BBO Discussion Forums: A Novices event at a North London Bridge Club - BBO Discussion Forums

On Wednesday afternoon a certain North London Bridge club hosts a 'level 2' event (with partner pick-up) to encourage novice players to take part in duplicate tournaments without meeting any 'funny' conventions.

The TD was mildly surpised to see two regular players from the evening session - a player who acts like the SB and one who, like the Rueful Rabbot, likes to indulge in all the fancy systems that they can find and half remember.

At the start of the event the TD welcomed everyone and said (inter alia) - "Remember we are playing this event under what are known as Level 2 Partnership Understandings (as shown on pages 21 - 22 of the Blue Book). If you have any queries please call me and I'll help."

On the first hand RR (sitting table 1), picked up




And 'opened' -Pass - which was duly alerted by SB.

East, being a novice and not having seen an opening pass alerted, asked for an explanation. SB was delighted to explain: -

"12-14 points, balanced hand with both majors. This way we can use the 2♣ convention over a natural 1NT more effectively as we will know that partner will never have the other major."

East was sure that he had never read about passes as showing values, especially in a novice event, thought that the Director should be called.

SB was quick off the mark.

"Although in a level 4 event "A pass before any player has bid must not show, or usually have, any values" - 7A2 in the Blue Book as every one knows, such a limitation does NOT appear at a Level 2 event. There is therefore no irregularity. Please note that all our 2 bids are natural showing 0-9 points and at least 4 cards in the suit - which meets 6D1, so there is no possibility of being 'fixed' for a bid.

The TD looked at the pages, could find nothing to prevent this and sent a note to the appeals committee appealing on behalf of himself.

How do you rule?

I don't believe this is allowed. Level 2 describes what is allowed so it is apparently a positive list rather than a negative list. The restrictions apply to calls (note: not just bids) made before opener's rebid, and it says that natural calls are allowed as well as certain artificial calls.

An "opening pass" takes place before opener's rebid, it is artificial, and it is not explicitly sanctioned.

Given that it is clearly also against the spirit of the event I have no problems with disallowing this.

weejonnie, on 2017-January-11, 07:43, said:

I wonder if we'll be seeing litigation for copyright infringement here?

You could probably get them on BB 6C3 too.

Oh god, now there are two of them.

One the one hand, BB 6A1 does say "The regulations are intentionally expository rather than prescriptive"; and a pass that shows a weak NT with both majors is highly artificial and, as Helene said, is quite clearly against the spirit of the event.

That said, I did prefer it when the BB (well, back then it was the Orange Book) gave an explicit list for Level 2 rather than this vague handwavy "expository" list. It's often hard to judge whether things are allowed - for example:

• does "You can play all the standard responses [to a 1-level suit opening]" include, say, inverted minors? Bergen raises? Splinters? Jacoby? Fit jumps? WJS? Flannery/Multi-style 1C-2D? ...
  
• does "you can't play artificial weak bids" mean that an artificial bid cannot be weak, or does it mean that a weak (only) bid can't be artificial? (e.g. transfer responses to 1C would be allowed under the second definition since they're not necessarily weak, but not the first since they are artificial and will sometimes be 5 HCP)
  
• For this case, under 6E "Other conventional openings" this pass isn't listed, but nor does it say this list of conventional openings is exhaustive.

As such, I do have a modicum of sympathy for SB/RR here. An explicit list would be much clearer and avoid any grey areas.

ahydra

weejonnie, on 2017-January-11, 07:43, said:

In Norway the ruling here is automatic: The system is HUM

Quote from our regulations:
A system is HUM if it meets at least one of five criteria:
1. PASS in an opening position shows or can contain 13 or more HCP
2. An opening bid at the one-level can be weaker than a PASS in the same position
[...]

It appears to me that both these conditions are met?
Don't you have similar regulations in England?.

pran, on 2017-January-11, 09:49, said:

The Blue Book is available from http://www.ebu.co.uk...e-book-2015.pdf.

Level 4 (meant for most competitions) explicitly disallows strength-showing passes in opening position and as defence against a natural one-of-a-suit opening.

Level 2 (meant for novice and show events) does not explicitly mention meanings of pass. Hence this thread.

This post has been edited by barmar: 2017-January-11, 10:00
Reason for edit: fix link, add missing level #

6B2 says "Any natural call is permitted", and the description of natural passes in 4C1c says it "does not unexpectedly convey values or specify suit holdings." This opening pass clearly does have such an unexpected meaning.

I interpret the sense of this whole section as intending that agreements that are not specifically allowed are disallowed, since otherwise it's pretty meaningless.

helene_t, on 2017-January-11, 09:55, said:

Oh what a simple world I live in.

First of all: Our Norwegian regulation explicitly forbids any systemic agreement that is forbidden at a particular level also at every "lower" level. So once (for instance) a strength-showing pass is forbidden at our equivalence of your level 4 it goes without mentioning that it is also forbidden at level 2.

