[helene_t]

jeremy69, on Jul 23 2010, 03:26 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"

Well what I am trying to argue is that it should be 100% irrelevant how good the hand is, the only thing that should matter is the number of HCPs.

[WellSpyder]

jeremy69, on Jul 23 2010, 03:26 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"

I'm not as convinced as you seem to be that this will really happen, but I don't really see a difficulty with allowing 1♣ to show 14+ if players want to play this, subject to proper disclosure.

It is currently permitted in England to play natural two bids of any strength (I think) subject to proper disclosure, with announcements possible along any of the following lines: "strong, forcing"; "strong, non-forcing"; "intermediate to strong"; "intermediate"; "weak to intermediate"; "weak" and no doubt others if people feel that these terms do not adequately describe their agreement as to strength.

Since your biggest concern seems to be that people who stretch the lower limit of a "strong" club will mislead their opponents by describing the bid as strong, how about allowing different limits subject to use of different terms? My desired system of most 16+, plus a few 15 point hands that usually but sometimes might not obey the Ro25 could be described as "strongish". Helen's suggested 14+ could be described as "intermediate to strong" or whatever. I don't think opponents would be misled by such disclosure, and they could obviously ask for further details if wanted.

[mjj29]

WellSpyder, on Jul 23 2010, 09:43 AM, said:

It is currently permitted in England to play natural two bids of any strength (I think) subject to proper disclosure, with announcements possible along any of the following lines: "strong, forcing"; "strong, non-forcing"; "intermediate to strong"; "intermediate"; "weak to intermediate"; "weak" and no doubt others if people feel that these terms do not adequately describe their agreement as to strength.

Since your biggest concern seems to be that people who stretch the lower limit of a "strong" club will mislead their opponents by describing the bid as strong, how about allowing different limits subject to use of different terms? My desired system of most 16+, plus a few 15 point hands that usually but sometimes might not obey the Ro25 could be described as "strongish". Helen's suggested 14+ could be described as "intermediate to strong" or whatever. I don't think opponents would be misled by such disclosure, and they could obviously ask for further details if wanted.

The difference is that those two level openings promise a suit, but your intermediate 1C does not. The EBU regulations for what you may open fall into a small number of categories:

- promising a suit (may be any* strength)
- denying a suit (2-level only, may be any strength)
- strong enough that the opponents probably don't want to be constructive over it, does not have to promise a suit.

There are a few extra restrictions (there is a minimum point count for 1 level openings, they're just about to ban 1-major openings that promise a suit other than the natural one, which I think is a regression), but essentially that's the way it works - either you give your oppo some idea of your shape to help them defend against your system, or your bid is strong enough that it doesn't matter (because they've placed a lot of the points). A 1 club opening which doesn't promise any particular suit but yet is not strong does not fit into that system.

You may argue that you _should_ be able to open 1C on any opening hand if you like, but the L&E committee disagree with you and I think that's an argument you're unlikely to win. Maybe this means that you can't quite play Precision as designed by Rees, but the EBU doesn't think you should be allowed to. The ACBL doesn't think I should be able to open or rebid 1NT on a singleton, but there are a number of systems which do that.

[WellSpyder]

mjj29, on Jul 23 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

The EBU regulations for what you may open fall into a small number of categories:

- promising a suit (may be any* strength)
- denying a suit (2-level only, may be any strength)
- strong enough that the opponents probably don't want to be constructive over it, does not have to promise a suit.
.....
A 1 club opening which doesn't promise any particular suit but yet is not strong does not fit into that system.

There is something in this argument - but it doesn't really apply in my case! I have been arguing about a Precision 1♣ because it is simple to understand the issues in this case, but I actually play a two-way club, in which 1♣ shows either 11-13 balanced (including a 4-card major) OR a Precision 1♣. This is perfectly acceptable within the current regulations at Level 4 or above (subject, of course, to the minimum strength of the "strong" part of 1♣), but it does not fit into any of the categories you list above. So even if you want to preserve these categories at Level 3 there is no point in trying to defend current regulations at Level 4 on the basis of these categories.

