REALLY EASY STANDARD ESTONIAN

By Simon Ainger

Bridge Plus was born fifteen years ago. With a journalist's nose for scenting a good controversy, the editor introduced, in the very first edition, a bridge 'Soapbox' which was mounted by Stephen Gore to argue that, for the good future of the tournament game, 'Forcing Pass' systems must be banned by the EBU. Full Stop!

In a measured response, Grattan Endicott wrote that the EBU Laws and Ethics Committee had probably got it 'near the right spot on the dial' since those who thought that it was 'licensing licence' were balanced by those who considered it 'repressive' and 'reactionary' in the matter of allowing conventions. Most startling, however, was his revelation that, in Estonia, the 'Strong Pass' was played routinely in all clubs with no attendant problems.

In fact the debate was creating turbulence in the bridge press well before 1989. I encountered a small wave at our popular and social Monday duplicate in Weybridge. On the last hand before the lunch break the bidding at one table started: Pass by North - hefty knock on the table by South (explanation given that the call showed a hand with opening values) - Double by East (with a hand also containing opening values).

East claimed that North's Pass was, in effect, a bid and she was entitled to double it. Since my primary duty was to be behind the bar serving lunch-time drinks, I shamefully ducked the complexities and averaged the board. Strangely, there had been no complaints from any other East-West pairs blessed, it seems, with Estonian tolerance and intelligence. Maybe the fact that their opponents' combined age was 170+ played a part. Nevertheless, I did persuade them during lunch that their system might be too advanced for a social duplicate. They happily agreed.

I've had difficulty discovering what the EBU attitude to 'Forcing Pass' systems used to be. This was because I was searching in vain for a 'Yellow' book. Thanks to a photograph in the latest EBU magazine carrying a photograph of what it calls the 'famous' Orange Book ('infamous' might be a more popular adjective given the plethora of conventions that the ordinary player might have to cope with in serious competition), I did discover the very first Handbook of EBU Directions and Conventions published in 1993. In it, 'Forcing Pass' systems were given an 'Experimental Licence', permissible if so allowed by a sponsoring organisation. The intention was that the Orange Book was to be updated annually but the next one did not come out until 1998. By then, the 'Experimental Licence' had been discarded. Given the trend towards destructive rather than construction conventions over the past couple of decades, I would have expected to see 'Forcing Pass' systems increasingly popular in international competitions but I find no recent evidence.

But what about Estonia? In its simplest form (as played by our octogenarians) 'pass' as an opening call just meant:' I have a hand that would bid something in standard methods.' It is inconceivable that 'Really Easy Standard Estonian' has not progressed to 'Really Easy Modern Estonian'. There we might find the aptly named 'Snake Pass' when 'pass' in first or second position shows either 0-7 HCP or 17+ HCP. Somewhat similar was the 'Variable Forcing Pass'. I cannot give you the complexities but here's a bizarre example from Dick Payne's book, The Pragmatic Club:

Dealer: North. Game All.     Q 8 7   A 8   A K J 10 4 3   J 6     A K 10   K J 9   Q   A K 10 9 4 3   J 9 6 3   Q 10 2   9 8 7 5   Q 5     5 4 2   7 6 5 4 3   6 2   8 7 2

West	North	East	South
	Pass (1)	Pass	1 (2)
Dbl	1 (3)	Pass	Pass (4)
3	Pass (5)	3NT	Pass
Pass	Dbl (6)	Pass	Pass
Redbl (7)	4	Pass	Pass
Dbl	End

4 doubled was not a great contract since North-South could take the first seven tricks against 3NT redoubled. But . . . all great fun, apparently, (among consenting adults) particularly since South must have relished the expectation that he would make the first bid on his impressive yarborough.

A final thought. When Estonia joins the EU, might it appeal to the European Court of Human Rights if its national system is not allowed in international competition?