[kruba]

Can the following hand be opened 2C, under the new EBU rules?
In particular, does it meet the requirements for “a”?

SAKT876532 H2 DT CK6

a) subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum
the normal high card strength associated with a one-level opening
and at least eight clear cut tricks.

[iviehoff]

It is legal, on the spur of the moment, to open any hand you like 2C. You can also agree to open such a hand 2C if it is, say, a natural intermediate opening such as the Precision 2C. So I presume you are asking whether, subject to proper disclosure, you may have an agreement with your partner that such a hand as this can be opened as a Benjamin 2C.

In which case, the answer is "it depends who the director is". So you'd be taking a risk if you come to an agreement with your partner, as there are certainly directors who would say it does not come up to the standard.

It has 8 clear-cut tricks by the EBU's defined methodology - second best break opposite a void is a 3-1 break, so that makes 8 tricks.

It is a 10 count. The EBU has refused to define precisely how many points comprise "the normal high card strength associated with a one-level opening". In my view the number of HCP that refers is 11, but no doubt you'll find directors who'll say it is 10. On such days, you'll get away with it. Subject to proper disclosure.

[hotShot]

---

[mjj29]

iviehoff, on 2010-November-22, 03:45, said:

So I presume you are asking whether, subject to proper disclosure, you may have an agreement with your partner that such a hand as this can be opened as a Benjamin 2C.

Quite why you'd want to...

I would say that you can't open that hand as a "Benjamin 2C", but it could be opened as an artificial 2C which is "Either strong or a long running suit with 8 clear cut tricks and at least opening points". If you are opening this 2C then you are _not_ playing Benjamin. Having that in the 'general description of methods' and a small note elsewhere including that in the description is not, IMO, 'proper disclosure'. (Not that I'm assuming the OP will do that, but I think it's worth mentioning).

iviehoff, on 2010-November-22, 03:45, said:

In which case, the answer is "it depends who the director is". So you'd be taking a risk if you come to an agreement with your partner, as there are certainly directors who would say it does not come up to the standard.

It has 8 clear-cut tricks by the EBU's defined methodology - second best break opposite a void is a 3-1 break, so that makes 8 tricks.

It is a 10 count. The EBU has refused to define precisely how many points comprise "the normal high card strength associated with a one-level opening". In my view the number of HCP that refers is 11, but no doubt you'll find directors who'll say it is 10. On such days, you'll get away with it. Subject to proper disclosure.

This has been raised several times in a number of venues. I think more people (read: EBU directors) are converging on 11 points than not.

[bluejak]

Wales uses the same regulation and the Welsh L&EC has interpreted it as 11 HCP. So you may not have an agreement to open it an artificial strong 2♣ in Wales.

[Cyberyeti]

bluejak, on 2010-November-22, 06:49, said:

Wales uses the same regulation and the Welsh L&EC has interpreted it as 11 HCP. So you may not have an agreement to open it an artificial strong 2♣ in Wales.

So how do you deal with the scenario when it has been opened 2♣ and the opener says "yes our agreement is 11, but I happened to do it on 10", which is what I suspect is likely to happen with any pair that's clued in ?

[Free]

I read in another topic the following EBU rule about clear-cut tricks:

Quote

Clear-cut tricks are clarified as tricks expected to make opposite a void in partner’s hand and the second best suit break

We have 9 ♠s, so opposite void in partner's hand the second best suit break is 3-1. We have ♠AK, so this means we'll make 8 ♠ tricks and that's it. I consider this enough strength for a 1-level opening, so I would say you're allowed to open this 2♣.

[campboy]

Cyberyeti, on 2010-November-22, 07:24, said:

So how do you deal with the scenario when it has been opened 2♣ and the opener says "yes our agreement is 11, but I happened to do it on 10", which is what I suspect is likely to happen with any pair that's clued in ?

Unless they can give some evidence to support this (such as a previous hand with 10 HCP and eight CCT which (passed or) opened something other than 2♣), why should I believe it?

Law 85A1 said:

In determining the facts the Director shall base his view on the balance of probabilities, which is to say in accordance with the weight of evidence he is able to collect.

[bluejak]

You could ask the player why he opened this one. You could ask him what he will open if he gets the identical hand again. You cold ask his partner what he considers the correct opening.

But you have prima facie evidence they are playing an illegal agreement, and in general you just rule it back.

[jallerton]

bluejak, on 2010-November-22, 09:42, said:

You could ask the player why he opened this one. You could ask him what he will open if he gets the identical hand again. You cold ask his partner what he considers the correct opening.

These are very good questions, which the TD not only could ask, but should ask.

Quote

But you have prima facie evidence they are playing an illegal agreement, and in general you just rule it back.

