[WellSpyder]

As I understand it, the current EBU regulations regarding the rule of 25 were devised in the context of the Benji 2♣opening, where there was concern that a bid described as strong was being made on hands that might have 8 playing tricks but were really pre-emptive hands, and that the misdescription as strong was unfairly deterring opponents from competing. The same restrictions have been placed on an artificial "strong" 1♣ opening.

I wonder whether anyone sees any merits in regulating strong 1♣ and 2♣ bids differently? I can tell you from experience that very few people are deterred from intervening over 1♣ as a result of it being described as strong! (Indeed, one of the reasons we play 1♣ as two-way, including a weakish balanced option, is to alter the potential costs and benefits of random intervention.)

[bluejak]

The Committee has moved the other way. Previously, a strong club required a minimum of 16 HCP. I think that the fact that the Committee now allows a strong 1♣ opening on

AKxxxxx
AKxxxx
--
--

which previously they did not, is a step forward ,not back.

[Blue Uriah]

WellSpyder said:

I wonder whether anyone sees any merits in regulating strong 1♣ and 2♣ bids differently?

I think they should. An Acol 2♣ shows an excellent hand and if people go around bidding it on merely decent hands without telling the opponents about it then they have every right to be aggrieved. A Precision 1♣ claims only to show a good hand and if people go around bidding it on hands which are pretty good, maybe not quite good enough in terms of HCP or RO25 but plenty good enough when compared with other hands that do fit the definition then it's hard to see that anybody has really been damaged. Frankly, I'm amazed somebody even called the director.

The trouble is that the legally defined minimum for a strong 1♣ is exactly the same as the traditional minimum for a strong 1♣ - there's no room for manoevre at all. If every Precision pair played a 17+ club but decided to upgrade a few good-looking 16 counts then there wouldn't be a problem but people have been playing a 16+ club since the 50's.

[helene_t]

There are two issues which I think sometimes get confused. One is whether you can play a 2♣ (or 1♣, or whatever) opening as including some 13 points with 7 playing tricks. Another is if you can disclose such an agreement as merely "strong" (or "acol 2♣" or w/e).

The reason that there are restrictions on how aggressively you can upgrade is that if your 2♣ (or 1♣, or whatever) opening shows nothing about a shape and doesn't promise much of defensive strength either, then opps need a way to bid constructively against an opening that says nothing about shape. So it is restricted on the same grounds that you cannot play 2♣ as a preempt which may or may not have clubs.

I am not sure if I think there should be different rules for 1♣ openings and 2♣ openings. It is easier to come up with a defense that allows you to bid constructively as well as destructively against a 1♣ opening than against a 2♣. That is a case for allowing players to ugrade Bluejak's example 14-count to a strong 1♣ while not allowing for an upgrade of the same hand to a 2♣ opening. On the other hand, maybe the idea is that opponents will defend purely destructively, so a strong artificial opening should promise enough general strength to make it sensible for opps not to be able to show constructive values, and then it doens't matter whether it's a 1♣ or a 2♣ opening (or a pass or 1♦ or w/e).

[WellSpyder]

Blue Uriah, on Dec 3 2009, 06:24 AM, said:

The trouble is that the legally defined minimum for a strong 1♣ is exactly the same as the traditional minimum for a strong 1♣ - there's no room for manoevre at all. If every Precision pair played a 17+ club but decided to upgrade a few good-looking 16 counts then there wouldn't be a problem but people have been playing a 16+ club since the 50's.

I think this hits the nail on the head. It does seem unfortunate that the effect of the regulation is almost to rule out any judgment in this particular area of a very common system, while most aspects of every other system are left open to judgment.

I've just learnt that at least one other strong club pair opened the same hand 1♣, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were others (though I don't know how many of the 16 or so pairs holding this hand will have been playing a strong club). These are not pairs who are constantly trying to push the boundaries of what is allowed, but simply ones trying to apply a bit of judgment to something that has been played for decades.

[campboy]

WellSpyder, on Dec 3 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

Because we currently have no agreement about which "good 15 point hands" are worth upgrading!

In that case, your agreement is presumably that there is no restriction on what shapes of 15-count you can upgrade. Such an agreement is not permitted.

I do not see why this is so hard. If you are claiming that this is a deviation, rather than the normal system bid, then there must be an agreement (implicit or explicit) which you are deviating from.

