[dburn]

lamford, on 2011-May-22, 05:59, said:

And when partner puts down: ♠ AKQJxxxx ♥ xx ♦ xx ♣ x "... [which] does count as 8 clear-cut tricks.", the example minimum hand in the OB, despite your laudable attempts at full disclosure, SB will get it recorded as a deviation by the vigilant VixTD, as it did not meet any of the specified hands in your description.

My partners would not put down such a hand, because my partners would open four spades with that; if however they had a side king, they would open with an artificial strong bid if we were playing an artificial strong bid that included inter alia a hand with eight clear-cut tricks that was not a game force from strength.

However, if some quondam partner told me that he would open 2♣ on eight solid and out, then of course I would include this possibility in my disclosure.

lamford, on 2011-May-22, 05:59, said:

And I presume that you would only explain 3♣ if asked, and you would not alert it, as otherwise SB will have the TD along again.

Actually, I would alert 3♣ and explain it even unasked, if it appeared that my opponent was in some way confused by my previous explanation of 2♣. This may or may not be contrary to some regulation or other, but I really do not care; what I care about is that my opponents know my methods.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2011-May-22, 06:10, said:

I share your view of the way bridge should be played, but what we are deciding here is how the rules should be applied. SB is quite entitled to play bridge in his own sad way, and certainly if he is following the OB to the letter, he cannot be criticised.

The section of the OB being discussed is that which defines what agreements are permitted. It does not define how full disclosure of your methods should be made - all it says is 'subject to full disclosure'. If your partner opened 2D, you alerted and on enquiry said "OB 11G6 a23 and b4" that would be following the OB to the letter, and you can and would be criticised.

While we seem to be talking about how to "follow the OB to the letter" rather than how to play bridge, perhaps it is better to look at section 3 "Disclosure of System". That, and the following section, define some words to be used in disclosing system e.g. what 'forcing' or means without any qualification.

These phrases all seem pertinent:

"All agreements, including implicit understandings and understandings and practices of the partnership must be fully disclosed to opponents"
"Players should bear in mind that the same name may mean different things to different players"
"Announcements are not intended to provide comprehensive explanations"

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-May-22, 07:19, said:

The section of the OB being discussed is that which defines what agreements are permitted. It does not define how full disclosure of your methods should be made - all it says is 'subject to full disclosure'. If your partner opened 2D, you alerted and on enquiry said "OB 11G6 a23 and b4" that would be following the OB to the letter, and you can and would be criticised.

While we seem to be talking about how to "follow the OB to the letter" rather than how to play bridge, perhaps it is better to look at section 3 "Disclosure of System". That, and the following section, define some words to be used in disclosing system e.g. what 'forcing' or means without any qualification.

These phrases all seem pertinent:

"All agreements, including implicit understandings and understandings and practices of the partnership must be fully disclosed to opponents"
"Players should bear in mind that the same name may mean different things to different players"
"Announcements are not intended to provide comprehensive explanations"

So, if someone is following the OB to the letter, they are following those last three phrases as well, surely? And I am agreeing with their pertinence.

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-May-22, 06:45, said:

Actually, I would alert 3♣ and explain it even unasked, if it appeared that my opponent was in some way confused by my previous explanation of 2♣. This may or may not be contrary to some regulation or other, but I really do not care; what I care about is that my opponents know my methods.

But some opponents, and some TDs, might (mis)interpret your alert and unasked-for explanation as an indication to your partner that you and he are either on the same wavelength or not, as the case may be, and therefore a breach of 73B.

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-May-22, 06:45, said:

My partners would not put down such a hand, because my partners would open four spades with that;

As would I. Sadly, your partner, Walter in our example, opens all hands that are 16+ or meeting the extended rule of 25 with 2C. As you can see from what he opened it on.