Quote

You may argue that you _should_ be able to open 1C on any opening hand if you like, but the L&E committee disagree with you and I think that's an argument you're unlikely to win.

That is not an argument I want to win. I don't think I should be able to open 1♣ on any hand. I was just trying to make the point that I don't think it would make life particularly hard for the defending side (unlike, for instance, some of the absurd agreements that are allowed for destructive two-level openings).

[jeremy69]

Quote

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

Quote

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

As is routine in any thread to which you contribute you typically resort to these types of obnoxious comment.

I suspect that your definition of "sensible" is probably not the same as mine.

I understand that you don't agree with the regulation and think it ought to be changed so you say something like.

Quote

the regs are worded right now makes illegal something that was always intended to be part of a 1♣ opener in Precision.

Now Precision was invented by CC Wei and he wrote a book in which he quite specifically said that 1C promised at least 16 high card points. (Page 18 if you want to check) 44 or so years have passed and perhaps we are less point oriented than we were when Precision first floated.

In Reese's book from 1972 he quotes a hand which is a 1-6-5-1 13 count with good playing strength and good suits and says "Clearly a powerful hand however it might prove a mistake to open 1C" (Page 4) but he wasn't always point bound it is true. But even if, in 1972, he thought it good bridge to open a selection of good playing strength 14 counts does not make it the right regulation to have. I think the l&E of the time might not have been ecstatic to let all his conventional toys loose on the masses (Little Major comes to mind) and as for the trouble that Multi caused in its early days................................

By definition you can always pick at arbitrary limits and clearly 16 could be 15 or 17
The reason for any limit is so that players know what they are opposing is a strong bid and artificial ones are tougher to deal with.
There is a case for treating strong club differently from a Benj 2C. There is also a case for setting a different limit for a Benj 2C and and Benj 2D. On the whole players dislike this sort of complexity which is one reason why it was set in a blanket way.

When deciding on a defence to a strong club most players say something like "double for majors, 1NT for minors and weak jumps. They don't have methods for dealing with stronger hands. Even if they overcall then they probably won't have discussed a cue bid to show a good hand with support so they are disadvantaged in my view if 1C sinks to a lower level as they will have more of these hands so this is a further reason for the limit that has been set.

[jeremy69]

Quote

My desired system of most 16+, plus a few 15 point hands that usually but sometimes might not obey the Ro25 could be described as "strongish". Helen's suggested 14+ could be described as "intermediate to strong" or whatever. I don't think opponents would be misled by such disclosure, and they could obviously ask for further details if wanted.

But if you played against two or three conventional 16+ points or I die Precision diehards and then came across you with the best disclosure (and you seem to be extending the announcing rules here) in the world would they then need to adapt their defence because you were more likely to have a strong playing strength hand? In preactice of course they would not so they would be stuck with something that perhaps was not best.

[WellSpyder]

jeremy69, on Jul 23 2010, 04:32 PM, said:

But if you played against two or three conventional 16+ points or I die Precision diehards and then came across you with the best disclosure (and you seem to be extending the announcing rules here) in the world would they then need to adapt their defence because you were more likely to have a strong playing strength hand? In preactice of course they would not so they would be stuck with something that perhaps was not best.

I don't see any particular reason to announce these descriptions rather than to alert and give them in response to a question, but I don't mind either way. In any case, opponents might want to consider adapting the defence to a strong club when they come up against a two-way club, regardless of exactly how strong the strong option is within the two-way club.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Jul 23 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

Well what I am trying to argue is that it should be 100% irrelevant how good the hand is, the only thing that should matter is the number of HCPs.

Why? Because the regulation is written in terms of HCP? (It's not, btw.) Because the regulators have decided that HCP is the evaluation method of choice, no others need apply? (I don't think they've done that.) Some other reason?

[mjj29]

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

mjj29, on Jul 23 2010, 03:53 PM, said:

The EBU regulations for what you may open fall into a small number of categories:

- promising a suit (may be any* strength)
- denying a suit (2-level only, may be any strength)
- strong enough that the opponents probably don't want to be constructive over it, does not have to promise a suit.
.....
A 1 club opening which doesn't promise any particular suit but yet is not strong does not fit into that system.

