Last Laws Home Local Next

Permitted System

by David Stevenson

--------------

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.

S AQTxx
H J97xx
D x
C xx

Second in hand, vulnerable against not, teams. Your call?

The player opened 1S. 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:

9.2Rule of 19 (and Rule of 18, 22, 23, 25)
9.2.1This 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).
14.1One of a Suit Opening Bids
14.1.1Minimum opening bids.
  • The minimum agreement for opening 1-of-a-suit is Rule of 18; except
  • You may open a natural 1-of-a-suit that may be weaker than this by agreement, but only if you do not play any conventional calls thereafter.

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

S Qxx
H xx
D AQTxxx
C xx

he opened 1D against the Bear and reached the wrong game: my partner opened 3D 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:

The problem with the hand is that it can be argued that is a 7-loser hand and as such is an "opening bid". However we've discussed endlessly here about 9 point mini NTs and have reluctantly accepted that they can't be upgraded. I think the same must apply here.

I'd award 30% or the score attained.

Grant Sterling wrote:

Second in hand, vulnerable against not, teams. Your call?

1S. Although, to be fair, if it didn't work out my partner would claim my opening was too light for our system.

The player opened 1S. He and his wife play a very aggressive system with light openers, and their opponents objected to this one.

I wouldn't have--seems within the bounds of "normal" to me.

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.

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....

While no ruling was asked for, he had played against our team in the first match. Holding Qxx xx AQTxxx xx he opened 1D against the Bear and reached the wrong game

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 1S bid had also been opened in the other room! :-)

--------------

Editor's note:

--------------
Last Laws Home Top Local Next
Last
article
Laws
menu
Main
index
Top of
article
Local
menu
Next
article