[mycroft]

This is the same argument put in a different shell and equally wrong.

Whether your agreement is legal or not is one issue. Terms that are defined to allow simple(ish) descriptions of what is legal and what is not are fine, but irrelevant to disclosure.

How you describe it to the opponents is another issue. The opponents need to be able to understand what your bids mean, and since "strong" - by that definition - is imprecise (so, which ONE of: do you use?) it can not be full disclosure. If SB stated that "we will open all ER25 hands with 2♣", then a) I'm not sure people would believe him, but b) he'd be complete, if that were in fact their agreement.

SB is not paid to recite the Blue Book. Nor is he required to. He is, however, required to fully disclose his agreements, and he must insure that those agreements are Blue Book legal for the game he is playing. He has carefully done exactly one of those things.

"artificial, strong and FG except a 2NT rebid would be 23-24 balanced and could be passed." Find anyone who believes that that disclosure of their agreement - which, I agree, is BB legal - matches their actual agreement, if this hand is part of it - which, I agree, is *also* BB legal - and who is not SB or one of his paid cronies, and you might have a case. "We will frequently open Rule of 25 hands 2♣ without concern over playing or defensive tricks" - now there you've got a case. But while it might have worked this time, because it's tough to overcall with these E-W hands IRL, it would blunt the preemptive power most of the time SB tries this, no?

"Yes, they know what 'strong' means in the Blue Book. They also know what 'strong' usually means for a 2♣ opener. If there is a potential for confusion, it is your requirement under Full Disclosure to resolve it, not theirs to magically guess what your definition of 'strong' is."

As I said the last time, this is a misinformation, or more accurately, creatively incomplete information, case; not an illegal call. That doesn't mean SB gets away with it, it just means he doesn't get the "use of illegal agreement" adjustments/penalties.

My go-to for this is what I call "Psychic Ogust"; 2M-2NT "asks about suit and hand quality", being the careful explanation to hide "frequently used as a preemptive raise, which we get away with a lot more than we should by our opponents not knowing about this tactic." Note that *all* responses are Blue Book legal (only openers and overcalls are regulated), so does that mean I can use "a permitted response" as full disclosure of all my responses?

[lamford]

eagles123, on 2017-January-09, 15:07, said:

the law is ***** there's already been 600+ post discussion on bridgewinners about how ***** the law is, do we really need another point proving mission?

As the opposite situation arose last Tuesday, where a hand was described as artificial, strong and FG, whereas it does not seem to meet that description but technically does, the other side of the coin is being presented. I think the fact that compliant Tottenham is opened 2C is much worse than the fact that some non-compliant very strong hands are not allowed.

[lamford]

mycroft, on 2017-January-09, 15:39, said:

This is the same argument put in a different shell and equally wrong.
<big snip>
does that mean I can use "a permitted response" as full disclosure of all my responses?

SB would reply: "I am told what to say by the Blue Book, and I just use the terminology therein and ensure that I fully comply. If the opponent does not like that, he can write to the L&E but should not bend my ear about it. I am not interested. If my explanation should be different, then it should be made clear in the regulations".

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-January-09, 04:38, said:

East-West were unhappy at the description of the South hand as game-forcing…

The description was not of the South hand it was of the partnership understanding regarding the meaning of the bid.

[pran]

sanst, on 2017-January-09, 10:36, said:

That SB again acts outrageously by telling the TD to go away and demanding a PP for EW, is nothing new, but he is uncorrectable, no matter what PP's and DP's he gets.

Is an alleged fact that he is uncorrectable a valid reason for not imposing a PP?

IMHO this is instead a valid reason for consistently giving him a PP equivalent to 100% score on a board each time he acts like this.

[wanoff]

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.

What part of 'Fully disclosed' do Barmar and the rest not understand ?
Against weak opponents you might even explain what the extended rule of 25 actually means ie crap such as AQ KQ K Jxxxxxxx.

bye

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-January-09, 11:54, said:

The problem is that there may be hands with only 3 clear-cut tricks, the one in this thread, that qualify under ER25, and hands with 7.4 clear-cut tricks, such as none x AJT8 AKT98xxx which just misses out on both. That is incomparably stronger than the hand in this post, but does not qualify, and because the suit is clubs, it needs to be 8 clear-cut tricks by agreement. The best break is any 3-2 which is 8 tricks. The second-best break on the Barden method is any 4-1 which is I think 6.4 clubs tricks and only one diamond trick a total of 7.4. I actually think the best break is QJ doubleton (no losers) in either hand. The second-best break is therefore equally, QJx, Qxx, Jxx, stiff Q and stiff J, all six tricks. I presume Barden would just consider the worst 4-1s and class this as exactly 7 clear-cut tricks.

