[jallerton]

Er, isn't that hand "rule of 23" rather than "rule of 25"?

As you say, the playing strength of single-suiters is underestimated by "rule of X" the hand valuation!

Strong playing strength hands without the high card points to open 1♣ are certainly a problem playing strong ♣. The interesting thing is that the Laws & Ethics Committee includes at least two members who have played Strong ♣ systems in regular partnerships, and they must have been aware of hands like this when they decided upon the wording of the regulation.

Some players would be wanting to open this hand with a Benjamin 2♣, but since 1st August 2006 that hasn't been allowed either.

[nige1]

cardsharp, on Dec 8 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

Another of WellSpyder's problems is that Meckstroth and Rodwell do not play frequently in the UK. Their current mantra, "Judgement is allowed in any situation", and the previous one, "Frequent upgrades, rarely downgrade", would result in the regulations being changed or the pair being deported.

WellSpyder, on Dec 8 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

A good point! I wonder which???

I don't think Meckstroth-Rodwell would play here. I believe they stopped playing together in the prestigious UK Sunday-Times Pairs, when system restrictions were tightened.

Incidentally, how do they cope with ACBL system-restriction regulations?

[david_c]

jallerton, on Dec 9 2009, 08:04 PM, said:

Er, isn't that hand "rule of 23" rather than "rule of 25"?

Yes, I was trying to say that there are two examples in the book, and the other one is a rule of 25 hand.

[paulg]

nige1, on Dec 9 2009, 10:06 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Dec 8 2009, 09:21 AM, said:

Another of WellSpyder's problems is that Meckstroth and Rodwell do not play frequently in the UK. Their current mantra, "Judgement is allowed in any situation", and the previous one, "Frequent upgrades, rarely downgrade", would result in the regulations being changed or the pair being deported.

WellSpyder, on Dec 8 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

A good point! I wonder which???

I don't think Meckstroth-Rodwell would play here. I believe they stopped playing together in the prestigious UK Sunday-Times Pairs, when system restrictions were tightened.

Incidentally, how do they cope with ACBL system-restriction regulations?

As bluejak implied, their system is compliant with the General Convention Chart (GCC) that is the dominant chart in the ACBL.

There are no (practical) restrictions on the 1♣ opener when it shows more than 10+ HCP.

The GCC is a single page. It has many problems and appears quite restrictive to non-ACBL members especially in the area of opening 2-bids, but allows simple 5-card majors and strong club systems.

It could be said that the ACBL does not have the same concerns over disclosure that the EBU does (as I presume this is the real reason for all the EBU rules). However I'm guessing that the ACBL has really never bothered about it in an environment where almost everyone plays the same system.

Paul

[bluejak]

nige1, on Dec 9 2009, 11:06 PM, said:

I don't think Meckstroth-Rodwell would play here. I believe they stopped playing together in the prestigious UK Sunday-Times Pairs, when system restrictions were tightened.

In view of the fact that EBU Level 4 permits far more than GCC that seems an unlikely conclusion.

That is hardly a comparable case. They were not "tightened" they were made ridiculous, disallowing some very simple stuff while allowing fantastically complicated stuff otherwise. Meckwell were not allowed to play most of their system [which is legal under Level 4 with very slight modification] while the Hackett twins could play all their conventional agreements.

nige1, on Dec 9 2009, 11:06 PM, said:

Incidentally, how do they cope with ACBL system-restriction regulations?

Letting Meckstroth decide the rules helps.

cardsharp, on Dec 10 2009, 09:52 AM, said:

It could be said that the ACBL does not have the same concerns over disclosure that the EBU does (as I presume this is the real reason for all the EBU rules). However I'm guessing that the ACBL has really never bothered about it in an environment where almost everyone plays the same system.

Admittedly, strange systems are not very common, but nor are they in EBU events really. The ACBL tends to look into detailed problems rather less, however. For example the solution to the 2♣ opening is strong problem seems to be to define strong as being what the player holding the hand thinks is strong, which rather defeats the object of regulation.

[NickRW]

Since this thread was referenced in another, more recent thread, I looked it up.

I have to say that, on the one hand, I hate (with some ferocity) some of the EBU orange book regulations including the definition of strong. Equally, however, I also appreciate the difficulty in writing decent, not too long, easy to apply regulations.

Really, strictly speaking, there ought to be some leeway in the rules to take acount of such things as:

1) hcp does not take account of controls, nor does it take account of intermediates.

2) the rule of n (whether 25 or otherwise) does not differentiate between the shorter suits seeing 5422 the same as 5440 and 6332 the same as 6331.

3) Nor do these rules take account of playing strength or the "togetherness" of honours. For example

Qxxxx
Jx
Kx
AKQx

counts the same as

KQJxx
xx
xx
AKQx

when clearly the latter is better.

