[karen4]

bluejak, on Sep 20 2009, 08:11 PM, said:

It depends somewhat on what their agreement actually is.  But if you mean they are playing it as an 11-16 opening, for example, in any suit, no, that is illegal at any Level in England.

Thanks for your answer Dave. Most posters seem to have been sidetracked onto a discussion around whether they agree with the regulations whereas I was more concerned with whether they could be legally circumvented. I obviously didn't explain the point well but you seem to have unserstood it just about. Basically the pair were playing benji so 2D was 8 playing tricks in any suit or some strong balanced option. However, they didn't want to be constrained by the EBU restrictions around Benji openings, and the director (erroneously I believe) told them that they could get round the 8 aplying tricks / 16 points / rule of 25 rule as long as they described it as Intermediate and artificial rather than Benji.

Can you just confirm whether they can do this please? I think from your previous post the answer is No

[bluejak]

It is correct that it is illegal at any level to play a Benji opening of 2♣ or 2♦ to show eight playing tricks in any suit unless they also agree to stick to the rules laid down by the L&EC for strong openings.



Players who wish to refuse to follow the regulations of the RA are not welcome in that RA: that is true, not just in England, but everywhere, and I think it fairly childish to assume otherwise.

[RMB1]

I think the original TD may be confused about natural v. artificial two bids.

You can "get round" the EBU's artficial strong two bids regulation by playing (some) two bids as natural. You can play any strength for opening two bids showing the suit bid. But they must be announced correctly: if they have 8 playing tricks (not 8 sure tricks) and may be normal (one bid) opening strength, then they should be announced as "intermediate", or "intermediate to strong, non forcing". You are not permitted to play artificial opening two bids that show 8 playing tricks in the suit bid or another suit unless the bid meets the strong opening two bid regulation.

At level 4 (the norm for national competitions), you can play 2♣ or 2♦ as (say) intermediate with either major, because the opening bid does not show the suit bid.

Robin

[jeremy69]

Quote

Not the whole world plays 4NT as asking for specific aces. Some people have other meanings for the bid. In my career, I have seen CCs with "freak minors", "freak minor + major" and "minor-major giraffe", as well as "Natural, balanced, x-y HCPs". And then I am not even talking about the non-expert players, who have never even heard of a convention to ask for specific aces (or any of the other conventions that I mentioned).

If Auntie Millie plays at a very simple level, with no conventions and wishes to open this hand 2S natural and strong then there is no problem but apprently she plays no conventions at all apart from artifical strong 2C and 2D and some Weak Two's.
If she chose to open 2C on Ursa Major where they don't follow EBU regulations she might possibly have the odd rebid problem and some difficulty in finding out whether partner has the CA or not

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Sep 21 2009, 05:04 PM, said:

It is correct that it is illegal at any level to play a Benji opening of 2♣ or 2♦ to show eight playing tricks in any suit unless they also agree to stick to the rules laid down by the L&EC for strong openings.



Players who wish to refuse to follow the regulations of the RA are not welcome in that RA: that is true, not just in England, but everywhere, and I think it fairly childish to assume otherwise.

That goes without saying, but I'll state the obvious. If you want to play in the EBU, you follow the EBU regulations.

I am pointing out that if you follow Jeremy's reasoning and stick to it at all cost that the EBU is banning systems where there is no way to show hands with lots of playing tricks, unless you have a forcing bid at another level than the two level available (or play all suits at the two level as natural, playing tricks and forcing). That means that either you play something like:
Standard Benji, with a bid at the three level or higher to show lots of playing tricks but little defense.
Standard Benji, and "just blast" (6♠, 5♣, whatever)
Natural 2 bids, showing playing tricks and add a convention for general GF hands (2NT/3♣?).

The reasonable method of actually wondering what information you need and how to get it is banned.

The alternative is to realize that it is impossible for the EBU to come up with 100% tight regulations, for the simple fact that it is already impossible to come up with 100% tight bidding systems. This means that if the hand occurs, someone may choose to open the bidding with 2♣ when he holds ♠AQJT98765432 ♥- ♦- ♣2 or even ♠2 ♥- ♦- ♣KQJT98765432 (where a specific ace ask leads to fabulous results... for the opponents).

To put it simple: Realize that no one is going to have any agreement on how to open these hands and realize that anything might work or might not work at any time. To assume that there will be a partnership understanding once someone has opened 2♣ (or any other bid for that matter) with these once_in_a_lifetime hands is absurd.

If you would follow your reasoning, the following hand might be passed out in the EBU, for lack of an opening bid:

---

After all, 10 points are not normally associated with a one level opening.

Rik

[Trinidad]

gordontd, on Sep 21 2009, 11:54 AM, said:

You said that you think the clear cut trick criterion allows you to open the hand under discussion with 2♣. I showed the rest of the regulation that means that is not correct. No amount of wanting the regulation to be what you think is better will make it so.

The rest of the regulation doesn't contradict my point of view in any way. I will quote it for you with a little emphasis of my own:

Quote

8 clear-cut tricks and the points normally associated with a one level opening

And you think that "normally" applies to 12-0-0-1 distributions? I would say that they are well beyond 3 sigma. Hence my "Points schmoints".

