[PeterAlan]

I agree, Paul.

Clearly your team-mates should be announcing their 2♣ opening as "Strong; either 23-24 HCP, or 8/9 playing tricks and meeting any additional requirements of either Orange Book paragraph 10B4(a) or Orange Book paragraph 10B4(b) (or both)." Their opponents will be ever so grateful for receiving a proper announcement for once, and will feel so much better informed.

[mamos]

Hmm -- isn't Crockford's Level 5? doesn't that make a difference?

Mike

[RMB1]

mamos, on 2011-May-18, 19:55, said:

Hmm -- isn't Crockford's Level 5? doesn't that make a difference?

To expand, Level 5 permits anything that is not HUM or Brown-Sticker. HUM only applies up to 1NT, and Brown-Sticker only applies if there are weak options, so any 2-bid that shows at least average values is permitted, with no special disclosure requirements.

Nevertheless, if the hand does not meet the explanation, or the hand does not meet the systemic requirements, then there is a case for recording the hand as a deviation or misbid.

[dburn]

Suggest saying "strong in principle, but if he has a solid eight-card suit then he doesn't need more than a king outside." That ought to conform closely enough to published regulations and to the principle of full disclosure while being more or less comprehensible even to a bridge player.

[lamford]

PeterAlan, on 2011-May-18, 18:39, said:

I agree, Paul.

Clearly your team-mates should be announcing their 2♣ opening as "Strong; either 23-24 HCP, or 8/9 playing tricks and meeting any additional requirements of either Orange Book paragraph 10B4(a) or Orange Book paragraph 10B4(b) (or both)." Their opponents will be ever so grateful for receiving a proper announcement for once, and will feel so much better informed.

Indeed. Reminds me of the time I played a complicated multi which LHO enquired about. My partner explained "either 11-15 with four hearts, or 17-24 any shortage, or a weak two in hearts or a constructive two in spades. If it is a weak two in hearts it would tend to be only a five-card suit." The opponent replied "I am none the wiser." My partner retorted, "No, but you are better informed."

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-May-19, 02:01, said:

Suggest saying "strong in principle, but if he has a solid eight-card suit then he doesn't need more than a king outside."

But this wrongly focuses on only one hand type that the player might have. Most of the time the player will have a solid or non-solid suit with more outside. The correct explanation is the one given by the players, strong with 8/9 playing tricks. Any self-respecting program will know what that means; and the odd bridge player might as well. In my opinion the TD was mistaken in recording this hand as a deviation, not that it matters much, as he says.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-May-18, 11:15, said:

Are you saying that "8/9 playing tricks or 23-24 balanced" is inadequate disclosure, and what wording do you think should be used?".

It is clearly inadequate disclosure. Strong is understood by many people as showing a certain level of top cards. While it is permitted to play it otherwise the words "subject to adequate disclosure" in the regulation are not to be ignored and constitute MI if they are. If it is normal to open on this weak a hand in top cards then the players are required to say so.

The problem is that, as here, players get an unfair advantage by misdescribing their hand as strong, knowing full well that it means something different to many opponents. So it is MI.

Level 5? That is a red herring: that affects what you can play, but you are still required to tell opponents what you play in full.

As for suggesting an opponent who knows the OB perfectly will understand the word strong, most players do not know it perfectly: those that do understand strong to mean 16 HCP or Rule of 25 unless there is further disclosure of other possibilities, since that is what the OB says as quoted above.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-May-19, 09:31, said:

It is clearly inadequate disclosure. Strong is understood by many people as showing a certain level of top cards. While it is permitted to play it otherwise the words "subject to adequate disclosure" in the regulation are not to be ignored and constitute MI if they are. If it is normal to open on this weak a hand in top cards then the players are required to say so.

The problem is that, as here, players get an unfair advantage by misdescribing their hand as strong, knowing full well that it means something different to many opponents. So it is MI.

Level 5? That is a red herring: that affects what you can play, but you are still required to tell opponents what you play in full.

As for suggesting an opponent who knows the OB perfectly will understand the word strong, most players do not know it perfectly: those that do understand strong to mean 16 HCP or Rule of 25 unless there is further disclosure of other possibilities, since that is what the OB says as quoted above.

