Deviations from permitted agreements

[campboy]

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]

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.

[Finch]

[deleted]

[jallerton]

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

 

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:

 

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]

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]

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]

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??? :D

[mjj29]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[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]

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??? :)

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]

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]

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??? :D

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]

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.

 

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

Letting Meckstroth decide the rules helps. :D

 

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]

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]

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]

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