Rik

[campboy]

The only reason the word "normally" is used in the regulation is to make it clear (which it does) that it is the points most people associate with a 1-level opening that are required, not the points you personally associate. It is the association, not the hand, which needs to be "normal".

Since an agreement to open at the 1-level on fewer than 8 HCP is not permitted, it is clear that whatever number of points is "normally associated", it is at least 8. The L&E committee recently discussed changing the regulation to give a specific number of points instead, but this was narrowly defeated. I think that it should have been changed.

[bluejak]

It is difficult to understand whether the majority of the posts in this thread are serious. If people really believe what they are saying .... Ok, I shall fall for it, and pretend that people who are posting about wild and impossible hands really are not just having a joke. So I shall pretend to take it seriously.

Whether it shoudl be so or not, it is a fact that every RA that I know has some restriction on what you are allowed to play. Since there are restrictions in WBF events it is hardly surprising that the EBU regulates its events. Regulations are made to provide what the RA considers the fairest methods for its members. Caterwauling about hands that will never come up does not alter this nor make it an undesirable approach.

Suppose you decide to learn K-S, or 2/1 GF. You get the book. How many pages are concerned with 12-card suits? Surely you are not going to play a system where the author fails to consider how to bid a 12-card suit?

Now, anyone with half a brain knows that worrying about hands that turn up once a lifetime if that is pointless. That is why people who write bridge books do not: that is why people who write regulations do not worry. You do not need an agreement on 12-card suits and if you have one, you have wasted valuable time and brain cells.

One of the problems that England has to face is that players have found a very effective pre-empt: you do not have to open 4♣ with 8 points and ten playing tricks, it is much easier to open 2♣ and call it strong and artificial. It is not bridge, but it is surprisingly effective. This is abuse, of course, and surely unintentional with the majority, but it needs to be controlled. The EBU has come up with its own solution, better I believe than the ACBL which has rules about strong bids but no definition of strong.

There is more to it, of course: for forty plus years the EBU has had an approach of requiring applications to play new agreements. Strangely, there has only been one application in my twenty years for a bid of this sort, and even that is now included in what is permitted. Could it be that players who understand prefer to play it illegally with the advantages that "It is strong" brings even when it is not?

So we have a regulation. It is easy to get it looked at: unlike the ACBL, where it seems very difficult to get things looked at and explained, the L&EC deals with a lot of correspondence, answers questions, and puts sensible queries and applications on the Agenda. The minutes are available on the website for all to see. But if you think that the thing wrong with the regulation is it does not allow you to open 2♣ with a 12-card suit and no brains whatever you will not get a very sensible answer!

Of course, there was one post lost in the middle that seemed to fully answer the silly hands:

jandrew, on Sep 21 2009, 10:02 AM, said:

Quote

I have always been amazed that the "laws" might have a problem with my opening 2C with (exaggerated example) AQJT9XXXXXXX - - x, if I determine that is the best way to find out if partner has the club ACE. Is that intermediate? I guess it barely meets the rule of 20 for a 1-bid.

I'm no expert - but I thought that the prohibition under the laws was against an agreement . In this case I might bid outside my agreement (so that partner is as unaware of my true hand as the opponents).

I might do this where my agreement is insufficient and I expect my bid to elicite information that I need.

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on Sep 21 2009, 04:52 AM, said:

Suppose that I get dealt ♠AQJT98765432 ♥- ♦- ♣2. What am I supposed to do?


Rik

Play Namyats.

[nigel_k]

It seems to me this falls into the category of regulating psyches, rather than simply regulating agreements. You just don't want people opening a strong artificial 2♣ (whether Benji or Std) on weak hands because it is too easy for them to avoid subequent problems and too hard for the opponents to deal with.

If so, wouldn't it be simpler to just say it is illegal to open 2♣ without meeting the stated requirements, regardless of partnership agreement? It would also be much easier to police and would catch the fairly common case of people who decide to take advantage of their one or two chances to open a weak hand before it becomes an implicit agreement.

[bluejak]

The problem with many solutions offered about regulations is that they often look at a specific problem rather than the general. The EBU Orange book has a lot of regulations covering permitted agreements of which this is one. Are you suggesting that opening artificial twos should be a special case? What are you going to do about all the other permitted agreements?

I am not saying you are wrong, but personally I do not like special approaches different from the rest, and my guess would be that the L&EC would not either. If you are going to have a special rule for one type of agreement how do you justify it? Or how are you going to generalise it? And how do you get players to understand it?

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on Sep 21 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Sep 21 2009, 04:52 AM, said:

Suppose that I get dealt ♠AQJT98765432 ♥- ♦- ♣2. What am I supposed to do?  


Rik

Play Namyats.

I think I beat you by almost 7.5 hours:

Trinidad, on Sep 21 2009, 02:53 PM, said:

(Quite obviously (), the actual correct opening bid is 4♦. After partner's expected 4♠ you rebid 5♥, and then after partner's expected 5♠, you rebid 6♦. What are you saying? You don't play Namyats?!?)

