Ted Reveley ["the Bear" of the occasional "Tales of the Bear" on RGB and my Bridgepage] was directing at our local club Swiss Teams league night [twelve nights a year, two matches a night]. He came over to my table and told me a Director was wanted. "But you are the Director", I said, puzzled. "I think I shall leave this one to you," he said.
Second in hand, vulnerable against not, teams. Your call?
The player opened 1. He and his wife play a very aggressive system with light openers, and their opponents objected to this one.
The problem comes in the EBU regulations. This is a Level 4 event so I shall give you the regs:
|9.2||Rule of 19 (and Rule of 18, 22, 23, 25)|
|9.2.1||This is a method of hand valuation calculated by adding the HCPs to the sum of the number of cards in the two longest suits. It is used for defining what agreements are permitted for bidding on hands (usually for opening bids).|
|14.1||One of a Suit Opening Bids|
|14.1.1||Minimum opening bids.|
I asked him whether he normally opened such hands. He said certainly, and suggested I looked at the strength of the suits. They play normal conventions after their openings.
While no ruling was asked for, he had played against our team in the first match. Holding
he opened 1 against the Bear and reached the wrong game: my partner opened 3 and we missed game [3NT while cold off in theory will probably make].
So, how do you rule? If you rule it as playing an illegal convention then EBU regulations require you to cancel the board and give A-/A+, unless the opponents did better than A+.
On the actual hand 3NT made ten tricks in both rooms.
John Probst wrote:
I'd award 30% or the score attained.
Grant Sterling wrote:
1. Although, to be fair, if it didn't work out my partner would claim my opening was too light for our system.
I wouldn't have--seems within the bounds of "normal" to me.
I am prepared to give a certain amount of lee-way on hand evaluation, and so I might be convinced to hold that this hand is so exceptionally concentrated that it could be 'graded up' to an opener. [I.e., to hold that the pair's real agreement doesn't violate the rule, and this hand is merely an aberrational re-valuation.]
But, I can't in this case, because....
This hand makes it clear that the player, in fact, routinely opens hands that violate the Rule of 18. So I have no choice but to rule that the first case really is an illegal opening, and not an aberration.
I do as required. A-/A+
I ruled A-/A+. Everyone seemed to have sympathy for this pair but they had flouted the rules.
It was embarrassing to find out that the 1 bid had also been opened in the other room!