There is something in this argument - but it doesn't really apply in my case! I have been arguing about a Precision 1♣ because it is simple to understand the issues in this case, but I actually play a two-way club, in which 1♣ shows either 11-13 balanced (including a 4-card major) OR a Precision 1♣.

OK, you got me (-: One of the other categories is "a balanced(ish) hand with a defined range". The EBU allow you to mix some categories, so you can have "strong or weak with a known suit" or "strong or a balanced hand with a defined range", but it still restructs what people have to deal with and doesn't include "intermediate hands with no defined suit or shape" and some of the hands you think should be openable with a precision 1 club the L&E committe think are intermediate and therefore won't let you

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on Jul 23 2010, 05:28 PM, said:

helene_t, on Jul 23 2010, 10:35 AM, said:

Well what I am trying to argue is that it should be 100% irrelevant how good the hand is, the only thing that should matter is the number of HCPs.

Why? Because the regulation is written in terms of HCP? (It's not, btw.) Because the regulators have decided that HCP is the evaluation method of choice, no others need apply? (I don't think they've done that.) Some other reason?

Yeah, the reasons are that
- HCP roughly translates into the hands defensive potential which is what matters to opps when they need to decide whether or not to bid constructively against it
- HCP>=14 is a rule all TDs and most players would be able to memorize, and which one could enforce objectively

I really don't see how the offensive potential of the hand can be any relevant. But as I said, maybe I just misunderstood what the whole purpose of regulations is.

Of course offensive potential is relevant for whether or not a treatment is sensible. But is it really a purpose of the regulations to prevent pairs from making stupid agreements?

If the regulation says 14+, then sensible agreements could for example be:
- 15+ with very little scope for upgrading
- 20+ with lots of scope for upgrading
- any evaluation that has nothing to do with HCPs but which won't let you open 1♣ on less than 14 HCPs. 4 quick tricks and 7 playing tricks might do for example.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Jul 23 2010, 12:32 PM, said:

- HCP roughly translates into the hands defensive potential which is what matters to opps when they need to decide whether or not to bid constructively against it
- HCP>=14 is a rule all TDs and most players would be able to memorize, and which one could enforce objectively

I suppose that the purpose of regulation is to attempt to level the playing field.

I think HCP + Quick Tricks is a better measure of defensive potential. Or perhaps just QTs alone. So why don't they use that?

That second is an easily memorized and enforced rule that leaves no room for judgment at the boundary. Which is precisely the objection that's been raised.

Quote

If the regulation says 14+, then sensible agreements could for example be:
15+ with very little scope for upgrading
20+ with lots of scope for upgrading

Well, sure, but the regulation doesn't say 14+, it says 16+, which eliminates using judgment to upgrade hands of 15, and possibly 14, points which are traditionally considered "standard" Precision openings.

Go back to early books on Precision (Wei, Jannersten, Sontagg, Reese, Garozzo, Goren). lf the author recommends opening 1♣ on a particular hand, then the regulation should allow it, even if it's < some arbitrary number of points.

[gnasher]

jeremy69, on Jul 22 2010, 11:42 PM, said:

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.
...
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.
...
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.
...
But if you played against two or three conventional 16+ points or I die Precision diehards and then came across you with the best disclosure (and you seem to be extending the announcing rules here) in the world would they then need to adapt their defence because you were more likely to have a strong playing strength hand?

Do you have something against the comma?

[jallerton]

WellSpyder, on Jul 23 2010, 12:50 PM, said:

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.)

My personal view is that the current rule for strong club openings is slightly too restrictive, but as long as the regulation exists [and my strong club team-mates religiously adhere to this (and also to other arbitrary regulations)], I don't see why my opponents should be allowed to gain a potential advantage through an illegal agreement, especially when the true agreement is not properly disclosed.

[bluejak]

NickRW, on Jul 23 2010, 03:35 PM, said:

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.

Oh, no. That is definitely untrue. When Precision was invented players believed much more that points were necessary for strong openings. At that time, Precision players had 16 points for 1♣. It is a new idea to open distributional hands with strong artificial openings.

