[RMB1]

WellSpyder, on Jul 22 2010, 05:45 PM, said:

But my impression from previous discussions on these forums is that there are stronger players than me (and perhaps even stronger players than you) who believe it is good bridge to open a strong club on some hands that fall foul of the current EBU regulation. And I think a good many very good Precision players will want to open 1♣ on hands that are pretty damned close to the legal minimum in the Orange book.

There are some players who think the best use of 1♣ is to open all 13HCP+ hands. At some point, the precision/strong club players who want to play 1♣ close to, or weaker than, what is permitted stop playing a strong club and start playing [wanting to play] an amorphous club. At some point, this stops being precision and starts being something else. You can't claim something should be permitted just because people want to play it and it is like a permitted system only weaker.

[NickRW]

On the one hand you have, say, many of the 'more old fashioned' strong club systems which were essentially 17+, and then you have on the other hand, things like a Polish 1♣ opener which is clearly multi way and includes some distinctly weaker possibilities. And in between you have some shades of grey. One of them being the Precision 1♣ with its 16+ with some upgrades. Others being 15+ or potentially even lower. It is not really like you have two sorts with some odd outliers - there is a genuine spectrum of possible, arguably sensible structures.

Further muddying the picture are people who play what is thought of as a completely different, "natural" system who play 5/5/3/3 or even 5/5/4/2 (or yet even 5/5/5/1) whose club opener isn't, in reality, a lot different sometimes - especially if they combine this with a weak NT. Such 1♣ openers may, technically speaking, be not forcing, but aren't very far off it - particularly if the pair's only strong openers are 2♣ and 2NT.

The issue about what level you allow these at is, of course, separate from the method about how you judge in the first place.

What are regulators to do about this? Where should they draw the line? Clearly it is their intent to allow Precision as the Orange Book, more or less explicitly, includes things that Precision needs in amongst its permitted methods (intermediate and 3 suited 2 openers for example).

Equally clearly there are some powerful 15hcp cases, not rare, that are 5=4 or 6=3 that miss the rule of 25 as currently written. For example: ♠KQT9xx ♥Axx ♦x ♣AQx. If regulators think such hands should be excluded from a Benji 2♣ opener, then that is one thing. It clearly was not Terrence Reese's intention to exclude such things in Precision when he wrote the first widely available book about the system in Britain.

IMO, the core of the problem is that the same definition of "strong" is being applied to 2 level openers and 1m openers. I suggest that 15hcp or "rule of 24" is more sensible (as a mandatory mininum) for strong 1m openers - and that regulators hold it at that.

Nick

[jeremy69]

Quote

I suggest that 15hcp or "rule of 24" is more sensible (as a mandatory mininum) for strong 1m openers - and that regulators hold it at that.

Well you can suggest it but that doesn't mean it will happen because
a. different rules 24, 25 etc are confusing for little gain. I agree that there is a minor problem in applying exactly the same regulation to Benji 2C and Precision 1C but simplicity of boundary is sometimes a good move and personally having played a strong club for about 36 years I think most of the 14/15 counts are not strong club openings but the desire to lower the start line for almost everything takes over. That may just be me being old fashioned though.
b. At Level 5 we will be governed by WBF Category 3 which of course allows a strong club with a king more than average so Level 5 won't be bound by the extended rule of 25 and indeed in some competitions for some time e.g. Premier League, Spring 4's that has been the case but no-one actually noticed because they didn't read the rules. Was it a problem? No, of course not. It is only barrack room lawyers on forums who want to assert their right to open whatever they feel like.
c. A change for a small minority is not in the general interest.

We all know Milton Work Count is flawed. Even if we didn't we read Goldfinger and marvelled at the Duke of Cumberland's hand to show us how poxy this point count method was with extreme hands however it is a widely understood method and players generally get a good feel for what is a good or less good hand and changing it so that the 1.27% who play strong club(including me) can wheel out our 13 counts and call them strong is not in our games best interest IMO. We should just learn to live with the fact that hands with 10 card suits don't fit our conventional evaluation systems all that well but as they don't happen often it doesn't much matter.

(Sit back and await abuse!)

[barmar]

It took me several minutes to realize that he meant to say "looser", not "loser" in the subject.

[helene_t]

I am not sure if I understand the purpose of having a legal lower limit for the strength of an artificial 1♣ opening, but I am going to assume that opps have the right to either
- being able to treat the 1♣ opening as "strong", ie they need no strength-showing cuebid since their interventions are not constructive
or
- being able to treat it as natural (or possibly showing some other anchor suit), i.e. they can use club bids (or possibly bids in the anchor suit) as strength-showing cuebids.

As such it makes some sense to have the same requirement as for artificial 2-level openings. But arguably opps don't need as much protection after 1♣ because they have more bidding space (they could use dbl and 1♦ for constrictive purposes since they don't disturb anyway), so maybe the rules should be loser.