So what wording do you recommend they use? And the wording of the OB suggests that all of (a) to ( c) are strong.

[bluejak]

Burn's seems adequate to me. But there are lots of possible wordings, so long as they include the possibility of low point count hands.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-May-19, 09:35, said:

Burn's seems adequate to me. But there are lots of possible wordings, so long as they include the possibility of low point count hands.

The problem with Burn's description is that a hand something like KQJ10xxx AKxx xx none would certainly qualify, on the ground that it has 8-9 playing tricks, and it seems that dealing with the rare case of eight solid is certainly not full disclosure. 23/24 balanced or 8/9 playing tricks with opening values seems to be correct, if you believe "strong" is deceptive, although I don't - players have a duty to familiarise themselves with the definition of strong therein. The implication of the OB is that strong is qualified by adding "8/9 playing tricks" to show that it is a 10B4(a) hand, so I think you will find those that just peruse the OB using this form of wording. And it is very clear that all of (a), (b) and ( c) are subsets of "strong". Do you disagree with this?

[mycroft]

How about, since we have experience with this same hand over here, "strong, 8-9 playing tricks *with or without defensive tricks* or 22-24 balanced"?

The thing is that most people think that a 2♣ hand with "8-9 playing tricks" will expect partner to hit 4♠ with a balanced yarborough, and expect to set it. If the potential lack of defence isn't made clear - despite the fact that their agreement is exactly what the words say - then I think the opponents are inferiorly disclosed.

As far as that other Multi is concerned, he did mention that the 17-24 "any shortage" was 4441, right?

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2011-May-19, 09:57, said:

How about, since we have experience with this same hand over here, "strong, 8-9 playing tricks *with or without defensive tricks* or 22-24 balanced"?

The thing is that most people think that a 2♣ hand with "8-9 playing tricks" will expect partner to hit 4♠ with a balanced yarborough, and expect to set it. If the potential lack of defence isn't made clear - despite the fact that their agreement is exactly what the words say - then I think the opponents are inferiorly disclosed.

As far as that other Multi is concerned, he did mention that the 17-24 "any shortage" was 4441, right?

No, he went to the trouble of adding "can be 4450 with a five-card minor as well".

I actually think that the announcement for this 2C should just be "strong", in the same way as a 2C Precision opening is "intermediate". These are standard announcements and players have a duty to find out what they mean. The OB defines that "strong" means as a minimum one of the three hand types stated. You would not announce "promises 1.5 quick tricks" if that was your requirement for an opening bid. The CC should, of course, contain much more information. Here it stated as the TD reported. And yes, I know that 2C is alerted but I think a better method would be an announcement, with the wording decided by the L&E.

But, as the OB stands, we have a duty to give "adequate disclosure" of hands under 10B4(a). It is clearly in the sub-set of "strong", so that must be stated, and I think "8/9 playing tricks is needed", if that is a requirement. The players can add whether it has defensive tricks, whether they have a stronger bid available and how far it is forcing as well if they choose. If it is described as strong, then "containing opening values" seems to be a tautology. In practice, my experience is that "strong" on its own is used by around 90% of players, and 10% give up to three more words. None gives any more.

And as for "with or without defensive tricks", why not "with or without a void" or "with or without a solid suit", or "with or without the curse of Scotland" if we want to be really helpful?

[AlexJonson]

Isn't 2C alertable rather than announced? I notice a couple of people have mentioned announcements.

Anyway, I don't see a problem with the bidding or disclosure on this hand.

Huge numbers of people in the EBU play something like the agreements you mention, and I can't imagine
thinking for one moment that I was poorly informed when they turn up with this hand - especially since it is
a hand type that generated some debate and presumably determined the wording in the current Orange Book.

[lamford]

AlexJonson, on 2011-May-19, 10:27, said:

Isn't 2C alertable rather than announced? I notice a couple of people have mentioned announcements.

Anyway, I don't see a problem with the bidding or disclosure on this hand.