[suokko]

What if you don't play strong club but 1♣ opening showing 15+ HCP balanced or 13+HCP unbalanced where not all 13+ hands open 1♣? I guess EBU disallows this kind of artificial systems. What about strong club systems where 1♣ is systematic with any 15+HCP hands? This kind of systems are played by Finnish open and women national team players.

This would give clear indication for opponents what is your minimum limits even tough you would normally open 16+HCP hands 1♣ or with similar playing strength.

[bluejak]

The point is that the EBU allows some things and not others, as is true of every jurisdiction with rare exceptions. There are always people who want to play something not permitted, and often the reason given is that it is allowed in another jurisdiction. While often true, I fail to see the relevance. What is suitable in Polish events may not be suitable for English events, and vice versa.

One of the things I proposed but the Committee accepted without much argument was to delete all ranges. For example, Lucas Twos were originally permitted in the 6 to 12 range. Nowadays, a very few items have a minimum, and nothing that I can think of has a maximum.

The idea that a specific minimum is unfair seems strange to me. Just because someone wants to play something else is no reason of itself to permit it. Of course there are difficulties in defining minima, but that is no excuse for not following the rules.

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on Dec 4 2009, 12:08 AM, said:

Of course there are difficulties in defining minima, but that is no excuse for not following the rules.

Of course - there is a reason I posted this in the forum on changing laws & regulations! I do think the current regulations are unfairly damaging to people who want to play a strong club, and should be changed. But I have no intention of failing to follow the regulations we have at the moment.

It might be worth reminding people of a point made in one of the other threads on similar issues that this does mean that those who are aware of the regulations are likely to be at a disadvantage compared with those who are not, since those not aware of just how restrictive the current regulations are will simply rely on judgment and may well decide to open 1♣ on a hand that is worth 1♣ even if it is outside the scope of permitted agreements.

[FrancesHinden]

[deleted]

[jallerton]

WellSpyder, on Dec 3 2009, 08:33 AM, said:

It remains the case, though, that there may be exceptional hands that I believe are worth upgrading that do not fit this agreement (and I think ♠Q106 ♥AKQ1054 ♦A8 ♣84 is probably a better example that the 4054 hand). Although I do not have it in front of me, I seem to recall that there is quite a bit of advice in one of the standard texts on Precision (Rigal's Precision in the 90s) on upgrading hands with less than 16 points and I am sure there are examples there that would get a Precision pair into trouble under a strict interpretation of the current regulations. It does strike me as unfortunate that such a widely-used book is apparently about an illegal system.

I've not seen Barry Rigal's book on Precision, but I have two other traditional textbooks on Precision.

In Precision Bidding for Everyone (Goren & Wei), it is explained that the correct opening bid is 1♦ on:

♠AQ ♥none ♦KJ1095 ♣ KQ10973

Quote

Even though your playing strength is exceptional, you lack the required 16HCP to open 1♣.  As we shall discuss later, strong rebids are available to describe excellent distributional hands  after a "limited" opening bid like 1♦

In Precision Bidding and Precision Play, Terence Reese is slightly less strict. Although he explains that it would be a mistake to open 1♣ on:

♠5 ♥AK10974 ♦KQJ86 ♣4

he goes on to say that:

Quote

It is quite right to open 1♣ on an exceptional hand such as:

♠AQJ10852 ♥none ♦AK84 ♣62.

Here you have three first round controls and will not be carried into space by a partner who may also have a good hand.

Interestingly, Reese's exceptional hand both conforms with the Rule of 25 and contains eight "clear cut tricks", whilst the hand on which it would be a "mistake" to open 1♣ does not meet either of those criteria.

In "either or" 1♣ systems such Carrot/Swedish Club and Polish Club then the traditional minimum strength for the strong option is 17, 18+ or 19+HCP so the EBU's 16+ minimum does allow slack for judgement upgrades when playing the traditional versions of these systems. You appear to be playing a variation on the Swedish Club with the strong option devalued, which is why you seem to be running into problems.

[paulg]

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.

[Blue Uriah]

jallerton, on Dec 8 2009, 01:10 AM, said:

You appear to be playing a variation on the Swedish Club with the strong option devalued, which is why you seem to be runing into problems.

As far as I can tell, the requirements for a strong-only 1♣ and the strong option of a two-way 1♣ are identical at level four, so this shouldn't have anything to do with it.