Rik

[bluejak]

Ok, I give in: please excuse one completely off-topic post. Nothing to do with the Laws!!!!

I played a Welsh Cup match. I cannot remember the exact hand, but it was something like:

Scoring: IMP

W. .N. .E. You
4♠ 6♣ 6♥ 7♣
.P. .P. 7♥ ?

---

Do you double?

[aguahombre]

Nothing you could do would be off-topic. Just use your powers and move everthing else to a different forum.

[Trinidad]

I will be serious in this post, David.

I understand that you want to do something about players that open 2♣ when they really hold a preemptive hand. I fully agree with you that something must be done there. I have played against pairs where the auction started 2♣-2♦;2♥-2♠;3♥-Pass. In those cases, dummy will always say that "he had a hunch" when he passed with a decent hand. And those hunches somehow always work. So, I think it is good that you do something about that. I may not agree on what you do about it, but that is an entirely different story.

The point that I want to act against is Jeremy's idea that if someone opens a freak 12 CCT hand with 2♣ that the pair:
- either has a partnership understanding about it
- or that it will create an implicit partnership understanding
and that these understandings are illegal.

The point is that no one has a partnership understanding for something that never happens. And when it does happen anyway, it can't create an implicit agreement, since the frequency is far too low to establish a pattern.

That simply means that if any one would get dealt a freak 12 CCT hand, he can open it any way he wants, without fearing that there would be an illegal understanding, since there wasn't any understanding at all... and there never will be.

(In practice, when you do get a 12-0-0-1 distribution, probably someone else has opened the bidding before you. )

Rik

[jeremy69]

Quote

The point that I want to act against is Jeremy's idea that if someone opens a freak 12 CCT hand with 2♣ that the pair:
- either has a partnership understanding about it
- or that it will create an implicit partnership understanding
and that these understandings are illegal.

I am happy to agree that the frequency is so low that you are liekly to die waiting for the next one to turn up. I don't believe I've had a 12 card suit yet after about 43 years of playing. It's probably not worth wasting brain power over either not only because it won't happen but also because very extreme hands don't fit all that well to a set of rules. I guess, however, that if you and I play we now have an implicit understanding. I think the implicit agreement that arises is in general rather than with respect to 12 card suits and whether it is right or not or you agree or not it is not legal to agree to make an agreement under English regulations to open such a hand 2C.

[Trinidad]

jeremy69, on Sep 22 2009, 10:41 AM, said:

Quote

The point that I want to act against is Jeremy's idea that if someone opens a freak 12 CCT hand with 2♣ that the pair:
- either has a partnership understanding about it
- or that it will create an implicit partnership understanding
and that these understandings are illegal.

I am happy to agree that the frequency is so low that you are liekly to die waiting for the next one to turn up. I don't believe I've had a 12 card suit yet after about 43 years of playing. It's probably not worth wasting brain power over either not only because it won't happen but also because very extreme hands don't fit all that well to a set of rules. I guess, however, that if you and I play we now have an implicit understanding. I think the implicit agreement that arises is in general rather than with respect to 12 card suits and whether it is right or not or you agree or not it is not legal to agree to make an agreement under English regulations to open such a hand 2C.

So you think that you and I now have an implicit understanding. What would our implicit understanding be?

(Let's assume for argument's sake that any understanding would be allowed. Otherwise the fact that I would not knowingly break the rules might influence your answer. Obviously, you are also allowed to answer a second question where we would be playing under EBU regulations.)

Rik

[karen4]

Trinidad, on Sep 22 2009, 01:12 AM, said:

I understand that you want to do something about players that open 2♣ when they really hold a preemptive hand. I fully agree with you that something must be done there. I have played against pairs where the auction started 2♣-2♦;2♥-2♠;3♥-Pass. In those cases, dummy will always say that "he had a hunch" when he passed with a decent hand. And those hunches somehow always work.

I think that the problem is finding a rule that prevents this. Whatever rule you come up with is going to be arbitrary to some extent and is going to prevent some freak hands opening 2♣ that some people feel should be allowed and / or allow some that people feel should not. I think the laws and ethics committee have done a pretty decent job with the current regulations and having a rule that are not perfect is preferable to not having a rule at all and allowing the 2♣ or 2♦ strong artificial openings to be abused.

[Trinidad]

bluejak, on Sep 22 2009, 02:48 AM, said:

Ok, I give in: please excuse one completely off-topic post. Nothing to do with the Laws!!!!

I played a Welsh Cup match. I cannot remember the exact hand, but it was something like:

Scoring: IMP

W. .N. .E. You
4♠ 6♣ 6♥ 7♣
.P. .P. 7♥ ?

---

Do you double?

I would double. I wouldn't expect to beat it a lot, but I would expect to beat it. (And I am not allowed to save in 8♣, anyway.)

What's the story?

Rik

[jeremy69]

Quote

So you think that you and I now have an implicit understanding. What would our implicit understanding be?

That you would open hands which had extreme distribution but did not meet the current EBU regulations for a strong two with a 2C artificial opening. You also know that I wouldn't, of course, as it would be too embarrassing for the Chairman of the Laws & Ethics Committee to be caught breaking this rule.