Huge numbers of people in the EBU play something like the agreements you mention, and I can't imagine
thinking for one moment that I was poorly informed when they turn up with this hand - especially since it is
a hand type that generated some debate and presumably determined the wording in the current Orange Book.

Yes it was alerted; sorry if I got that wrong anywhere. The explanation was "strong, 8/9 playing tricks or 23-24 balanced". And I agree with your other remarks.

[PeterAlan]

AlexJonson, on 2011-May-19, 10:27, said:

Isn't 2C alertable rather than announced? I notice a couple of people have mentioned announcements.

Mea culpa - I said "announce" in my earlier post when I should have said "describe". I do know the EBU announcing and alerting boundaries!

I really can't get worked up about this case (my previous post was of course ironic). This has been a very familiar area of contention in the EBU in recent years, and I would have thought that any player in the Crockfords finals (Plate or Cup) would have been aware of the 2007 change to OB that introduced the "Extended Rule of 25". Since the hand meets those requirements, I would have thought just "Strong" to be the appropriate statement of strength (from the standard announcement terms), and "23-24 balanced or 8/9 playing tricks meeting the Extended Rule of 25" should be sufficient as a descriptive disclosure (if that is indeed what the pair were playing; there seems to be some suggestion that their agreement limits this further by requiring somewhat stronger parameters; if so, there could be a case for elaborating the description).

[nige1]

blackshoe, on 2011-May-18, 08:21, said:

In the ACBL, the TD would rule that "strong" means whatever the player concerned wants it to mean, so this hand perforce meets the definition. In the EBU, "strong" is defined in OB 10.4: So this hand meets the EBU's definition as well. Result stands.

IMO, Blackshoe covered all angles in the first reply to the OP.

[RMB1]

I propose that any two bid be allowed that the partnership describes as 'string'.
Furthermore, a partnership may use the word 'string' to mean whatever it chooses.

Is that any different from the ACBL position? Is it a useful regulation?

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-May-19, 09:41, said:

The implication of the OB is that strong is qualified by adding "8/9 playing tricks" to show that it is a 10B4(a) hand, so I think you will find those that just peruse the OB using this form of wording. And it is very clear that all of (a), (b) and ( c) are subsets of "strong". Do you disagree with this?

Yes. To a lot of people strong implies top cards. The EBU regulation allows "strong" 2-bids without the top cards subject to adequate disclosure. Not mentioning the lack of top cards strength is not adequate disclosure.

mycroft, on 2011-May-19, 09:57, said:

How about, since we have experience with this same hand over here, "strong, 8-9 playing tricks *with or without defensive tricks* or 22-24 balanced"?

Excellent.

AlexJonson, on 2011-May-19, 10:27, said:

Huge numbers of people in the EBU play something like the agreements you mention, and I can't imagine thinking for one moment that I was poorly informed when they turn up with this hand - especially since it is a hand type that generated some debate and presumably determined the wording in the current Orange Book.

The wording is based on adequate disclosure of openings without the top card structure. Not mentioning the lack of top cards strength is not adequate disclosure.

[blackshoe]

Doesn't sound like it. No.

In theory, there is a limit to what a partnership can call "strong". Not sure, myself, exactly where the limit is. I frequently see "8 1/2 PT" written on SCs. But consider this hand:

---

I've had a ruling, supported by later correspondence with both Mike Flader, who writes the "Ruling The Game" column for the ACBL Bulletin, and the then CTD of the ACBL, that this is "not a psych, but it's close". I asked "how close?" and "what would make it a psych?", but I never got an answer to those questions. This hand is 8 PT, so not much of a deviation from 8 1/2. I suppose without one of the top 3 spades, so it would be 7 or 7 1/2 PT, would qualify.

[StevenG]

Why does the word "strong" need to be used at all? Around my way, nobody ever uses it here. They just say "8 playing tricks or 19-20 balanced", or whatever the details of their agreement. It's assumed that it's OB compliant, which in practice means Extended Rule of 25, and most players are well aware that there are restrictions, even if they don't know exactly what those restrictions are.

Anyway, that fact that these hands are legal at Level 3, and that there is no mixing of strong and non-strong at Level 3, says that the EBU have defined this type of hand as strong, whatever the preferences of some players.