And regarding HUM: This is only permitted in matches for teams with at least 17 boards in each match, and only in the very top level events (Championship finals for teams and the top divisions in serial masterships).

helene_t, on 2017-January-11, 07:59, said:

SB had expected this.

"Director - my partner comes from a country where opening with a 'pass' to show values is taught from an early age and he is simply applying the basic methods with which he was taught (and which some people on Bridgewinners recommend). He would never dream of using a convention that is specifically barred from the Level 2 events.

The only real mention of pass in the laws (other than for rectification)is that if 3 passes occur in sequence (providing someone hasn't missed their regular turn to call) (4 if there has been no call) then the auction terminates. There is nothing in the laws that prohibit the use of 'pass' in any form whatsoever. Indeed if level 2 events specifically bar calls that aren't listed in the Blue Book then you will have to abolish the 'pass' before anyone bids completely since such a use has an unclear definition (any hand not suitable for an opening call - but this will vary depending on the other calls available to the partnership and so have a potentially unexpected meaning) and isn't listed in the permitted calls. Indeed my partner's use of the 'pass' is more descriptive than the use so described and so should be easier to handle."

edited to conventionalise a 'natural' pass.

The correction to the Blue Book that appears to be needed is to change "any common English system" in 6C3, to "any common English non-HUM system". For now, the TD can deem a strong pass system not to be "common" or not to be "English".

Amusingly there is a novices club near me in North London, but SB has not played there ... yet

I just have to say that I'm finding these recent threads very comforting -- it's nice to know ACBL isn't the only organization that has trouble writing sensible convention and alert regulations. The Blue Book may be several times more detailed than ours, yet it still has these gaping holes.

...but barmar, everybody tells me it's easy to write concise, unambiguous and above all flexible regulations that would never require them to not follow their holy judgment (while still invalidating my "the thing about TDs is that if they *could* play, they would" questionable decisions and his ludicrous flights-of-fancy/her mendacious attempts to deceive). They can't *all* be wrong, can they?

Edit for those in the know: "It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it?"

barmar, on 2017-January-11, 16:02, said:

+1

I'm beginning to think the Blue Book should simply ban "any method the Secretary Bird wishes to play".

gordontd, on 2017-January-11, 08:05, said:

I have received no warning for infringing the great Mollo's.

“Satire is a lesson, parody is a game.”
― Vladimir Nabokov

Just a question: what is the agreement about a hand that can't be opened in any normal way according to lhe level2 regulation? Say xx-Jxx-Qxxx-xxxx. It can't be passed, because that's "12-14 points, balanced hand with both majors." It can't be opened at the 1-level, because that requires "A one-level opening bid in a suit must either show 11+ HCP, or show 8+ HCP and satisfy the Rule of 19. An opening 1NT must be non-forcing. It may show any agreed range with at least 10 HCP, with no singleton or void and no 7-card suit." It is neither a strong nor a weak two, so the 2-level is also barred. As far as I can see there are no regulations for the 3-level, which would imply that this hand should be opened 3♣ or so. Not a sound system, I would say.
The agreement of SB and RR goes definitely against the idea expressed in the introduction of the level 2 regulation in the Blue Book. I would therefore forbid it using the powers given to the TD by the Laws, in particular law 82B2: "The Tournament Organizer’s powers and duties include:
[...]
(e) to establish the conditions for bidding and play in accordance with these laws, together with any special conditions
[...]
* It is normal in some jurisdictions for the Director to assume responsibility for some or all of the tasks that the Tournament Organizer is here required to arrange."
And 81A1"[...]The Director [...] has powers to remedy any omissions of the Tournament Organizer."
That RR comes from a country where a pass shows values, is totally irrelevant. They are playing under EBU rules and the rules of this club. In the UK you're not allowed to drive on the right hand side of the road and to do so because you got your license in say Holland, doesn't give you the right to do so. "I'm sorry officer that the four people in the other car are dead, but it's not really my fault because I'm used to driving right."

sanst, on 2017-January-12, 06:20, said:

SB could, as far as I can see, play that pass includes 12-14 points and both majors. His partner is not allowed any asking bid below 3C however, so the system is a little cumbersome, and arguably not a "common English" method. His partner can of course also pass if he cannot make game opposite 12-14 balanced. He could instead play that 3C is all hands that cannot pass or open anything else as well. As the OP said, he can also open 2X, four weak twos, on all hands that would otherwise pass that are not 12-14 bal. This system just appears to be modified EHAA, certainly a common English method in bridge clubs that meet in pubs, so seems to be legal at level 2. The other question is whether the pair are allowed to use 2C, Stayman, over the "Intermediate" Pass.

lamford, on 2017-January-12, 06:57, said:

That's why they only use the weak nt pass with both 4 card majors; no need to use staymen at all; though transfers are another story

tony stack, on 2017-January-16, 20:30, said:

An interesting question arises as to whether the player can "respond" to the Pass showing a weak NT with two four-card majors with one of a major, NF, obviously, or whether this would fall foul of the regulation for "opening" one of a suit. The level 2 regulations do not appear to address this.