[VixTD]

Ten days at the Brighton Summer Meeting generated a fair number of rulings. I'm sure you'll find some more interesting than others, but I'll go through them chronologically. This caused some grumbling in the Swiss Pairs:

---

3♣ was announced as intermediate, then corrected before South's double as "an ordinary pre-empt".

EW play Precision, and East had thought his partner had opened 2♣, which he would have been correct to announce. He realised his mistake and corrected it.

Result: 5♣(W)=, lead ♠6, NS -600 (14/126 MPs).

I was called at the end of the hand. NS queried the description of the West hand as an "ordinary pre-empt", and said it more closely resembled the initial description of intermediate (CC says "11-15 pts, 6-card suit"), and also East's failure to raise clubs immediately. (I'm not sure they were really claiming damage, but just had a suspicion they were not being given full disclosure of EW's methods.) I asked West why he had chosen to open 3♣ with this hand, and he said that in third position he was entitled to deviate from his agreement a little. East did not raise immediately because at the time he passed he was expecting a six-card suit opposite.

I couldn't see any cause to adjust the score, but just wondered whether EW should be required to state on the CC (and when explaining their bids) that they take liberties in certain situations. Does the modern player really need to spell this out, or is it "just bridge"?

[nige1]

VixTD, on 2013-September-03, 11:07, said:

I couldn't see any cause to adjust the score, but just wondered whether EW should be required to state on the CC (and when explaining their bids) that they take liberties in certain situations. Does the modern player really need to spell this out, or is it "just bridge"?

EBU system-card said:

Please tick the box if you have any special agreements involving different values in particular positions (e.g. light openings in third seat) and include further details under Supplementary Details

Is "just Bridge" a valid excuse for disclosure-failure? The EBU system-card designer seems to share my distrust of reliance on "general bridge knowledge".

[lamford]

VixTD, on 2013-September-03, 11:07, said:

<snip>just wondered whether EW should be required to state on the CC (and when explaining their bids) that they take liberties in certain situations.

I agree. East should have explained the bid, if asked, as "wide-ranging in 3rd seat". I think South would still double, however, so I agree that there was no damage.

[barmar]

nige1, on 2013-September-03, 12:48, said:

Is "just Bridge" a valid excuse for disclosure-failure? The EBU system-card designer seems to share my distrust of reliance on "general bridge knowledge".

It says you have to disclose "special agreements". If it's "just bridge", it's not special.

I have one occasional partner who likes to alert 3rd seat preempts, to give the "wide ranging" explanation. I go along with him, but I don't really feel it's necessary.

[campboy]

Agree with barmar. It's normal to vary your pre-empting style according to position and vulnerability, so "normal pre-empt" is an accurate description here. There could be an issue if they wrote a range on their CC but played a wider range in third, though.

[gnasher]

I don't think "an ordinary preempt" necessarily means "an ordinary third-seat preempt". Some people, at least, will interpret it as "a hand that would be a preempt in other positions".

Players should avoid explanations that might be misunderstood, and it's not hard to say "Premeptive but wide-range".

[paulg]

gnasher, on 2013-September-04, 03:16, said:

Players should avoid explanations that might be misunderstood, and it's not hard to say "Pre-emptive but wide-range".

True, assuming that this was their agreement or known through partnership experience. In such circumstances the EBU dictates that it must be shown on the system card (Blue Book, 3 D 1).

I think the general bridge knowledge argument always depends on the relative standards of the players. At a big event in Brighton you may well not know your opponents but it is a Swiss event, so if you are not at a significantly lower table than you deserve there is the implication that your general bridge knowledge may well be similar to your opponents.

[Trinidad]

gnasher, on 2013-September-04, 03:16, said:

I don't think "an ordinary preempt" necessarily means "an ordinary third-seat preempt". Some people, at least, will interpret it as "a hand that would be a preempt in other positions".

I don't agree. Every player at the table can see the position, the vulnerability, the form of scoring and the weather.