[axman]

PeterAlan, on 2011-May-22, 03:59, said:

I'm finding all these pleadings on behalf of those who want to be able to go on "misinterpreting" the word "strong" when it's well-defined in the Orange Book, and expecting everyone else to accommodate them, a little synthetic. Such people can never be satisfied, since as I said above (1) I can never know what they do interpret as "strong", (2) they probably don't know themselves, and (3) it varies from pair to pair. The only ways round this are either to accept that "strong" means exactly what the OB says or to stop using it in descriptions altogether. The latter seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, especially when OB 5D1 mandates its use when announcing natural 2-bids. As my children would say: Get over it. Move on.

I'm all in favour of full disclosure, and we can discuss what else needs to be said about certain hands, but attacking the use of "strong" isn't the way to go about it.

Actually, it is, at least for as far as it goes.

The source of this Gordian Knot is that the Brits have chosen to license systems. Resulting in jargon as required to cope with the rules created. And one of the problems is the jargon, instead of creating new words to describe the morass, they use existing words while changing their meaning markedly from their common usage. No, I haven’t read those regs but enough have been quoted that my contention is supported. And i have no desire to attempt to untangle the mess as I am diametrically opposed to any system licensing whatsoever. [bridge is strenuous enough that there is no further need to restrict the ability to exploit the defects in their opponents’ methods- so long as they do so fairly].

The effect of saying that strong is a proper description of xxx-x-A-AKQJT985 is to bluff the opponents- by, imo, improper deception. And the problem is by the choice of strong when some other word should be used/invented.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2011-May-22, 06:10, said:

I share your view of the way bridge should be played, but what we are deciding here is how the rules should be applied. SB is quite entitled to play bridge in his own sad way, and certainly if he is following the OB to the letter, he cannot be criticised.

I think you mean that he cannot be penalised.

[gnasher]

FrancesHinden, on 2011-May-22, 07:19, said:

The section of the OB being discussed is that which defines what agreements are permitted. It does not define how full disclosure of your methods should be made - all it says is 'subject to full disclosure'. If your partner opened 2D, you alerted and on enquiry said "OB 11G6 a23 and b4" that would be following the OB to the letter, and you can and would be criticised.

While we seem to be talking about how to "follow the OB to the letter" rather than how to play bridge, perhaps it is better to look at section 3 "Disclosure of System". That, and the following section, define some words to be used in disclosing system e.g. what 'forcing' or means without any qualification.

Section 4E1 of the Orange Book tells us that on a convention card the term "Strong Club" can be used to mean "forcing, artificial, showing ‘Extended Rule of 25’". It's at least reasonable to interpret this as meaning that "strong" = "Extended Rule of 25", whether on a convention card or in a spoken explanation.

There is also a glossary entry for "Strong opening bid", which reads "Minimum strength is ‘Extended Rule of 25’ (see 10 B 4)." It's not competely clear, but I would expect an entry in the glossary to apply to the entire book, so it seems to me that this defines what is meant by announcing an opening as "strong".

[PeterAlan]

gnasher, on 2011-May-22, 11:04, said:

There is also a glossary entry for "Strong opening bid", which reads "Minimum strength is ‘Extended Rule of 25’ (see 10 B 4)." It's not competely clear, but I would expect an entry in the glossary to apply to the entire book, so it seems to me that this defines what is meant by announcing an opening as "strong".

Thank you, gnasher. I think that says it all.

You've got me to look at the Tangerine Book as well (Frances's excellent precis of the Orange Book issued by the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee), and that has:

Tangerine Book 2010 pp 6-7 said:

‘Strong’ Bids
The EBU defines a special meaning for ‘Strong’. A Strong bid has 16+ HCP, or has opening-bid values and at least eight clear-cut tricks, or satisfies the ‘rule of 25’ i.e. the sum of HCP and the lengths of the two longest suits is at least 25. These rules may refer to openings or overcalls being Strong – that is this precise definition of ‘Strong’.

(Incidentally, the "subject to proper disclosure" qualification in OB 10B4(a) seems to appear nowhere in the Tangerine Book.)

[dburn]

The problem is not so much with the use of "strong" per se, but with people's perception that "strong" means different things in different contexts. There is now no hand on which a player can open a "strong" and artificial one club on which another player cannot if he wishes open a "strong" and artificial two clubs. That is as it should be, of course, though it has taken rather a long time to get there.

