croquet

Posted 2017-September-04, 01:51

View PostStevenG, on 2017-September-03, 15:24, said:

The problem is that that is not our agreement. I was playing with a near-beginner in a temporary partnership. If you think it worth my while to try to teach her how to construct a Blue Book compliant form of Benji, ahead of helping her with basic carding and bidding (the purpose of this partnership), then EBU-world is even more crazy than I imagined.

I suspect you could count on one hand the number of players in the room who realised the problem with this hand, and the number with a legalistic agreement allowing it to be opened at the 2 level was almost certainly zero. Doubtless almost everybody else did open a Benji 2.

Also, my partner had the two relevant aces, and we had a grand slam in spades. Much harder for my partner to see the possibility after a 1 opener, although nobody else bid it and our small slam was a good score (involving my partner's first ever cue bid :) ).

As a beginner it is always a great feeling bidding a making slam (and cue-bidding as well - will give her a sense of achievement.)

Now is the time to teach her Exclusion Key-card :D
No matter how well you know the laws, there is always something that you'll forget. That is why we have a book.
Get the facts. No matter what people say, get the facts from both sides BEFORE you make a ruling or leave the table.
Remember - just because a TD is called for one possible infraction, it does not mean that there are no others.
In a judgement case - always refer to other TDs and discuss the situation until they agree your decision is correct.
The hardest rulings are inevitably as a result of failure of being called at the correct time. ALWAYS penalize both sides if this happens.
0

#16 User is offline   lamford 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,416
  • Joined: 2007-October-15

Posted 2017-September-05, 14:41

View PostStevenG, on 2017-September-02, 05:16, said:

I had this hand last night,



15 points, 4 controls. I suspect that I was one of very few players in the room who felt constrained not to open with a Benji 2.

If you had agreed with your partner that all hands that were opened 2C would be Blue Book compliant, you would be allowed to open any hand you want with 2C. I think it is far better against beginners that all hands with 12 points and 5 controls are opened 2C, as well as every game force. Now it will be very rare for a 2C bid to be non-compliant and this will be a deviation. You need to gear your methods to dealing with hands with 12-15 with 5 controls, but you are allowed to explain it as "arfificial and strong" clarifying that this means any 16 point hand or any hand with 12 points and 5 controls. I actually think the "nouveaux deux trefles" system, which is already sweeping through parts of Britain, will change beginner bridge as we know it. Beginners will be very reluctant at adverse vulnerability to compete.

The TDs in Pula say that they would rule an illegal agreement if one opened a "strong 2C" on a weak NT with 5 controls. Indeed, if any 2C bid could include a weak NT with 5 controls it would be brown sticker and HUM because it does not have an anchor suit. There is a London event called the Palmer Bayer, which is for beginners. It is amusing that the EBU Blue Book 2C is permitted in that (it allows simple system only), but it would not be permitted in most WBF events, and only in the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup if conceding seating rights and giving written notice.

2.4 <snip> "If the bid does not show a known four card suit it must show a hand a king or more over average strength." <snip> or it is brown sticker and HUM.
I prefer to give the lawmakers credit for stating things for a reason - barmar
0

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users