"An ordinary preempt" means "what most people would think a preempt would look like at this position, vulnerability, form of scoring and weather".

In one partnership (wisely or unwisely) we agreed to not care too much about vulnerability when opening with a preempt. That means that I will explain the non vul preempts as "a normal preempt" and the vul preempts as "a normal non vul preempt (i.e. could be aggressive)".

Any pair that plays "normal" preempts varies their preempts with position and vulnerability. That means a somewhat narrower range in second seat and a wide range in third seat when compared to a first seat preempt. If the style doesnot depend on position and vulnerability, the preempting style is not "normal".

Rik

[wanoff]

Trinidad, on 2013-September-04, 05:00, said:

I don't agree. Every player at the table can see the position, the vulnerability, the form of scoring and the weather.

"An ordinary preempt" means "what most people would think a preempt would look like at this position, vulnerability, form of scoring and weather".

In one partnership (wisely or unwisely) we agreed to not care too much about vulnerability when opening with a preempt. That means that I will explain the non vul preempts as "a normal preempt" and the vul preempts as "a normal non vul preempt (i.e. could be aggressive)".

Any pair that plays "normal" preempts varies their preempts with position and vulnerability. That means a somewhat narrower range in second seat and a wide range in third seat when compared to a first seat preempt. If the style doesnot depend on position and vulnerability, the preempting style is not "normal".

Rik

But this was a UK event run under UK rules so I suspect VixTD's question was rhetorical.
It couldn't be put much clearer than says the EBU Blue book 2.A.1,
'All partnership understandings, including implicit understandings and practices of the partnership (including those that arise by partnership experience), must be fully disclosed to opponents.'
Maybe such a good pre-empt was not a practice of the partnership at the time, but it is now {or may become one}.

[paulg]

My experience in the ACBL is that the majority of players prefer to play in a game that they feel is appropriate for them to win masterpoints, hence the appeal of bracketed KOs, mini- and micro-Spingolds, flighting of pairs and teams events. People just prefer not to play the stronger teams.

This has rarely been the case in the UK. The number of flighted events is very small and the fields for these have been paltry. Most people wish to play in the main event and welcome the opportunity to play against the top players. This means that the spread of abilities, even in the main pairs event in the Summer Congress, is much wider than an equivalent event in the ACBL. Relative novices playing internationals is not uncommon so Rik's assumptions are not necessarily valid.

[iviehoff]

VixTD, on 2013-September-03, 11:07, said:

East did not raise immediately because at the time he passed he was expecting a six-card suit opposite.

No one else has commented on it, but this explanation seems quite unbelievable to me. How does the bidding to date allow one to deduce W more likely has 7 than 6 cards? Was E bidding 5C as an advance sac? If so, what has 6 vs 7 cards got to do with it? Was E bidding 5C to make? If so, then he needs to find his partner with a lot of controls, not just one extra card in trumps.

There are various things E might have said that I would have believed. But he said something quite different and unbelievable. Now one reason that one gets such explanations is that some people are not very thoughtful and don't know really why they did things, it's just what occurred to them at the time, and when asked to give a reason, not really having one, come up with any old rot instead. That's the charitable explanation.

[campboy]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-05, 02:20, said:

No one else has commented on it, but this explanation seems quite unbelievable to me. How does the bidding to date allow one to deduce W more likely has 7 than 6 cards? Was E bidding 5C as an advance sac? If so, what has 6 vs 7 cards got to do with it? Was E bidding 5C to make? If so, then he needs to find his partner with a lot of controls, not just one extra card in trumps.

If he was bidding 5♣ as a sac, which seems likely, it is presumably not only because he now expects one extra trump from partner but also because (having realised it was not a precision 2♣) he now expects less defence.

[iviehoff]

campboy, on 2013-September-05, 02:54, said:

If he was bidding 5♣ as a sac, which seems likely, it is presumably not only because he now expects one extra trump from partner but also because (having realised it was not a precision 2♣) he now expects less defence.