But when the opponents hear a player open a strong two clubs, they expect him to have a much better hand (as a minimum) than a player who opens a strong one club. They will not necessarily gear any part of their bidding towards constructive overcalls (whether immediate or delayed), because a strong two clubs tends to banish from their minds the possibility that the deal may belong to their side in (for example) a combined 24- or 25-point 3NT, or a "normal" major-suit game on 22-23 hcp and a decent fit.

What can be done about this? Not very much, because it will take time for people's perceptions to change, and regulation cannot accelerate the process to any great extent. This is especially so because in the vast majority of cases, people who open a "strong" two clubs actually will have better minimum hands than people who open a "strong" one club, so for practical purposes the popular perception will continue to conform to reality.

That is why there is an additional burden of disclosure upon people who as a matter of partnership agreement actually do open a "strong" two clubs on hands that are no better than a "strong" one club. Whether or not such a burden is actually imposed by the regulations is neither here nor there; the Laws already say enough to make it clear that you must not put the opponents at a disadvantage by preventing them from understanding in full the methods that you play.

[blackshoe]

There is a difference between preventing them from understanding, and neglecting to make sure that they do understand. The former is cheating, the latter is probably a lack of understanding one's obligations. But that's a minor detail.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-May-21, 04:29, said:

The club's senior kibitizer, Oscar, thought it was a curious hand in that the opponents could make slam in the suit in which the opponents had legally opened a level-3 Benjy 2C, and rebid that suit at the three level!

They have not "legally opened a level-3 Benjy 2C". They are playing a legal method. But 2C is not "Benjy". It is just a silly but legal agreement.

[bluejak]

lamford, on 2011-May-21, 09:57, said:

This is poor reasoning. Disclosure should use the terms in the OB, regardless of what you think the opponents would think those terms mean. Of course the OB should spell out the form of words to be used, but the disclosure by North in this case was full and more than adequate. No doubt Dburn would just have stated: "is likely to have an outside king if he has a solid suit somewhere."

Of course disclosure should not use the Orange book terms. They are designed as a legal basis, not as a method of disclosure. If you mislead the opponents as to what you are playing, a defence that you used a term intended for something different instead of explaining what you are actually playing stinks.

[bluejak]

axman, on 2011-May-22, 08:27, said:

Actually, it is, at least for as far as it goes.

The source of this Gordian Knot is that the Brits have chosen to license systems. Resulting in jargon as required to cope with the rules created. And one of the problems is the jargon, instead of creating new words to describe the morass, they use existing words while changing their meaning markedly from their common usage. No, I haven’t read those regs but enough have been quoted that my contention is supported. And i have no desire to attempt to untangle the mess as I am diametrically opposed to any system licensing whatsoever. [bridge is strenuous enough that there is no further need to restrict the ability to exploit the defects in their opponents’ methods- so long as they do so fairly].

The effect of saying that strong is a proper description of xxx-x-A-AKQJT985 is to bluff the opponents- by, imo, improper deception. And the problem is by the choice of strong when some other word should be used/invented.

The Brits do not license systems. They permit certain agreements and not others, as do every other F2F jurisdiction.

They have not changed the meaning of the words from common usage. But thing develop over time,and with general approach of people in the world to accept authorities less in everything, one of the effects is that people change meanings of words themselves and create problems thereby.

[lamford]

bluejak, on 2011-May-23, 10:47, said:

Of course disclosure should not use the Orange book terms. They are designed as a legal basis, not as a method of disclosure. If you mislead the opponents as to what you are playing, a defence that you used a term intended for something different instead of explaining what you are actually playing stinks.

