Deviations from permitted agreements

[blackshoe]

Any regulation that says "a player must do X with Y HCP" is wrong headed, IMO. We should not legislate judgment out of the picture.

[Cascade]

Any regulation that says "a player must do X with Y HCP" is wrong headed, IMO. We should not legislate judgment out of the picture.

This is one of the most sensible things I have ever read on forums.

[helene_t]

Any regulation that says "a player must do X with Y HCP" is wrong headed, IMO. We should not legislate judgment out of the picture.

Of course. Nobody would argue anything like that. Not sure if you misread my post or if you are referring to some other post.

 

Consider the current EBU rules. They can be stated as something like:

- With 8 clearcut tricks you need 11 points

- With 13 cards in the two longest suits you need 12 points

- With 12 cards in the two longest suits you need 13 points

- With 11 cards in the two longest suits you need 14 points

- With 10 cards in the two longest suits you need 15 points

- Otherwise you need 16 points.

 

This is a technocratic rule, leaving no room for judgment as to whether a call is permitted. As it must be, because you cannot enforce a rule like "you need a hand that in your judgment qualifies as strong".

 

So I am arguing that "you need 14 points" is both simpler and more to-the-point than the above. It has nothing to do with legislating out judgment. As it would if the rule required you to open a Benji 2♣ with any 14-count.

 

It may be that the current EBU rule is more in line with good judgment than the 14 HCP rule would be. But that is irrelevant. The rule is not supposed to help players with their judgment - it shouldn't be an infraction to make ill-judged calls. The rule is supposed to give players reasonable room for well-judged calls while at the same time protecting opps against artificial calls that don't promise much in terms of defense.

[blackshoe]

This is a technocratic rule, leaving no room for judgment as to whether a call is permitted. As it must be, because you cannot enforce a rule like "you need a hand that in your judgment qualifies as strong".

The ACBL doesn't seem to have a problem with it. :)

[jnichols]

This is a technocratic rule, leaving no room for judgment as to whether a call is permitted. As it must be, because you cannot enforce a rule like "you need a hand that in your judgment qualifies as strong".

The ACBL doesn't seem to have a problem with it. :)

Helene is correct. And that's why the ACBL likes it. They know their rule can't be enforced, so they don't have to bother with it.

[NickRW]

This is a technocratic rule, leaving no room for judgment as to whether a call is permitted. As it must be, because you cannot enforce a rule like "you need a hand that in your judgment qualifies as strong".

The ACBL doesn't seem to have a problem with it. :rolleyes:

Heaven help us. The EBU has its faults, but....

 

Actually I am quite warming to the idea of a blanket lower limit of 14hcp. Arguably our current setup of either

 

1. 16hcp or

2. rule of 25 or

3. 8 clear cut tricks

 

is trying to add judgement into the rules, when the rules, as Helene says, should be simple and stop people characterising bad defensive hands as strong, but not either require or prohibit judgement.

 

No doubt David will have a tale of woe why this isn't a good idea...

 

Nick

[blackshoe]

Arguably the ACBL interpretation ("'Strong' means whatever the player making the call thinks it means") is nuts, but... I guess what this problem demonstrates to me is the great difficulty in coming up with a reasonable set of rules for this.

[campboy]

Eh, I don't personally have a problem with the current EBU rules. They certainly don't restrict my use of judgement, since the hands they dissallow are a long way from my judgement of a minimum 2♣ opener (which for me can be a strong two in a major).

 

If there is a problem, then it is that exactly the same rules are used for the strong clubbers. But the restriction on judgement is only there if you play methods which are tight up against the regulations, and that is unavoidable. A pair playing 17+ strong club and upgrading lots of 16-counts and distributional 15s doesn't have any trouble. If they changed the regulations to allow any 15-count to be opened a strong club, we would soon have the same complaints from people who want to upgrade lots of 14s.

[jeremy69]

Actually I am quite warming to the idea of a blanket lower limit of 14hcp. Arguably our current setup of either

 

1. 16hcp or

2. rule of 25 or

3. 8 clear cut tricks

is trying to add judgement into the rules, when the rules, as Helene says, should be simple and stop people characterising bad defensive hands as strong, but not either require or prohibit judgement.

 

 

 

The reason for the current crtieria is that when some more restrictive criteria were introduced in August 2006 they were felt by some at all levels to be too restrictive and the L&E revisited the situation and came up with the present regulations. It is certainly true that the wilder the hand the less value there is judging by HCP only hence the other criteria.

 

There are certainly some who would want all this swept away and players allowed to do what they want but the major problem has tended to come from the inadequate description given to some allegedly strong artificial bids and the present L&E view that some protection is necessary in this area.

[WellSpyder]

the major problem has tended to come from the inadequate description given to some allegedly strong artificial bids and the present L&E view that some protection is necessary in this area.

I have certainly heard this view expressed about so-called strong 2's (or 2♣ Benji showing an "Acol"-2 in any suit), but I have never heard it expressed about a strong 1♣. Certainly in the case I referred to when kicking off this thread there was no suggestion that the opponents were disadvantaged by any aspect of the bid chosen, including the degree of disclosure. It was simply that they thought they had a chance to get a good score on the board despite going off in the contract actually played.

 

In any case, at level 4 in the EBU it is permissible to play a two-way club in which 1♣ shows either a strong hand or a possibly weaker one, so in this case there is no real issue with the defending side thinking they are defending a strong bid and finding out that in fact it was only "strongish". So how about at least relaxing the rules on permitted agreements for the "strong" element of a "two-way" 1♣?

[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?