If the explanation given was a garbled version of "I passed on the first round because I was still under the misapprehension my partner opened 2C", then that is one of the explanations I would believe.

[gnasher]

iviehoff, on 2013-September-05, 02:20, said:

How does the bidding to date allow one to deduce W more likely has 7 than 6 cards?

West thought he was faicng a 2♣ opening, which presumably would be made on any hand with 6+ clubs and the requisite high cards, regardless of suit quality. A 2♣ opening would have a 6-card suit more than 80% of the time.

Then he realised he was facing a 3♣ opening. They may play that a 3♣ opening is normally 7 cards; or they may allow good 6-card suits subject to constraints on the suit quality or shape, but I doubt if they would open 3♣ with every 6-card suit. Regardless of their exact style, the proportion of hands that open 3♣ with a 6-card suit will be smaller than the proportion of hands that open 2♣ with a 2-card suit.

Quote

Was E bidding 5C as an advance sac?

Yes.

Quote

If so, what has 6 vs 7 cards got to do with it?

It's because of Larrry The Law.

[Trinidad]

paulg, on 2013-September-04, 15:52, said:

This means that the spread of abilities, even in the main pairs event in the Summer Congress, is much wider than an equivalent event in the ACBL. Relative novices playing internationals is not uncommon so Rik's assumptions are not necessarily valid.

What did I assume?

The explanation was "an ordinary preempt". If their agreement is that this includes distributional hands that would be minimum 1 level openers in first seat, then it is "an ordinary preempt in third seat".

I assumed that all players could look at the board and notice the vulnerability and position. That is hardly a wild assumption. Therefore, "in third seat" is redundant information: Everybody knows that the player is in third seat. To me it is like: "An ordinary preempt for a bridge player". A sensitive opponent might consider his intelligence insulted.

The problem might be that the person asking didn't know what an ordinary preempt in third seat could look like. But this is not a "special partnership understanding". If I play with you and you open 3♣ in third seat, I know that it will have a wider range than a first or second seaet preempt, even though we have never played together and we haven't discussed it.

Say someone opens 1NT which is alerted and asked (in a jurisdiction without announcements). It is explained as 12-14, balanced. The hand pattern turns out to be 3235. The asker is annoyed because the hand had a five card suit and is, therefore, not balanced. What do you do? There are two ways to approach this:

1) Inform the asker that a 3235 pattern is generally considered balanced.
2) Tell the explainer that he needs to be as explicit as possible about the distributions, because not everybody may know what "balanced" means. Since the asker could not unerstand the answer, it is up to the explainer to make sure that his explanation is complete and completely understood.

The same goes for the "ordinary preempt". The explainer thought that this was understood by the asker. However, the asker didn't know that in third seat "ordinary preempts" are not the same as "ordinary preempts" in first seat. You can:
1) Tell the asker that this is an ordinary preempt in third seat.
2) Tell the explainer to be more explicit, since not everybody may know what "an ordinary preempt" means.

Rik

[campboy]

It is perhaps worth pointing out that in this situation there wasn't even an asker. East was merely correcting his initial mis-announcement. Had East actually been asked about their pre-empting style then there is certainly an argument that "ordinary" would not be an adequate answer (and would be inadequate no matter what their style actually was).

[paulg]

Trinidad, on 2013-September-05, 03:58, said:

paulg, on 2013-September-04, 15:52, said:

This means that the spread of abilities, even in the main pairs event in the Summer Congress, is much wider than an equivalent event in the ACBL. Relative novices playing internationals is not uncommon so Rik's assumptions are not necessarily valid.

What did I assume?

The explanation was "an ordinary preempt". If their agreement is that this includes distributional hands that would be minimum 1 level openers in first seat, then it is "an ordinary preempt in third seat".

I assumed that all players could look at the board and notice the vulnerability and position. That is hardly a wild assumption. Therefore, "in third seat" is redundant information: Everybody knows that the player is in third seat. To me it is like: "An ordinary preempt for a bridge player". A sensitive opponent might consider his intelligence insulted.