[WellSpyder]

Blue Uriah, on Dec 8 2009, 09:36 AM, said:

jallerton, on Dec 8 2009, 01:10 AM, said:

You appear to be playing a variation on the Swedish Club with the strong option devalued, which is why you seem to be runing into problems.

As far as I can tell, the requirements for a strong-only 1♣ and the strong option of a two-way 1♣ are identical at level four, so this shouldn't have anything to do with it.

Indeed. I used to play Precision, and still do in level 3 events (where a two-way club is not allowed), and it is clear that we need to be just as careful about upgrading hands to a Precision 1♣ as we do to a two-way 1♣.

This must be a common problem for Precision players which is not faced by Acol players since the regulations on upgrading hands in Acol are much laxer than in Precision. (Yes, I know the same rules apply to 2♣ in Acol as apply to 1♣ in Precision, but since that is normally a significantly stronger hand, the likelihood of the regulations preventing good judgement is much less.)

[WellSpyder]

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.

A good point! I wonder which???

[mjj29]

WellSpyder, on Dec 8 2009, 10:43 AM, said:

I used to play Precision, and still do in level 3 events (where a two-way club is not allowed), and it is clear that we need to be just as careful about upgrading hands to a Precision 1♣ as we do to a two-way 1♣.

This must be a common problem for Precision players which is not faced by Acol players since the regulations on upgrading hands in Acol are much laxer than in Precision.

I play a strong minor system and we explicitly agree to upgrade hands only if they meet ER25 and don't in practice deviate below that, because of the regulation. I'd be unhappy if opponents did this, particularly if it were at all often.

[WellSpyder]

mjj29, on Dec 8 2009, 11:51 AM, said:

I play a strong minor system and we explicitly agree to upgrade hands only if they meet ER25 and don't in practice deviate below that, because of the regulation. I'd be unhappy if opponents did this, particularly if it were at all often.

We have now made the same agreement. And I can understand your unhappiness if opponents do not follow the regulations so carefully. It is precisely because I think the current regulation is in danger of putting those who try to follow it at a disadvantage, that I have suggested in this thread that it ought to be changed (and also because I don't think opponents would have any more difficulty defending against a strong minor if a little more judgment were allowed - most of them seem to relish the chance to bid over a strong 1♣!).

[bluejak]

cardsharp, on Dec 8 2009, 03:21 PM, 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.

Some players who play in other countries - myself, for example - conform to the regulations in those other countries. For example, I follow ACBL regulations when I play in the ACBL Nationals. I would expect Meckwell to follow English regulations in an English tournament. Wouldn't you?

[jallerton]

Blue Uriah, on Dec 8 2009, 02:36 PM, said:

jallerton, on Dec 8 2009, 01:10 AM, said:

You appear to be playing a variation on the Swedish Club with the strong option devalued, which is why you seem to be running into problems.

As far as I can tell, the requirements for a strong-only 1♣ and the strong option of a two-way 1♣ are identical at level four, so this shouldn't have anything to do with it.

WellSpyder seemed to be expressing concern that some traditional systems may not be permitted in England.

I was just making the point that if played in the traditional manner, the 1♣ opening bids in Precision Club, Blue Club, Swedish Club and Polish Club are all permitted at EBU Level 4.

Of course the 1♣ openers in some "strongish" club systems such as Moscito and the version played in Finland are not currently permitted. As I mentioned earlier, the L&EC has rejected applications to permit such systems in the past, but maybe it is time for someone to ask them to reconsider.

[david_c]

WellSpyder, on Dec 3 2009, 09:33 AM, said:

Although I do not have it in front of me, I seem to recall that there is quite a bit of advice in one of the standard texts on Precision (Rigal's Precision in the 90s) on upgrading hands with less than 16 points and I am sure there are examples there that would get a Precision pair into trouble under a strict interpretation of the current regulations. It does strike me as unfortunate that such a widely-used book is apparently about an illegal system.

Yes, Rigal gives this example of a strong 1♣:

♠ 86
♥ K5
♦ A4
♣ AQJ8532

(Another example is a rule-of-25 15-count.) I don't think Rigal's style is particularly aggressive for a strong club system.

Generally single-suiters are good hands for upgrading to a strong club, which is unfortunate because they tend to be undervalued by "rule of X" (particularly 7222s like the one above).

Personally I think the EBU has done pretty well in this area - after all, it wasn't so long ago that the rule was 16+ HCP with no exceptions. But certainly there are plenty of hands disallowed that look like reasonable 1♣ openers for a traditional Precision style.