Trying to succinctly put these judgement factors into regulations that all or even nearly all players can both understand and agree about is no easy feat. Various directors have drawn attention to the particular rule under question here at the start of sessions - and we still get people who break the rules - not maliciously - they just don't get this simple version - they'd never cope with a more complicated one.

Nick

[helene_t]

NickRW, on Mar 5 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

Trying to succinctly put these judgement factors into regulations that all or even nearly all players can both understand and agree about is no easy feat.

I think it is easy. What about: An artificial strong opening is permitted at EBU level X if it promises Y HCPs.

Say Y is 14. Now you could say that regulators should not make players use bad judgement and refrain from bidding some nice 13-counts in the same way as they bid bad 17-counts with similar playing strength. But that's not what the regulations would mean. What they would mean is that 14 (or w/e) is an absolute minimum: you can never upgrade a 13-count into the strong range, no matter how beautiful the 13-count is. This means that your agreement would have to be something like: our strong openings show 16 HCPs, and then we may downgrade some 16- or 17-counts, and upgrade some 15-counts or maybe once in a blue moon a 14-count.

This not only makes it a lot simpler, it also is better aligned with the reason why we want to put a lower limit on the strength of "strong" artificial openings in the first place. That reason is that opponents must be able to treat it as strong, i.e. implying that they are unlikely to have game. The hands you might want to upgrade are typically hands with lots of offense of but not lots of defense.

[NickRW]

helene_t, on Mar 5 2010, 05:26 PM, said:

NickRW, on Mar 5 2010, 05:36 PM, said:

Trying to succinctly put these judgement factors into regulations that all or even nearly all players can both understand and agree about is no easy feat.

I think it is easy. What about: An artificial strong opening is permitted at EBU level X if it promises Y HCPs.

Say Y is 14. Now you could say that regulators should not make players use bad judgement and refrain from bidding some nice 13-counts in the same way as they bid bad 17-counts with similar playing strength. But that's not what the regulations would mean. What they would mean is that 14 (or w/e) is an absolute minimum: you can never upgrade a 13-count into the strong range, no matter how beautiful the 13-count is. This means that your agreement would have to be something like: our strong openings show 16 HCPs, and then we may downgrade some 16- or 17-counts, and upgrade some 15-counts or maybe once in a blue moon a 14-count.

This not only makes it a lot simpler, it also is better aligned with the reason why we want to put a lower limit on the strength of "strong" artificial openings in the first place. That reason is that opponents must be able to treat it as strong, i.e. implying that they are unlikely to have game. The hands you might want to upgrade are typically hands with lots of offense of but lots of defense.

Well, putting the lower limit at 14hcp full stop is at least simple. Though, it would then allow what some of us would call psychic or just plain bad bids.

Nick

[TylerE]

Dislike hard HCP rule How about something like "X HCP or Y clear cut tricks or Rule of Z". While that my be a bit more complicated, it does offer more flexibility for judegment, and is less nebulous than the ACBL "What the bidder thinks it means" guidelines.

Or perhaps we should tackle this the other way around and say an opening of 1♣ forcing is ok if responder is required to explore game with N hcp and force to game with N+X HCP (With, say, N=7, and X=3).

[mjj29]

TylerE, on Mar 5 2010, 02:01 PM, said:

Dislike hard HCP rule How about something like "X HCP or Y clear cut tricks or Rule of Z". While that my be a bit more complicated, it does offer more flexibility for judegment, and is less nebulous than the ACBL "What the bidder thinks it means" guidelines.

Good idea, I suggest 16 HCP or 8 clear cut tricks or rule of 25

[blackshoe]

Any regulation that says "a player must do X with Y HCP" is wrong headed, IMO. We should not legislate judgment out of the picture.

[Cascade]

blackshoe, on Mar 6 2010, 03:19 PM, said:

Any regulation that says "a player must do X with Y HCP" is wrong headed, IMO. We should not legislate judgment out of the picture.

This is one of the most sensible things I have ever read on forums.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on Mar 6 2010, 03:19 AM, said:

Any regulation that says "a player must do X with Y HCP" is wrong headed, IMO. We should not legislate judgment out of the picture.

Of course. Nobody would argue anything like that. Not sure if you misread my post or if you are referring to some other post.

Consider the current EBU rules. They can be stated as something like:
- With 8 clearcut tricks you need 11 points
- With 13 cards in the two longest suits you need 12 points
- With 12 cards in the two longest suits you need 13 points
- With 11 cards in the two longest suits you need 14 points
- With 10 cards in the two longest suits you need 15 points
- Otherwise you need 16 points.