What does the sequence 1♥ 1NT 3♥ show in Precision? Simple: a hand that these days players want to open 1♣.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on Jul 23 2010, 06:01 PM, said:

I think HCP + Quick Tricks is a better measure of defensive potential. Or perhaps just QTs alone. So why don't they use that?

Well if a QT rule would be just as simple, just as understandable to ordinary club players, and more adequate than a HCP rule, then I am all for it.

I think it should be allowed to open 1♣ on KQJx-KJxx-Kxx-Kx. I am not familiar with QT but I don't think that hand has four quick tricks. So the rule would have to be something with "x QT or y HCP". Which I suppose would be acceptable, but I also think it is unnecessarily complex.

The problems with the current regulations are that
- they are too complicated
- "The points normally associated with a 1-level opening" is not spelled out.
- if opps are allowed to make an artificial opening with 11 HCPs and nine tricks, say void-AKQJxxxxx-Jxx-x, then it is not clear to me that we don't need to bid constructively against it. Then we might as well say that all artificial openings are allowed.

[NickRW]

bluejak, on Jul 24 2010, 11:33 AM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 23 2010, 03:35 PM, said:

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.

Oh, no. That is definitely untrue. When Precision was invented players believed much more that points were necessary for strong openings. At that time, Precision players had 16 points for 1♣. It is a new idea to open distributional hands with strong artificial openings.

What does the sequence 1♥ 1NT 3♥ show in Precision? Simple: a hand that these days players want to open 1♣.

Not as I recall it. Some of you perhaps have the benefit of a copy of the old books - I gave my Reese book on Precision to a former partner - but I seem to clearly recall a couple of examples that were powerful rule of 24 hands that he did recommend be included in 1♣.

[blackshoe]

I'm with Nick here — and as I mentioned upthread, Reese wasn't the only one.

[Cascade]

jeremy69, on Jul 24 2010, 03:28 AM, said:

Even if they overcall then they probably won't have discussed a cue bid to show a good hand with support so they are disadvantaged in my view if 1C sinks to a lower level as they will have more of these hands so this is a further reason for the limit that has been set.

If this is true they are disadvantaged by their own lack of preparation.

[dburn]

Cascade, on Jul 24 2010, 04:11 PM, said:

jeremy69, on Jul 24 2010, 03:28 AM, said:

Even if they overcall then they probably won't have discussed a cue bid to show a good hand with support so they are disadvantaged in my view if 1C sinks to a lower level as they will have more of these hands so this is a further reason for the limit that has been set.

If this is true they are disadvantaged by their own lack of preparation.

Not really. You see, they need to know that there is something against which they should prepare.

Whereas I don't mind my opponents opening 1♣ with any thirteen cards they happen to hold, I take considerable exception to their doing so under the guise of playing a "strong club system". They are not playing a strong club system - what they are actually doing is playing a system in which it is safer for them than it would otherwise be to open some horrible nine count, since partner will know that they did not open a "strong" club.

Now, all that is also perfectly fine - if it's what you want to play, you should be allowed to play it. My experience with systems such as Magic Diamond, which is more closely defined than this New Precision in that it uses two nebulous openings rather than one for most hands better than a horrible nine count, is that they do not work. But I do not want to prevent you from playing a method that does not work - I just do not want you as a team-mate.

What you should not be allowed to do, though, is go around confusing people into thinking that they should play their strong club defence against your "strong club system". They should not. But they will not know that they should not, and that is why we make the regulations we make. If you had to disclose your methods properly, they would fall foul of those regulations, and it is not open to you to attempt to circumvent this by calling your methods something that they are not.

Of course Reese wouldn't open a 1=6=5=1 13-count a strong club. He knew what would happen if his opponents bid spades, and in those days (unlike these days) his opponents had to have spades before they could bid them.

[helene_t]

dburn, if you are happy for opps to play a 1♣ opening that is basically defined as rule-of-23, but just not happy for them to call it "strong club", then it sounds to me as if you and Cascade agree, at least with respect to what the regulation should say.

As for whether or not it is adequate to disclose it as "strong club", I think that's a separate issue.