I disagree entirely with the above. The purpose of the OB with its many terms, and many examples, is to provide guidance on how to explain one's methods. There is a plethora of examples:
In 5D1 <snip> Partner of the opener says the words shown.
(a) “Strong, forcing” (b) “Strong, not forcing”
( c) “Intermediate” (d) “Weak” <snip>
And another:
"The term Multi without qualification means a traditional Multi, ie a 2♦ opening that shows one of these three possibilities:" <snip>

My opinion is that the explanation "strong" coupled with qualifying terms such as 8/9 playing tricks or 23-24 balanced, or with 16+HCP, or with "Extended rule of 25" with explanation if needed is "adequate disclosure". Your so-called "perfect" addition of "with or without defensive tricks" is actually meaningless. If it had been "with defensive tricks" or "without defensive tricks" it would have been so described. All hands are "with or without defensive tricks".

[lamford]

dburn, on 2011-May-22, 06:45, said:

This may or may not be contrary to some regulation or other, but I really do not care; what I care about is that my opponents know my methods.

This is a sentiment I share, and there is a lot to be said for deliberately breaking a regulation to ensure that the opponents are fully informed; alerting a 4-level splinter or Texas transfer are two cases that I think I mentioned elsewhere. I recall, at the End of Year congress 2009, that you did not alert 2H - (pass) - 2S which was non-forcing, because, as I recall, "Wilberforce had said this was not alertable", so you presumably now think that you should ignore whatever edicts have been issued, if the opponents might need to know; an admirable volte-face. I recall, at the time, bluejak indicating that this was not alertable when we sought a ruling, "because different players play it differently". But this goes against the "full disclosure" principle somewhat.

In our example, however, we are deciding how to rule, not how one would disclose oneself.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2011-May-23, 11:18, said:

I disagree entirely with the above. The purpose of the OB with its many terms, and many examples, is to provide guidance on how to explain one's methods.

It is more accurate to say that the purpose of sections 3-5 of the OB is to provide guidance on how to explain one's methods, and the purpose of sections 10-11 is to provide guidance as to what methods one can play.

Quote

Your so-called "perfect" addition of "with or without defensive tricks" is actually meaningless. If it had been "with defensive tricks" or "without defensive tricks" it would have been so described. All hands are "with or without defensive tricks".

In any other context I would agree with this. However, it is not consistent with the OB's instructions on disclosure. There are a couple of other examples where the fact that a bid does not guarantee something must be explicitly said because opponents are likely to assume that it does if no qualification is made: 3B6 and 3B11.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-May-23, 11:41, said:

In any other context I would agree with this. However, it is not consistent with the OB's instructions on disclosure. There are a couple of other examples where the fact that a bid does not guarantee something must be explicitly said because opponents are likely to assume that it does if no qualification is made: 3B6 and 3B11.

And in this section there is more requirement to indicate whether the bid does or does not have defensive strength, only to adequately disclose its meaning.

"Strong with 8/9 playing tricks" correctly describes the method for the non-balanced hand. No condition has been placed on 8/9 playing tricks, therefore the opponent will only assume that it is OB compliant, if he is even aware of the OB.

[lamford]

campboy, on 2011-May-23, 11:41, said:

It is more accurate to say that the purpose of sections 3-5 of the OB is to provide guidance on how to explain one's methods, and the purpose of sections 10-11 is to provide guidance as to what methods one can play.

OK, I accept that, but if a term is defined in any part of the OB, it is assumed that the term means what it says in that definition, even if it is being used for the purpose of disclosure. There is absolutely no doubt that the hand-types in OB10B4(a), (b) and ( c) are sub-sets of "strong" whatever anyone might say. I think jallerton's post in the parallel thread is absolutely spot-on here.

[nige1]

bluejak, on 2011-May-23, 10:47, said:

Of course disclosure should not use the Orange book terms. They are designed as a legal basis, not as a method of disclosure. If you mislead the opponents as to what you are playing, a defence that you used a term intended for something different instead of explaining what you are actually playing stinks.

In the EBU, you are expected to read the Orange Book. This would serve a useful purpose if it aided accurate disclosure. The book does provide a careful definition of some otherwise nebulous terms like "strong". Assuming that your opponents are equally law-abiding, then if you ignore this shared understanding, and instead resort to less accurately defined vocabulary, that seems accident-prone and even deliberately misleading.