How does one win four tenths of a trick?

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-09, 19:17, said:

How does one win four tenths of a trick?

Ask the parents in the average family, who have 2.5 children.

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-January-09, 12:37, said:

As SB said to the TD, off the record, "I am not paid to recite the Blue Book because the opponent is too lazy to look up what "strong" means in advance."

What part of "full disclosure" does the SB not understand? What would he say to an opponent who responded to his "strong" explanation with "I don't understand what that means. Please explain further"?

[blackshoe]

lamford, on 2017-January-09, 16:46, said:

SB would reply: "I am told what to say by the Blue Book, and I just use the terminology therein and ensure that I fully comply. If the opponent does not like that, he can write to the L&E but should not bend my ear about it. I am not interested. If my explanation should be different, then it should be made clear in the regulations".

If that's how SB replies to an opponent's "please explain further" then his 50% of a top DP for disrespecting the TD just went to 100%.

[barmar]

wanoff, on 2017-January-09, 18:52, said:

What part of 'Fully disclosed' do Barmar and the rest not understand ?

I think I may have misunderstood what was going on. From the ensuing posts, I'm now in the anti-SB camp (that was close!).

The Blue Book describes what agreements are allowed. But you can't just refer to it in an explanation -- it's not adequate to say "our strong 2♣ conforms to one of the definitions of 'strong' in the BB." The BB allows a variety of agreements, and the opponents need to know what your specific agreement is, not just that it's one of the ones that are allowed.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2017-January-09, 07:03, said:

North described it as artificial, strong and FG except a 2NT rebid would be 23-24 balanced and could be passed. All as SB advised him to say and which was indeed the agreement. This hand was indeed their minimum but Blue Book compliant.

And you consider this a credible explanation when North passes 4♥ with a hand that really cannot have more than 6 losers?

I think it would be appropriate to add "Though the auction is mechanistically forcing to game regardless of my hand (except after a 2NT rebid by opener), opener doesnot need the values to make a game force sensible." or "It meets the EBU definition of a strong bid, but it doesn't need to meet the sensible bridge player's definition of a strong bid."

Full disclosure is something that you don't hold back on.

Rik

[lamford]

blackshoe, on 2017-January-09, 19:22, said:

If that's how SB replies to an opponent's "please explain further" then his 50% of a top DP for disrespecting the TD just went to 100%.

No, and also effectively in reply to Rik's post, if SB were asked to explain further, he (and his partner) would state that all hands that meet one or more of the three requirements in the Blue Book, as having 16 HCP, meeting the extended rule of 25, or having 10 HCPs and 8 clear-cut tricks will be opened a FG 2C, without exception. If asked he will give another example of a hand that he recently opened a FG 2C which was ♠QJ ♥QJ ♦KQ32 ♣KQ432 which also had the effect of talking the vulnerable opponents out of 4M (although it did lead to a hopeless 3NT-4, that was still a useful 11 IMP pick-up). Another hand which had 10 HCP and eight clear-cut tricks was ♠J ♥2 ♦KQJT9 ♣QJT987 which again talked the opponents out of 4M.

As SB responded to the TD, "Only a retard will be unable to establish the full set of hands on which we will open 2C from my partner's comprehensive and exhaustive explanation. It is not my job to comply with the spirit of the Law, only its letter".

Personally I agree with Mycroft, Trinidad and Barmar that this behaviour is unacceptable, but there is absolutely nothing the regulatory authorities can do about it. They are hoisted on their own petard.

[Lanor Fow]

I don't believe game forcing is a correct description of any hand that fulfills part 1 or 2 of the ER25. This part of a desciription of what can be considered strong according to regulations, not what is a GF hand. Even if it were just these two parts, I would not consider this disclosure enough when asked about the bid, and would rule MI.

It is even clearer if the bid can conform to part three (10+ points and 8 clear cut tricks) of the definition of ER25, as this specifically states "subject to proper disclosure". It would not be enough to describe a bid containing hands that fit part three and not parts 1 or 2 'Strong', and certainly not enough to describe them as 'GF or 23+bal'.

As others have said, just because SB can legally open these hands 2c, doesn't stop him having to disclose correctly.

I would accept 'All hands that fit ER25' assuming that SB was happy to explain ER25 and they did open all hands that fit ER25 2c, but this was not what was said at the table and when you inquire about a bid, you should be told what the bid systemically means. This was not done.

