Only strong (suit) bid - how clearly should it be described?
A pair at our club play 3 weak 2s. Their only strong bid (apart from 2NT) is 2C, which they play as per BB5.3C as
"(a) any hand of at least 16 HCP
(b) any hand of at least 12 HCP with at least five controls".
BB5.3c specifically says that "This must be disclosed clearly" but does not really define what clearly means.
In this instance, when asked about the bid, should the pair specifically state that it is their only strong (suit) bid, and that it might be either of (a) or (b) above?
I have had a few complaints about this, where opponents feel they have been misled by a description of "strong".
Jeremy
Comments
"Strong, artificial and forcing" is what I say. I'm not sure that it's relevant or surprising that it's their only strong bid other than 2NT, though of course they could state that if they thought it was.
Do you mean "5 C 3"? This week I have seen the third paragraph of 5C3 described as "5C3 (c)" as if it were a third alternative to the options (a) and (b).
They should "say what they play" (in the words of David Burn). If their agreements are ill-defined they should still make it clear that they do not open 2C on Kxx Axx Jxx Axxx.
"Anything we want to treat as strong (not 20-22 balanced) - it may not look strong to you, but it will be 16 plus or 12 plus with 5 controls".
"A hand within one or two tricks of making game, which does not want to risk being passed out at the one level. Usually 16 plus, or it may be distributional with as few as 12 HCP (but will have 5 controls); we don't have a stronger opening bid."
"We don't know what we are doing. This is what we open on strong hands. Our agreement is that it could be any 16+ or 12+ with 5 controls, but it does not make sense to use the bid on all such hands, ... so we don't"
Yes I did Robin - typo.
This raises an interesting question (in my mind anyway). How much should the application of "relevant or surprising" take into account the opposition - either generally or specifically at the table?
If people are surprised, then surely the explanation was inadequate?
If you are in a club where "everyone" plays Benji, then you are correct that you should probably clarify that you are not.
Should the oppositions actual (or expected) level of understanding of the blue book be taken into account? An experienced player would be expected to know what can be included in a 2C bid described as strong, but inexperienced ones may not even have heard of the blue book. Since the purpose of explanations is to remove an unfair advantage (your opposition not really knowing what your bid means), shouldn't they to an extent be tailored to the opposition? Or are all players expected to know the regulations?
In my experience, very good players will always give a detailed description of a bid, including hands it is unlikely to be since other bids were available. "Medium" players give short descriptions ("weak", "strong") which are almost always incomplete. Weak players often struggle to understand the question.
When I am asked to explain my opening 2H I say "6 card heart suit, 6-10 points, does not deny 4 spades".
The pair in question at the start of this thread say "weak", when if fact they should say "5-10 points, in principle a 6 card suit but partner has been known to bid it with 5".
You are correct that we should all be trying to ensure our opponents have as much information as might be helpful to them.
This topic keeps coming up.
At my local club people say things like..
Strong.
Our strongest bid.
Benji.
23 or Game forcing.
The big one...
(They often announce it rather than alerting but that's another topic.)
It's not normally described as artificial but everyone knows it is, and it's not generally described as forcing.
Some people vaguely understand the Blue Book regulations as we put up a notice at the club when the rules changed. But more often it's usually treated as meaning anything too strong to open just one of a suit. I know that's vague but to most pairs the borderline is vague. It's not a precise definition for the opposition but then the bidder's partner does not have a precise definition either.
I have never heard of anyone claiming to be misled by not having been given a clear definition.
I know the EBU may not like these ideas but I work from real life and I'm just pointing out Bridge as it is actually played.
Alan
I get a slow but constant stream of complaints and rulings where 2m is described by opponents as "our strongest bid" and the other side should bid their making game and were put off.
This is perhaps the nub of the matter - players want the opponents system explained in terms of how it differs from what they play. Perhaps the answer to Jeremy's original question is "our 2C bid shows a hand that you would open as (Benji) 2C or 2D".
At Jeremy's club, I described a 2C opening as "a strong balanced, or a strong unbalanced hand that does not want to be passed out at one level"; oppo "you mean benji"; "yes"; oppo (mutters) "why didn't you say so?"
There is no mention of "Benjy" in the BB any longer- is there ? In my opinion, at club level, it is the TD's job to educate members of the provisions of 5C3 of BB rather than letting members to keep repeating old rules/provisions. This should not be difficult to fix !
There are very few mentions in the Blue Book of any names of systems or conventions. This is because the Blue Book concerns itself with what agreements may or may not be permitted, rather than be a source of information on systems and conventions
Barrie Partridge - CTD for Bridge Club Live
A few days ago in a Nicko match, playing 3 weak 2's a game forcing 2C was opened with
Q987xxxx KQ10x A -
The pair weren't representing a new or small bridge club but a long established one with their own multi-room premises in a city.
