Clear cut tricks (error in the Orange Book?)

[jallerton]

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.

Well, I think the agenda is a matter for the Chairman and Secretary of the L&EC!

 

The L&EC minutes of 12th February seem to explain the problem:

 

Mr Stevenson also suggested that ‘the normal 1bid opening value’ part of the definition was unworkable. Some people thought it meant 12 HCP, some 11, 10 or even 8. 8 HCP is what the Orange Book says is the lowest permitted count for a 1level opening bid (OB11C1).

 

The minutes then record:

 

After discussion the committee voted 3 to 3 to attach a specific point count for a 1level opening. The Chairman used his casting vote to maintain the status quo i.e. no specific point count.

 

but the argument of those voting against is not recorded.

[bluejak]

I think the Chairman and Secretary rely on things offered to them as correspondence or in other similar ways. One of the advantages of the English approach that I have claimed over the years is the fact that the EBU L&EC listens, but they cannot listen if no-one talks to them.

[shintaro]

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

 

Nick

;)

 

Nick dont be silly it is just a no no

 

:D

[bluejak]

The committee revisited the minute 2.3.8 of February 12th 2009. There had been several comments either by email or through online forums that the definition of clear-cut tricks did not agree with the examples that had been published and that perhaps the wording was incorrect. It was confirmed that the wording of the minute, and therefore the amendment, was correct. i.e. ‘second best break’. However closer scrutiny revealed that the numbers of clear cut tricks in the examples was incorrect in some cases. In particular KQJxxxx was 5 rather than 4; KQJTxxx was 6 rather than 5 and KJTxxx was 2 rather than 1. With these corrections the committee agreed things were now in order.

 

Mr Stevenson raised the question of attaching minimum point count to opening values and the committee’s decision not to do so. In particular he had been asked what the objection to doing so was. Mr Burn suggested that placing a limit would lead to TD’s having to make decisions in circumstances such as distributional hands with a singleton jack that were a point under. The chairman suggested that we judge opening bids by more than just high card points and to say that 10HCP was okay, but 9HCP was not would be too restrictive.

[campboy]

Great, thanks for sorting this out.