[bluejak]

A two-way club allows specific hands when not strong, primarily not major based hands. If you allow major based hands then you have effectively allowed a non specific medium strength club. Now, I am not saying that is a terrible idea, but at a time when there is some unease about allowing a medium 1♣ which shows hearts I feel that allowing a medium 1♣ which shows hearts, spades, diamonds, clubs, or any 13 cards is not the way to go.

[mycroft]

Well, I'm not David, but I know why "at least 14 points" is a bad idea.

Out of the people that were railing against the "16 HCP minimum for artificial strong opener" (sensibly) and are railing against Extended Rule of 25 (usually sensibly), there will be several who want to play "15 minimum, with adjustments for quality". They'll probably be okay with a move to "at least 14 HCP", but some will say "well, I'm allowed 14, so I'll do it." And then...

"The EBU is legislating against bidding judgment! I can't open AKQTxxx Axxx x x 1C, and that's clearly better than KQx QJxx KQx Jxx, which is just fine."

Unless you're going to go with the ACBL's "Stewart Rule" method (and there are many cases where in the ACBL you don't get carte blanche - in particular, try most non-GF, conventional bid (say a 1S negative) over a strong club that could be 14), you get two options: "this, but with wiggle room for judgement", or a hard floor. If you try for the "16+, but judgement applies", there will be people who "judge" that a majority of 15s are 16, because they want to play 15+, and the "judgement fights" are terrible in their beauty. If you go with the floor, you try to put a floor such that the systems you want to have legal *can be bid with judgement*, and the ones you're not all that happy with, but fall through the cracks, get less room for judgement. Of course, "but they're regulating judgement" - no, they're restricting you if you choose to push the boundaries more than they wish you to. Please note, I'm in the ACBL, and play EHAA - highly undisciplined weak 2s and 10-12 NTs, both pushed as hard as I can while still being allowed Blackwood after - so it's not "well, mycroft, he never has this issue, so what does he care?"

Oh, and yes, there's a qualitative difference between a 16+ Strong Club and a 14+ Strong Club (or, as many wish to play, a 13+ Club) - it's the same sort of difference between a strong NT and a weak NT. Want to play disruptive defences against the weak NT? Didn't think so. Want to play those disruptive conventions against the strong club? How about it if it's 13+? What if it's ostensibly 16+, but really most 14+ (instead of the odd 14 that "really is" 16)?

[bluejak]

As far as two-level bids are concerned, I do not think the EBU is legislating against judgement at all.

There are two sorts of players: the majority, who do not use judgement much, and the minority, who use judgement.

Now, a normal strong bid is nowhere near the minimum the EBU has given. So a player who uses judgement has no problem: his strong bid is normally nowhere near the minimum normally. Exceptionally it is, so he is using his judgement. But it still does not get below the EBU's generous minimum.

As for players who do not use judgement the legislation does not affect their use of judgement, does it?