Clear cut tricks (error in the Orange Book?)

[campboy]

I just heard from a correspondent who was ruled against for opening 2♦ (edit: Reverse) Benji on KQJTxxx AKx xxx ---, which he believed had 8 clear-cut tricks.

 

The updated Orange book on the EBU website contains the following definition:

 

Clear-cut tricks are clarified as tricks expected to make opposite a void in partner’s hand and the second best suit break.

 

It also gives examples, which include "KQJxxxx = 4 tricks, KQJTxxx = 5 tricks". However, these differ from the same examples in the L&E minutes of February, which give 5 and 6 tricks respectively. Barring a trump promotion, those in the minutes seem to be correct. Is this an error in the OB?

[helene_t]

You are not allowed to make an artificial strong opening with less than 14 HCPs. That might be the issue with the hand in question.

[campboy]

The current rules on minimum permitted agreements for artificial strong openings in the EBU are:

 

Hands which have 16+ HCP OR meet Rule of 25 OR 8 clear-cut tricks and enough HCP for a 1-level opening.

 

The old rule of "Rule of 25 AND 14+ HCP" was replaced by the above. The TD involved was definitely working from an up-to-date printout, as he quoted the "KQJTxxx has 5 CCT" directly.

[bluejak]

I am investigating.

 

Incidentally, note that when campboy says "OR 8 clear-cut tricks and enough HCP for a 1-level opening" he has missed out the important "subject to proper disclosure". If you play 2♣ as including this last, saying "Benjamin" when asked is MI.

[Sven Pran]

The updated Orange book on the EBU website contains the following definition:

 

Clear-cut tricks are clarified as tricks expected to make opposite a void in partner’s hand and the second best suit break.

 

It also gives examples, which include "KQJxxxx = 4 tricks, KQJTxxx = 5 tricks". However, these differ from the same examples in the L&E minutes of February, which give 5 and 6 tricks respectively. Barring a trump promotion, those in the minutes seem to be correct. Is this an error in the OB?

Looks to me as if it must be. I am puzzled about the OB calculation of "clear-cut" tricks here.

 

KQJTxxx with partner void and the second best suit break should give 6 tricks, not 5, and KQJxxxx should give 5, not 4 tricks?

 

In each case there are only 6 missing cards and the second best break must be 4-2 so there cannot possibly be more than one loser in the first case (the Ace) and two losers in the second (the Ace and Ten).

 

Please enlighten me?

 

regards Sven

 

PS.: Trump promotion together with a bad break is such a coincidence that I woudn't calculate so pessimistic.

[blackshoe]

On that first holding, where is the nine?

[Blue Uriah]

Intriguing. It just occurred to me that I'd completely misread this part of the OB. I thought it said second worst trump break, not second best. If you have an eight card suit opposite a void then the second worst break (4-1) is also the second best, but with seven cards that's not the case.

 

KQJxxxx. The OB has it as 4 CCT (which must mean a 5-1 break) while the L&E minutes have it as 5 CCT (4-2 break).

 

KQJTxxx. OB = 5 CCT (5-1 break), minutes = 6 CCT (4-2).

 

KJTxxx. OB = 1 CCT (6-1 break), minutes = 2 CCT (5-2).

 

Is it possible that the Orange Book intended 'second-worst' but accidentally wrote 'second-best'?

[Trinidad]

I am not the author of the OB, but "second best" seems to be a much better definition than "second worst".

 

"Second worst" would mean that there exists only 1 distribution between the three remaining hands where you don't have the amount of CCTs in hand (e.g. 0-0-6). It would mean that you couldn't evaluate AKQJ987 as 7 CCTs since the suit might split 0-1-5. That seems incredibly rigid to me.

 

Rik

[Blue Uriah]

Is it so rigid? By my calculations, AKQJ987 is worth 7 tricks about 98% of the time. And that's not considering the possibility of a trump promotion on some layouts. That maybe crosses the border into "clear cut" territory, but I don't think it's far off. Clear cut means that you will obviously take 7 tricks and it's so unlikely that you will take 6 that it's not worth thinking about. When you start to say instead that it's very probable that you will take 7 tricks, then it's no longer clear cut.

[Trinidad]

I would say that in the vague and unclear world of bridge 98% is pretty clear cut.

 

Rik

[campboy]

I expect we shall get a definitive answer from bluejak, but here is a link to the L&E minutes for those who want to read it for themselves. All the relevant stuff is on p4.

[Grazy69]

Blur Uriah

AKQJxxx is 7 tricks 100% as 2nd best is 4-2.

 

Blackshoe

KQJxxxx

Sure ; if one defender has A9xx then 5 clear tricks ; if defender has 9x then if pd has A8xx then still 5 tricks so more important maybe is "where is the 8 as well" lol ; how far do we go down that road.

Using ncr! formula there is 5 in 30 combinations (20%) of A9xx being in one specific hand.

 

So back to the original post the hand HAS a clear cut 8 playing tricks so it looks like a TD error

 

But that is easy if TD didn't have an up-to-date copy of the Orange book-2009 update

 

The L&E minutes of Feb 2nd 2009 show KQJTxxx as 6 clear cut tricks which is correct. Put it through the small dos program "suitplay" and see.

 

So campboy ; 8 Clear cut tricks ; TD error

 

Cheers

[campboy]

The problem is that the TD did have an up-to-date OB including 2009 updates -- and this specifically says "KQJTxxx is 5 tricks". He showed this to the player at the table when making his ruling.

