[VixTD]

This is the last Brighton case I have for you. Although it's not a completed ruling, I thought it had interesting possibilities. Swiss Teams:

---

2♠ was weak, but was neither announced nor alerted
3♣ would be a takeout bid over a weak two, natural over a strong two

I was called at the end of the auction because I think the uncertainty over the meaning of 2♠ was now apparent. I pointed out that all meanings of 2♠ openers require either an alert or an announcement, so they all should have been aware that something was missing. I didn't allow any calls to be retracted, and asked them to call me back if they needed me.

I wasn't called back. I didn't ever find out the result on the board.

If the contract had made, do you think NS would have a case for claiming damage?

If the contract had failed, do you think EW would have a case for claiming damage?

[gnasher]

VixTD, on 2013-October-18, 07:02, said:

This is the last Brighton case I have for you.

Thanks for posting these. Seeing a complete set was a lot more instructive than just seeing the controversial ones.

[iviehoff]

I think NS have a case whether they take 5C down or not. I think a poll is appropriate, but my guess is that pass is a LA to 5C and I would rule it back to 4HX. If a poll suggests that there is no LA to 5C, I would then consider whether 5C is a LA to pass on the previous round, which might then lead to 6CX, since W will not pass 5C without the prior double. I think both questions could be included in one poll.

EW don't have a MI case. Although NS failed to comply with the announcement procedure, at no point were EW misinformed that 2S had the meaning E chose to take for it, nor could they reasonably infer that meaning.

NS don't have a MI case. As a consequence of the above, it is clear that 3C was a misbid.

[ggwhiz]

gnasher, on 2013-October-18, 07:44, said:

Thanks for posting these. Seeing a complete set was a lot more instructive than just seeing the controversial ones.

Yeah, fun set.

South was asleep at the switch and I would think the double of 4♥ is gambling in nature and may well sever any link to damage depending on who asked what when.

East was also asleep at the switch assuming the strong option and not finding out before bidding since both are alertable/announcable. Passing 4♥ was ethical but I don't think passing the double is a LA.

[StevenG]

I have sympathy for East. It used to be the case that weak twos were alertable and strong twos not. It seems to me quite easy to misremember the current arrangement (since one so rarely meets a strong two) and think "no announcement, must be strong". It was, after all, South wh committed the first infraction by not announcing.

[iviehoff]

ggwhiz, on 2013-October-18, 10:49, said:

I would think the double of 4♥ is gambling in nature and may well sever any link to damage depending on who asked what when.

Your partner has made a takeout call of a weak 2S (after all he may well know that they play 2S weak from a glance at a CC). In what way is calling 4H with 4 hearts and a good hand gambling?

Gambling calls no long sever any link to damage; rather there are now explicit arrangements to account separately for the damage from an infraction and the effect of any subsequent SEWOG action by the NOS.

[iviehoff]

StevenG, on 2013-October-18, 11:21, said:

I have sympathy for East. It used to be the case that weak twos were alertable and strong twos not. It seems to me quite easy to misremember the current arrangement (since one so rarely meets a strong two) and think "no announcement, must be strong". It was, after all, South wh committed the first infraction by not announcing.

I've got no sympathy. How long have we had announcements, 7 years or something? A pair playing at Brighton must surely play a lot of bridge and be completely tuned in to the arranagements. I'm aware that Brighton has a lot of ordinary club players, but they are the ones most likely to encounter players still playing strong 2s. If a player does not insist on the required announcement, it strikes me as more likely that they have noticed from the CC what system the ops are playing, or have been told.

[gnasher]

iviehoff, on 2013-October-21, 02:46, said:

I've got no sympathy. How long have we had announcements, 7 years or something?

I have no sympathy for East either. We have also had convention cards for a long time.

[ahydra]

iviehoff, on 2013-October-21, 02:40, said:

Your partner has made a takeout call of a weak 2S (after all he may well know that they play 2S weak from a glance at a CC). In what way is calling 4H with 4 hearts and a good hand gambling?

He said "the double of 4H" - with 6 trumps to the Ace being a double in most people's books, I assume ggwhiz classes this as gambling because EW might well have somewhere to run. Depending on the skill level of South, he may have a point, particularly if the North hand is the partnership expectation of values for a weak 2.

ahydra

[campboy]

What does it matter whether the double of 4♥ was gambling? It was not subsequent to the (possible) infraction of pulling to 5♣.

[StevenG]

iviehoff, on 2013-October-21, 02:46, said:

I'm aware that Brighton has a lot of ordinary club players, but they are the ones most likely to encounter players still playing strong 2s.

I don't recall ever seeing a properly announced strong two since announcements were introduced. (I do see Benji-style 2♣ or 2♦ misannounced as strong relatively frequently. )

[CamHenry]

StevenG, on 2013-October-21, 05:35, said:

I don't recall ever seeing a properly announced strong two since announcements were introduced. (I do see Benji-style 2♣ or 2♦ misannounced as strong relatively frequently. )

In one partnership I *play* strong, natural 2-bids (my wife doesn't want to learn weak 2s just yet). We both announce them as strong, non-forcing: but I can't recall seeing a suitable hand for six months at least!

[paulg]

CamHenry, on 2013-October-22, 05:11, said:

In one partnership I *play* strong, natural 2-bids (my wife doesn't want to learn weak 2s just yet). We both announce them as strong, non-forcing: but I can't recall seeing a suitable hand for six months at least!

I play the same with my wife, although no announcements in Scotland. Every time I get everything ready to change to weak twos, we get two strong openings in a session.

[barmar]

CamHenry, on 2013-October-22, 05:11, said:

In one partnership I *play* strong, natural 2-bids (my wife doesn't want to learn weak 2s just yet). We both announce them as strong, non-forcing: but I can't recall seeing a suitable hand for six months at least!

Is there a difference between the type of hand that would open a natural strong 2 and one that would open 2♣ followed by 2 of a suit when playing that as the only strong opening? Because the latter are not so infrequent, I think.

[mycroft]

My guess is (given he's referred to it as strong, *non-forcing*) that he still plays Acol 2s; so the answer is very Yes.

We're talking (with lots of handwaving) the strong hands that go into a Polish 1♣ when 2♣ is SAF rather than Precision style.

They also come up frequently, but not as often as weak 2s.

[CamHenry]

As an example, we'd consider AKxxxx/AKQ/xx/xx enough for a strong 2, but nowhere near enough for 2♣. Opposite a 4333 yarborough, or even a 2433, you expect to make your contract. We have fairly strict requirements about the suit concentration as well, preferring to open 2-suiters at the 1-level.