As I have said before, I think the criterion should be purely HCP based. If we are allowed to open with a strong artificial bid on AQKJxxxxxx-x-x-x just because it is 10 playing tricks, then opps would need some ways of bidding constructively against it, and then we might as well say that a 1♣ opening (or 2♣ or whatever the regulation concerns) could be anything.

[nigel_k]

Playing five card majors and a 16+ 1♣ and no other relevant agreements, I would expect a 1♠ opening to have playing strength that is at most half way between a typical 15 with five spades and a typical 16 with five spades. If the hand is closer to the latter in playing strength then 1♣ is the normal opening and the regulations need to allow for that. Obviously KQT9xx Axx x AQx clearly qualifies. Upgrading and downgrading is essential to good bidding, whether most players do it or not, so it's completely unreasonable to make it illegal.

In practice, people will have different opinions about how much a hand is worth, so it would be preferable to have a rigid rule that avoids subjectivity. But I doubt there is any rule that can be applied robotically and is also consistent with good bridge judgement. In that case I'd prefer to take my chances on being able to convince the director that my hand is really worth 16 HCP rather than be forced to make a bid that's limited to a much weaker hand than what I have.

[NickRW]

jeremy69, on Jul 22 2010, 10:42 PM, said:

(Sit back and await abuse!)

Perhaps you want to be abused??

Seriously though, I am not a "barrack room lawyer" and I don't even play Precision anymore - though I perhaps might have been had the rules not been as they are. I am just some ordinary Joe who takes his obligations under the rules and regulations at least somewhat seriously. Perhaps I am one of the few who have simply taken the trouble to actually read the Orange Book - which I am sure most have not.

I actually agree with you that a lot of 14 and 15 counts that some people might think are Precision one openers are not - or borderline at best - not because they are not worth a 16 count - but that they are not worth a 16 count if you're going to open them in a manner that does not identify anything about shape.

I don't agree with your point about Level 5 - not because you do not speak truth - but because it is irrelevant - it was clearly the regulators intent to authorise Precision as low as Level 2. I am not sure personally whether that was sensible in Britain given that the overwhelming majority of beginners learn some variant of Acol initially - but that was the intent never the less.

I don't know what your point about 13hcp was to do with anything - I wasn't recommending that.

As for the point about rules of 24 and 25 being too difficult or whatever, obviously that is wrong as the Orange Book already has Rule of 18, Rule of 19 and Rule of 25.

Nick

[Cascade]

nigel_k, on Jul 23 2010, 12:37 PM, said:

is also consistent with good bridge judgement

I don't think the regulations should be based on 'good bridge judgement'.

I don't want my opponents to be not allowed to use their 'bad bridge judgement'.

Personally I think the whole idea of regulating based on any judgement method is flawed.

[campboy]

nigel_k, on Jul 23 2010, 01:37 AM, said:

Playing five card majors and a 16+ 1♣ and no other relevant agreements, I would expect a 1♠ opening to have playing strength that is at most half way between a typical 15 with five spades and a typical 16 with five spades. If the hand is closer to the latter in playing strength then 1♣ is the normal opening and the regulations need to allow for that. Obviously KQT9xx Axx x AQx clearly qualifies. Upgrading and downgrading is essential to good bidding, whether most players do it or not, so it's completely unreasonable to make it illegal.

No-one is making it illegal. If you want to be able to upgrade, just play 1♣ as normally 17+, which gives plenty of room for manoeuvre. If players are choosing to make upgrading impossible for them by playing the absolute minimum permitted strength, that is not the regulators' fault.

[Cascade]

campboy, on Jul 23 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

nigel_k, on Jul 23 2010, 01:37 AM, said:

Playing five card majors and a 16+ 1♣ and no other relevant agreements, I would expect a 1♠ opening to have playing strength that is at most half way between a typical 15 with five spades and a typical 16 with five spades. If the hand is closer to the latter in playing strength then 1♣ is the normal opening and the regulations need to allow for that. Obviously KQT9xx Axx x AQx clearly qualifies. Upgrading and downgrading is essential to good bidding, whether most players do it or not, so it's completely unreasonable to make it illegal.

No-one is making it illegal. If you want to be able to upgrade, just play 1♣ as normally 17+, which gives plenty of room for manoeuvre. If players are choosing to make upgrading impossible for them by playing the absolute minimum permitted strength, that is not the regulators' fault.

It is reasonably normal for the best methods to be on or near the boundary.

[helene_t]

Cascade, on Jul 23 2010, 08:23 AM, said:

campboy, on Jul 23 2010, 07:14 PM, said:

No-one is making [upgrading] illegal. If you want to be able to upgrade, just play 1♣ as normally 17+, which gives plenty of room for manoeuvre. If players are choosing to make upgrading impossible for them by playing the absolute minimum permitted strength, that is not the regulators' fault.