[blackshoe]

DOS. <spit>. :)

[Grazy69]

Blackshoe ; Most amusing :)

 

OK I have "Deep Finesse" and "Jack 4.1" and "GIB" is available on BBO

 

BUT none of them actually give you a list of the probability %'s

 

Maybe you really ought to try it and dive back to the "Edison" days before windows.

 

Its free btw. And if you really don't like DOS I'll bet $200 that you use the "Goulash" DOS program, if you happen to TD on BBO that is.

 

Back to the plot. The Orange Book looks to be in error as KQJTxxx IS 6 clear cut tricks on any 4-2 split.

 

Is the TD at fault when the ruling is wrong but has quoted the "correct" info from the trusty? Orange Book ?

 

Maybe Bluejack can throw light on the discrepancy as the Feb12th 09 L&E minutes describing "Clear tricks" were his thoughts and Bluejack is also the Editor of the Orange Book

 

Cheers

[bluejak]

Subject to final confirmation at the next EBU L&EC meeting, it appears that there was a mistake in the relevant minutes, which was then copied to the online Orange book. Blame can be shared around [since most if not all the members of the L&EC are invited to proofread the minutes] but I feel it was more my fault than anyone's. Very sorry.

 

The regulation should read "second worst" not "second best".

[RMB1]

The regulation should read "second worst" not "second best".

Doesn't "second worst" mean n cards split (n-1) - 1. Is this really what is meant?

 

To avoid further confusion could "second worst" be spelt out as "partner holding a void and one opponent holding a singleton".

 

Robin

[bluejak]

The regulation should read "second worst" not "second best".

Doesn't "second worst" mean n cards split (n-1) - 1. Is this really what is meant?

Yes.

 

To avoid further confusion could "second worst" be spelt out as "partner holding a void and one opponent holding a singleton".

I suppose ....

 

If I remember I shall tell the L&EC your suggestion. Or you could write to John Pain: because of the mistake in the minutes it has to be revisited next meeting.

[blackshoe]

I have two computers atm: main one is an iMac. I also have an old beatup Windows XP laptop, which I bought solely to have something to run ACBLScore at games. I could, in fact, run DOS programs on either one (although the laptop only has 256 MB RAM), but that doesn't make the OS any less odious. B)

[pgrice]

The regulation should read "second worst" not "second best".

Doesn't "second worst" mean n cards split (n-1) - 1. Is this really what is meant?

 

To avoid further confusion could "second worst" be spelt out as "partner holding a void and one opponent holding a singleton".

 

Robin

How about "partner holding a void and one opponent holding a small singleton"

 

Peter

[Finch]

I don't want to drop a burning candle onto the oil on the troubled waters (if you see what I mean) but I think the L&E minutes are right, and the updated OB wrong.

 

The problem probably came from the fact that much discussion was over various 8-card suits, when 'second worst' and 'second best' are both 4-1 breaks.

 

I don't believe I ever knowingly agreed to a proposal that makes AKQJ102 only 5 'clearcut' tricks.

 

There's an L&E meeting next week, I imagine we'll sort it out then.

[NickRW]

...I don't believe I ever knowingly agreed to a proposal that makes AKQJ102 only 5 'clearcut' tricks...

You appear to be saying, "assuming a defender has no more than 5 trumps" (or whatever the suit is - it is mostly the trump suit anyway) - which is about how I think of clear cut tricks personally.

 

All I can say is that most players don't know this regulation - which means that I generally don't get director calls about it - which is a good thing IMO.

 

Nick

[jallerton]

I am investigating.

 

Incidentally, note that when campboy says "OR 8 clear-cut tricks and enough HCP for a 1-level opening" he has missed out the important "subject to proper disclosure". If you play 2♣ as including this last, saying "Benjamin" when asked is MI.

Well, the exact wording of that particular part of the regulation is:

 

"subject to proper disclosure, a hand that contains as a minimum the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening and at least eight clear cut tricks".

 

It seems to me that there is little point in the L&EC spending a long time (re-)debating whether or not a hand such as:

 

♠KQJ108765 ♥ QJ102 ♦J ♣ none

 

counts as "eight clear cut tricks" unless they also define what they mean by "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening". Without such a definition, it will still not be clear to TDs whether or not the hand quoted above is supposed to fall within the Orange Book definition of "Strong".

 

I would suggest that the term "normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening" can be defined in rather more simple terms than the one that may or may not have been agreed for "eight clear cut tricks". As the concept of high card points (HCP) is widely understood by the EBU membership and is used elsewhere in the Orange Book, the L&EC simply needs to agree on a number, presumably one of 8,9,10,11 and 12.

[bluejak]

I do not think you will get anywhere putting that view here. If you want to get the L&EC to revisit that, you need to ask them to. Since it was my proposal that was defeated I can hardly re-propose it. I would suggest urgency: I doubt they will even agree to reconsider it after Thursday's meeting.

[NickRW]

♠KQJ108765 ♥ QJ102 ♦J ♣ none

Well, to add fuel to the fiire, even if they set the limit at say 10, does that stiff Jack really count as 1 or not?

 

I have to say that I, never the less, generally support your idea. I hate HCP from the bottom of my heart because it is old and crap and shouldn't even be taught anymore let alone find its way into a book of regulations - there are better systems on the market. But, even so, rules which a playing TD has to interpret in about 10 seconds flat are complete rubbish. As for getting old ladies, who have opened strong twos in violation of this rule for years because they were never taught properly in the first place, to even understand vague rules, let alone remember them - argh - it just makes me want to scream.

 

For pitys sake - write a bl**dy rule that we can all agree what the hell it means.

 

Nick