The problem might be that the person asking didn't know what an ordinary preempt in third seat could look like. But this is not a "special partnership understanding". If I play with you and you open 3♣ in third seat, I know that it will have a wider range than a first or second seaet preempt, even though we have never played together and we haven't discussed it.

I have no idea what tournaments in the Netherlands are like, but I thought your post was fine assuming a 'normal' level of tournament experience. I just wanted to say that there would be pairs at Brighton who do not have this experience and care is needed when providing explanations to them.

[barmar]

paulg, on 2013-September-05, 09:25, said:

[size="2"]
I just wanted to say that there would be pairs at Brighton who do not have this experience and care is needed when providing explanations to them.

Must all explanations be dumbed down to cater to the lowest common denominator?

At the club this week, we had the auction 1♣ (1♥) 3♣ (4♣) Pass. 3♣ was alerted. At this point, the 1♥ bidder (a weak player) asked for an explanation of my 3♣ bid, was told "preemptive", and then asked me for an explanation of opener's 1♣ bid. I was having a hard time with this, since it's just an ordinary, standard 1♣ opening. I said this, and eventually added "he opens 1♣ if he has 3-3 minors; if he's 4-4 in the minors, he may decide to open 1♣ or 1♦, his criteria is a mystery to me." He took this all in, and then passed, despite holding 3 clubs of his own (his explanation: "I knew 4♣ wasn't natural, but I didn't know what to do."). How much of that explanation was really required?

[blackshoe]

Trinidad, on 2013-September-05, 03:58, said:

Say someone opens 1NT which is alerted and asked (in a jurisdiction without announcements). It is explained as 12-14, balanced. The hand pattern turns out to be 3235. The asker is annoyed because the hand had a five card suit and is, therefore, not balanced. What do you do? There are two ways to approach this:

1) Inform the asker that a 3235 pattern is generally considered balanced.
2) Tell the explainer that he needs to be as explicit as possible about the distributions, because not everybody may know what "balanced" means. Since the asker could not unerstand the answer, it is up to the explainer to make sure that his explanation is complete and completely understood.

The same goes for the "ordinary preempt". The explainer thought that this was understood by the asker. However, the asker didn't know that in third seat "ordinary preempts" are not the same as "ordinary preempts" in first seat. You can:
1) Tell the asker that this is an ordinary preempt in third seat.
2) Tell the explainer to be more explicit, since not everybody may know what "an ordinary preempt" means.

My initial reaction to this 1NT example was "pfui", because in my view, ignorance should be corrected by education, and the ignorance here is the asker's: he apparently doesn't know what "balanced" means. It is ludicrous to expect the explainer to know that asker doesn't understand this, it's basic bridge.

In the actual case, things are a little different, since "ordinary preempt" is vague. Here, I would tell the explainer that explanations should include the range of high card strength, possible minimum length, and any considerations affecting other suits (no voids, no four card major, etc) if those things apply.

[paulg]

barmar, on 2013-September-05, 09:39, said:

Must all explanations be dumbed down to cater to the lowest common denominator?

At the club this week, we had the auction 1♣ (1♥) 3♣ (4♣) Pass. 3♣ was alerted. At this point, the 1♥ bidder (a weak player) asked for an explanation of my 3♣ bid, was told "preemptive", and then asked me for an explanation of opener's 1♣ bid. I was having a hard time with this, since it's just an ordinary, standard 1♣ opening. I said this, and eventually added "he opens 1♣ if he has 3-3 minors; if he's 4-4 in the minors, he may decide to open 1♣ or 1♦, his criteria is a mystery to me." He took this all in, and then passed, despite holding 3 clubs of his own (his explanation: "I knew 4♣ wasn't natural, but I didn't know what to do."). How much of that explanation was really required?

Of course it's not easy, for example an ordinary, standard 1♣ opening in the UK would never be made on a three-card suit

When you are obviously more experienced you just try to do the best you can.