It is reasonably normal for the best methods to be on or near the boundary.

If that is the case then maybe the limit needs to be lower.

Say the intention of the law is to make 16+ openings legal but at the same time allow for an upgrade of up to (say) two HCPs. Then the legal limit should be 14.

That would allow people to agree to open 1♣ with xxxx-Qxx-KQJ-KQJ. Which is perfectly fine because:
- No reason to ban bad judgment.
- The possibility of 14 mainly defensive HCPs causes no more problems for opps' bidding than the possibility of 14 mainly offensive HCPs.

[WellSpyder]

jeremy69, on Jul 22 2010, 05:42 PM, said:

It is only barrack room lawyers on forums who want to assert their right to open whatever they feel like.

I'm not sure whether you are putting me in the category of barrack room lawyers, but since I have been raising this issue on and off for a while both on these forums and through an application to the EBU for a change to the regulation then there must be a reasonable chance you have me in mind in making this comment. So I would like to make two simple points in response:

1) I have absolutely no desire to be a barrack room lawyer on this or any other issue. I have only raised it at all because a very experienced pair in a serious competition who were not in the least inconvenienced by the bid, tried to get an artificial adjusted score in their favour when my partner opened 1♣ on a 4045 15-count that he felt was of equivalent strength to a 16 point strong 1♣, without realising that this risked contravening the regulations. I think you may be in danger of accusing the wrong partnership of being barrack room lawyers here!

2) I also have absolutely no desire to open whatever I like. I am a strong believer in regulations limiting what agreements are permitted, and indeed I think in a number of areas the current regulations in England are laxer than I think is sensible. I just happen to think that this is a specific area where the current regulations have an extremely unfortunate effect which the regulators seem determined to shut their eyes to.

Quote

c. A change for a small minority is not in the general interest.

I agree entirely. I just don't think that applies to the issue we are discussing here. If it only affects a small minority of strong club players that is probably because the majority are inadvertently breaking the regulations without anyone realising this and without running up against opponents who would like to exact their pound of flesh if they do realise.

Quote

(Sit back and await abuse!)

No abuse intended! I recognise it is impossible to satisfy everyone. I just don't understand the reluctance to accept that if you draw the boundary so much closer to what is normal practice in one area than in any other area of the regulations then this is likely to cause disproportionate problems and/or resentment.

[jeremy69]

Quote

I have only raised it at all because a very experienced pair in a serious competition who were not in the least inconvenienced by the bid, tried to get an artificial adjusted score in their favour when my partner opened 1♣ on a 4045 15-count that he felt was of equivalent strength to a 16 point strong 1♣, without realising that this risked contravening the regulations. I think you may be in danger of accusing the wrong partnership of being barrack room lawyers here!

It's a "serious" competition and your partner did not trouble to acquaint himself with the regulations. He won't be the only one I am sure but whilst I might not choose to act as your opponents did I don't believe the regulation entitles them to an adjustment only if it incoveniences them. If you use illegal methods then a. the board should be cancelled unless perhaps your opponents have collected 1100 and b. IMO a procedural penalty should be issued unless you were so inexperienced as not to be likely to be aware (not perhaps the case here).

Bottom line. It is your responsibility to know whether your methods are legal or not.

I did not have you in mind as the aforementioned barrack room lawyer however.

Quote

That would allow people to agree to open 1♣ with xxxx-Qxx-KQJ-KQJ. Which is perfectly fine

No it's not. It's execrable bridge judgement but that, of course, is not what regulations are about preventing however describing that hand as "strong" is likely to deceive the opponents as to its overall strength as well as rendering you suitable to be measured for a new straitjacket.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Perhaps you want to be abused??

No just expecting the possibility.

Quote

Seriously though, I am not a "barrack room lawyer" and I don't even play Precision anymore - though I perhaps might have been had the rules not been as they are. I am just some ordinary Joe who takes his obligations under the rules and regulations at least somewhat seriously. Perhaps I am one of the few who have simply taken the trouble to actually read the Orange Book - which I am sure most have not.

I actually agree with you that a lot of 14 and 15 counts that some people might think are Precision one openers are not - or borderline at best - not because they are not worth a 16 count - but that they are not worth a 16 count if you're going to open them in a manner that does not identify anything about shape.

It hasn't affected me I don't think and I have played Precision in one or more partnerships for a long time now.

Quote

I don't agree with your point about Level 5 - not because you do not speak truth - but because it is irrelevant - it was clearly the regulators intent to authorise Precision as low as Level 2. I am not sure personally whether that was sensible in Britain given that the overwhelming majority of beginners learn some variant of Acol initially - but that was the intent never the less.