[lamford]

Lanor Fow, on 2017-January-10, 06:10, said:

I would accept 'All hands that fit ER25' assuming that SB was happy to explain ER25 and they did open all hands that fit ER25 2c, but this was not what was said at the table and when you inquire about a bid, you should be told what the bid systemically means. This was not done.

If SB's partner explained "all hands that fit ER25" he would get a blank look from everyone at our club except perhaps the three County Directors. And he would also need to cover the other two hand-types as well, and perhaps give an explanation of clear-cut tricks, and how they differ from sure tricks and playing tricks. Maybe recite the "further examples" in the Blue Book.

As I wrote: "North described it as artificial, strong and FG except a 2NT rebid would be 23-24 balanced and could be passed". "Strong" is defined by the Blue Book. That North explanation is far more than the vast majority of players give who just say "Strong" or just say "game forcing". If North goes into further detail, we would not get two boards played in the fifteen minutes allowed.

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2017-January-10, 04:46, said:

As SB responded to the TD, "Only a retard will be unable to establish the full set of hands on which we will open 2C from my partner's comprehensive and exhaustive explanation. It is not my job to comply with the spirit of the Law, only its letter".

Personally I agree with Mycroft, Trinidad and Barmar that this behaviour is unacceptable, but there is absolutely nothing the regulatory authorities can do about it. They are hoisted on their own petard.

There is still the letter of Law 40B6a:

Quote

When explaining the significance of partner’s call or play in reply to opponent’s enquiry (see Law 20) a player shall disclose all special information conveyed to him through partnership agreement or partnership experience but he need not disclose inferences drawn from his knowledge and experience of matters generally known to bridge players.

Usually, regulating authorities write in their regulations something to the effect that a pair needs to be forthcoming and try to understand the opponent's problem when answering to questions. I assume that the Blue Book does the same, even though Law 40B6a basically says it all.

And to be clear: No, the fact that one is allowed to open this hand 2♣ in the EBU is not general bridge knowledge. So, on the "Only a retard..." phrase, SB is simply wrong.

How come this guy is still playing in North London? With how much money is he sponsoring the club?

Rik

[Lanor Fow]

The BB specifically says that part three is subject to proper disclosure, which 'artificial, strong and FG except a 2NT rebid would be 23-24 balanced and could be passed' doesn't fit.

I don't believe it's sufficient for any hand fitting parts 1 and 2, but it's certainly not for part 3 (or why would they put in 'subject to proper disclosure').

SB is opening many more hands 2c than most people who describe it as 'strong' or 'GF'. Whilst this description is not wonderful in the majority of cases, it's misleading in SBs case where his agreement is so different than the usual one here.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2017-January-10, 04:46, said:

No, and also effectively in reply to Rik's post, if SB were asked to explain further, he (and his partner) would state that...

Why do opps need to ask 20 questions just to be given a correct explanation? 2♣ was alerted, the opps asked for an explanation and they are entitled to full disclosure immediately. The SB is failing not only the spirit but also the letter of the law (regs) here and because he has seemingly made a deliberate attempt to cheat obfuscate the agreement I am all for throwing the book at him.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2017-January-10, 07:01, said:

Why do opps need to ask 20 questions just to be given a correct explanation? 2♣ was alerted, the opps asked for an explanation and they are entitled to full disclosure immediately. The SB is failing not only the spirit but also the letter of the law (regs) here and because he has seemingly made a deliberate attempt to cheat obfuscate the agreement I am all for throwing the book at him.

SB's argument, with which I agree, is that the explanation "strong" is sufficient on its own, as that means "any hand that complies with the Blue Book definition of strong". It is not clear what "full disclosure" means even if his hand was eight clear-cut tricks in a suit and 10 HCP or more. It has to be that, if it is a "part 3" 2C and that is the agreement. And that is what "strong" means. What more disclosure can there be? And if SB or his partner answers "ANY hand complying with Blue Book 5C3", should he then be asked to recite that (he is able to do so, of course, but his partner may struggle)?

[Trinidad]

lamford, on 2017-January-10, 07:44, said:

SB's argument, with which I agree, is that the explanation "strong" is sufficient on its own, as that means "any hand that complies with the Blue Book definition of strong".

No, "strong" does not mean that. The Blue Book "strong" means "'strong' for a definition of regulating the legality of a convention".

At the bridge table we use the bridge players' meaning of the word "strong", which is different, because it has a different purpose. As an example, a "strong NT" rarely meets the EBU definition of "strong". And if someone tells, before starting the play that they play "a strong NT", when their 1NT range is 20-22 then that is MI.

So, the correct explanation would be "strong, but could be as weak as...".

As I said earlier, regulating conventions and explaining them are two different things.

Rik