Really? Suppose that a player opens at the 1-level on a hand with 6HCP. Presumably you still conclude that you "have prima facie evidence they are playing an illegal agreement, and in general you just rule it back". Perhaps you need to reconsider the TD rulings on many of the EBU psyche reports forms!

[bluejak]

I never really understand this idea of quoting some different situation with completely different logic as though it has relevance.

Opening a six count has no similarity whatever. Why should it?

[RMB1]

bluejak, on 2010-November-22, 19:48, said:

I never really understand this idea of quoting some different situation with completely different logic as though it has relevance.

And I, in my turn, don't understand this attitude.

For thousands of years human understanding has progressed by looking at different situations, see how they differ and how they are the same, and seeing how their outcomes are different and how they are the same, and seaking to find patterns that can be used to understand different situations in the future. Using analogy is a human trait that has been successful through out history (and may be one of the main reasons for that success). It is natural to try and use comparison with different situations to aid our understanding and I don't see why you don't want people to do it.

Bridge laws and regulations are artifices but they are products of human minds and do conform to underlying patterns. In trying to understand and predict how bridge laws and regulations work, it is inevitable that we look for these patterns.

bluejak, on 2010-November-22, 19:48, said:

Opening a six count has no similarity whatever. Why should it?

Because in both situations, the players may claim it is not their partnership agreement to open six counts at the one level or ten counts at the two level.

[bluejak]

Similar cases, yes, they may provide some answers. But how do totally dissimilar cases help?

[nige1]

Cyberyeti, on 2010-November-22, 07:24, said:

So how do you deal with the scenario when it has been opened 2♣ and the opener says "yes our agreement is 11, but I happened to do it on 10", which is what I suspect is likely to happen with any pair that's clued in ?

Cyberyeti pinpoints the real problem and JAllerton says that directors face the same problem when a player makes a legally sub-minimum call in other contexts. In such circumstances, an inexperienced partnership may break down on cross-examination by a director. More sophisticated players stick to their story. Such are the powers of rationalisation, offending players may believe their own protests, themselves. Good opportunities for such bids are rare. Views polarise as to whether "one swallow makes a summer?" and whether "a minor deviation can be a CPU". (IMO even a one point deviation should be illegal). Anyway, in the typical case, it is important to choose the right director.

Such regulations may be intended as an ill-conceived back-door ban on psyches and pseudo-psyches, especially controlled-psyches. But the main practical effects are

• to prevent disclosure of disallowed methods that law-breakers insist on using.
• to disadvantage players who abide by the rules.

[campboy]

I really do not see a problem here. If a player makes a call which deviates from what he claims to be his agreement, then that is certainly evidence, albeit not very compelling evidence, that his agreement is not what he claimed. In the case of opening a six-count, though, there is almost certainly going to be substantial evidence from previous bridge that the player habitually passes (or opens 2♠ or whatever) with similar hands of the same strength or nearer in strength to an opening bid. In the original case it is unlikely that the player can provide any evidence that this is not his normal opening with that hand, though of course he should be given every opportunity to do so.

[blackshoe]

The day players are required to maintain a database of everything they do at the table in order to provide "evidence" in cases like this is the day I quit playing.

If you believe that this player most often in the past did something other than what he did this time, how can you possibly believe that he and his partner have a cpu? Or is this about something else (and if so, what)?

[pooltuna]

the EBU regulations can be silly if carried to the extreme. 1st example

♠AKT9876543
♥x
♦x
♣x

Now if partner has a void the most common division is 2-1 the second most common is 3-0

2nd example
♠void
♥x
♦x
♣AQJT9876543


Now if partner has a void the most common division is 1-1 the second most common is 2-0
of course it is nearing 50% that you can make 6 but you can't open 2♣ [of course you may not want to do it]

[gordontd]

pooltuna, on 2010-November-23, 10:03, said:

the EBU regulations can be silly if carried to the extreme. 1st example

♠AKT9876543
♥x
♦x
♣x

Now if partner has a void the most common division is 2-1 the second most common is 3-0

The regulation says "second best suit break" not second most common division.

Quote

2nd example
♠void
♥x
♦x
♣AQJT9876543


Now if partner has a void the most common division is 1-1 the second most common is 2-0
of course it is nearing 50% that you can make 6 but you can't open 2♣ [of course you may not want to do it]

How do you calculate it as being 50% that you can make 6♣?

[pooltuna]

gordontd, on 2010-November-23, 10:18, said:

The regulation says "second best suit break" not second most common division.



How do you calculate it as being 50% that you can make 6♣?

It was a bootstrap calculation. The odds of partner having one of the necessary aces is 55%. The probability you can bring in ♣ for no losers is pretty high say 80%. The product of the two gets to 44%

[campboy]

Oops, my calculation was wrong. Carry on, nothing to see here.

Bah, got quoted before I corrected it. But I think 44% is closer than what I had, because I'd estimated the chance of 1-1-0 split wrong.