I've not seen the information sent to captains but if not already included perhaps something about 'allowable methods'.
When we open 2C, we usually describe is an an "Acol Big 2C, our strongest bid". If asked for further information, we'd tell them that it's strong and shows game or near-game in their own hand, either balanced or not and it could be a two-suiter.
I play a version of "Benji" with a partner. As we use a compulsory relay it includes a game force in H. Not my preferred methods but if asked my explanation of 2Chas been:-
"19-20 Balanced, 25 -26 Balanced, 8 playing tricks in an unspecified suit or a game force in Hearts, if the suit is Clubs it promises 16+ or 12+ and 5 controls, Ace being 2, King being 1."
I believe that this explanation would allow me to open the hand mentioned by Gra 2C.
Hi Jerseybean Not sure if your "explanation" complies with Blue Book 7C1 (a) as specified with Notes (1). Or are you saying that the 8 playing tricks are part of the "19-20 balanced"?
I only have one big thought on this and that is why do we wonder why Bridge students prefer to play in unaffliated clubs where, in the majority of cases, they do not have to worry that they are being "blind sided" by weird and wonderful bids that they have no hope of understanding.
CMOT_Dibbler
I don't see anything wrong with Jerseybean's bid. The balanced meanings and 8-playing-tricks-in-Clubs meanings are legal under 7C1a, the other 8-playing-tricks meanings and the game-force-in-hearts meaning are legal under 7C1b.iv (assuming that the heart hand has to contain at least 5 hearts), and the introduction to 7C1 specifically allows combining these.
The rules in 7C1 are intended to allow partnerships to play "generic defences" against any weird convention their opponents might come up with. Generic defences against strong-bids-with-weak-options seem to work just fine against this bid (although they might want to increase the amount of strength for values-showing bids a bit).
As for the hand Gra mentions, there are uncontroversially legal 2C bids which could make it. (For example, I've experimented with a bid along the lines of "both majors, at least 4-4 but often more; either 6-11 HCP, or else 0-4 losers", in a system where both strong hands and club hands opened at the 1-level. This is obviously legal under 7C1b.iii, and describes Gra's example hand perfectly; the followup bids had a method of showing an extreme distribution in an HCP-weak hand.) Jerseybean's bid is another example of a legal bid that would be legal on this hand, and falls into the same general category as the multi (this hand is the "weak option"!). However, "game forcing" could not be a legal description of any bid which could legally be made on this hand, as it would be misleading for opponents for such a hand to be possible. So either this is an illegal method, or else misinformation.
The regulations for the NICKO include (at regulation 18):
"Level 4 agreements are permitted throughout the competition."
Having a separate book apart from the Laws of Duplicate is cumbersome and confusing for the typical bridge player, IMO. A cross-reference between the Blue Book to the Laws would greatly aid players. Having played the game competitively for several years in the US I was unaware the Blue Book even existed until I took the TD course here.
With the myriad of bidding systems, today it is commonplace to state as Gordon does, "Strong, artificial and forcing" which rectifies the situation and provides full disclosure everything, the responder knows upon the call 2 Clubs. Upon the opener's next bid the responder should be able to provide a better description of opener's hand.
I don't think the typical bridge player needs to know much about the Laws. Assuming that they know the mechanics: bids should be in rotation and sufficient, you can't double partner, you must follow suit if you can, the hand that wins the trick leads to the next one etc., then I think players only really need to know about two Laws:
9B1(a): call the Director if anything goes wrong.
73C: try not to take advantage if you have UI from partner.
Pretty much anything else can be explained by the director when called.
Don't tell me this is a simplification: I know ;)
We have done it to death on this forum, of course, but the problem comes when one person's view of what is "strong" and another's prove to be rather different. But if that's what they are playing, "strong, artificial and forcing, but not necessarily as strong as you might think" seems to fit the bill. Defining one's methods by reference to the L&E's definition of strong, however, is unhelpful. I can't imagine anyone agreeing to open 2 !c on the hand Robin quoted (a 4-3-3-3 12-count that happened to have 5 controls, to save anyone having to look it up) any all "stronger" hands.
I did have an amusing situation to rule on under the previous version of strong. The pair concerned liked to open 2 !c (playing 2 !d as very strong) on hands that were (IMO) strongish but semi-pre-emptive, and they were careful to put a very complete description on the system card by reference to the old "Extended Rule of 25". I never heard of them opening 2 !c on a hand which was non-compliant with this standard, but I was called when one of them opened 2 !c and the other described it in terms of strength (instead of referring to the description on the system card) as "a hand of power and quality" (which, of course is the traditional description of an Acol 2 as widely played in the 1960s). A Camrose-capped opponent claimed to have been misled.