I don't know what your point about 13hcp was to do with anything - I wasn't recommending that.

Yes it was the intention to allow Strong Club. The point about Level 5 is that for those players who play in competitions at that level 13 will be the minimum point count not 16 so we will see if that causes any huge inconvenience. If not then that might make reviewing the regulations in respect of a strong club or diamond as some have suggested would be good rather more likely.

[bluejak]

helene_t, on Jul 23 2010, 12:08 AM, said:

I am not sure if I understand the purpose of having a legal lower limit for the strength of an artificial 1♣ opening, but I am going to assume that opps have the right to either
- being able to treat the 1♣ opening as "strong", ie they need no strength-showing cuebid since their interventions are not constructive
or
- being able to treat it as natural (or possibly showing some other anchor suit), i.e. they can use club bids (or possibly bids in the anchor suit) as strength-showing cuebids.

What is permitted to be played is based on the way the game has developed in the jurisdiction, the amount of protection that players feel they should have from other people's ideas, the number and type of applications, producing simple enough rules to be followed and applied, and thinking of ways of regulating with respect to different people's ideas of valuation.

Originally there were strong clubs which basically showed 16+ or 17+ HCP and people did not open on weaker hands very much at all. This got the idea of strong clubs into people's minds in a particular fashion. Nowadays people want to play strong bids weaker as a general approach for a number of different reasons, both good and bad, and - in many cases - not tell opponents what they are doing.

There are an amazing number of methods that are possible at Level 4 as a basic approach. The EBU has decided, however, that the approach of calling something a strong club and opening it on a lot of 12 and 13 counts is not really a good idea so has not permitted it.

In fact, the alternatives you state here are not the only ones permitted: short clubs are also permitted where there is no real anchor suit. These seem to have crept in and are not that easy to defend against, leading to a whole set of problems. However, players do not generally complain about them so they seem to be accepted.

[WellSpyder]

jeremy69, on Jul 23 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

Bottom line. It is your responsibility to know whether your methods are legal or not.

Of course. I fully accept this, and that opponents were fully entitled to seek an artificial score. (I do think it is a bit ironic, though, that one of them told me that he thought it was a completely ridiculous regulation but that while it existed he didn't see why he shouldn't take advantage of it.)

[helene_t]

jeremy69, on Jul 23 2010, 12:16 PM, said:

Quote

That would allow people to agree to open 1♣ with xxxx-Qxx-KQJ-KQJ. Which is perfectly fine

No it's not. It's execrable bridge judgement but that, of course, is not what regulations are about preventing however describing that hand as "strong" is likely to deceive the opponents as to its overall strength as well as rendering you suitable to be measured for a new straitjacket.

Deceiving opps is not the issue. There is a remedy for that, it's called disclosure.

What is being discussed here is what methods should be allowed, assuming that they are disclosed adequately. I can't understand why it should be allowed to play a 1♣ opening as something that could be disclosed as
"extended rule of 25 or occasionally rule of 24 if very good playing strength"
but not
"14+ HCPs (but we may not open all 14-15 HCP hands as we have other options with those hands especially if they don't have good playing strength)"

I just think that "14+ HCPs" is much easier to enforce and also more spot-on in relation to the whole purpose of having system regulations. But maybe I have the wrong ideas about what regulations are for.

[jeremy69]

Quote

"extended rule of 25 or occasionally rule of 24 if very good playing strength"

That is not what the regulations are. There are 3 criteria and you must hit one of them.

a. 16+ HCP
b. Rule of 25
c. 8 clear cut tricks and the points normally associated with a one level opening bid

Quote

I just think that "14+ HCPs" is much easier to enforce

All that will happens is that you will get players who want to agree to open 1C Strong on

S KQ1098543
H AKx
D J
C 2

and will then say "but it is better than most 14 counts"

[NickRW]

WellSpyder, on Jul 23 2010, 10:12 AM, said:

2) I also have absolutely no desire to open whatever I like. I am a strong believer in regulations limiting what agreements are permitted, and indeed I think in a number of areas the current regulations in England are laxer than I think is sensible. I just happen to think that this is a specific area where the current regulations have an extremely unfortunate effect which the regulators seem determined to shut their eyes to.

This.

Worse they don't have an answer worth a hill of beans.

Nick

[NickRW]

jeremy69, on Jul 23 2010, 02:26 PM, said:

All that will happens is that you will get players who want to agree to open 1C Strong on

S KQ1098543
H AKx
D J
C 2

and will then say "but it is better than most 14 counts"

So? Nobody (or nobody that sees the general sense of having suitable regulations) is arguing for this spurious, supposedly counter argument hand. We're just saying that the way that the regs are worded right now makes illegal something that was always intended to be part of a 1♣ opener in Precision.

You repeatedly fail to address this point in any sort of sensible manner.