This is a technocratic rule, leaving no room for judgment as to whether a call is permitted. As it must be, because you cannot enforce a rule like "you need a hand that in your judgment qualifies as strong".

So I am arguing that "you need 14 points" is both simpler and more to-the-point than the above. It has nothing to do with legislating out judgment. As it would if the rule required you to open a Benji 2♣ with any 14-count.

It may be that the current EBU rule is more in line with good judgment than the 14 HCP rule would be. But that is irrelevant. The rule is not supposed to help players with their judgment - it shouldn't be an infraction to make ill-judged calls. The rule is supposed to give players reasonable room for well-judged calls while at the same time protecting opps against artificial calls that don't promise much in terms of defense.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Mar 6 2010, 07:50 AM, said:

This is a technocratic rule, leaving no room for judgment as to whether a call is permitted. As it must be, because you cannot enforce a rule like "you need a hand that in your judgment qualifies as strong".

The ACBL doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

[jnichols]

blackshoe, on Mar 6 2010, 12:22 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 6 2010, 07:50 AM, said:

This is a technocratic rule, leaving no room for judgment as to whether a call is permitted. As it must be, because you cannot enforce a rule like "you need a hand that in your judgment qualifies as strong".

The ACBL doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

Helene is correct. And that's why the ACBL likes it. They know their rule can't be enforced, so they don't have to bother with it.

[NickRW]

blackshoe, on Mar 6 2010, 04:22 PM, said:

helene_t, on Mar 6 2010, 07:50 AM, said:

This is a technocratic rule, leaving no room for judgment as to whether a call is permitted. As it must be, because you cannot enforce a rule like "you need a hand that in your judgment qualifies as strong".

The ACBL doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

Heaven help us. The EBU has its faults, but....

Actually I am quite warming to the idea of a blanket lower limit of 14hcp. Arguably our current setup of either

1. 16hcp or
2. rule of 25 or
3. 8 clear cut tricks

is trying to add judgement into the rules, when the rules, as Helene says, should be simple and stop people characterising bad defensive hands as strong, but not either require or prohibit judgement.

No doubt David will have a tale of woe why this isn't a good idea...

Nick

[blackshoe]

Arguably the ACBL interpretation ("'Strong' means whatever the player making the call thinks it means") is nuts, but... I guess what this problem demonstrates to me is the great difficulty in coming up with a reasonable set of rules for this.

[campboy]

Eh, I don't personally have a problem with the current EBU rules. They certainly don't restrict my use of judgement, since the hands they dissallow are a long way from my judgement of a minimum 2♣ opener (which for me can be a strong two in a major).

If there is a problem, then it is that exactly the same rules are used for the strong clubbers. But the restriction on judgement is only there if you play methods which are tight up against the regulations, and that is unavoidable. A pair playing 17+ strong club and upgrading lots of 16-counts and distributional 15s doesn't have any trouble. If they changed the regulations to allow any 15-count to be opened a strong club, we would soon have the same complaints from people who want to upgrade lots of 14s.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Actually I am quite warming to the idea of a blanket lower limit of 14hcp. Arguably our current setup of either

1. 16hcp or
2. rule of 25 or
3. 8 clear cut tricks
is trying to add judgement into the rules, when the rules, as Helene says, should be simple and stop people characterising bad defensive hands as strong, but not either require or prohibit judgement.

The reason for the current crtieria is that when some more restrictive criteria were introduced in August 2006 they were felt by some at all levels to be too restrictive and the L&E revisited the situation and came up with the present regulations. It is certainly true that the wilder the hand the less value there is judging by HCP only hence the other criteria.

There are certainly some who would want all this swept away and players allowed to do what they want but the major problem has tended to come from the inadequate description given to some allegedly strong artificial bids and the present L&E view that some protection is necessary in this area.

[WellSpyder]

jeremy69, on Mar 8 2010, 04:50 AM, said:

the major problem has tended to come from the inadequate description given to some allegedly strong artificial bids and the present L&E view that some protection is necessary in this area.

I have certainly heard this view expressed about so-called strong 2's (or 2♣ Benji showing an "Acol"-2 in any suit), but I have never heard it expressed about a strong 1♣. Certainly in the case I referred to when kicking off this thread there was no suggestion that the opponents were disadvantaged by any aspect of the bid chosen, including the degree of disclosure. It was simply that they thought they had a chance to get a good score on the board despite going off in the contract actually played.

In any case, at level 4 in the EBU it is permissible to play a two-way club in which 1♣ shows either a strong hand or a possibly weaker one, so in this case there is no real issue with the defending side thinking they are defending a strong bid and finding out that in fact it was only "strongish". So how about at least relaxing the rules on permitted agreements for the "strong" element of a "two-way" 1♣?