9 card heart suits

[RMB1]

I saw two 9 card hearts suits today:

[hv=pc=n&n=sqhakq986432dt6c3]133|100[/hv]

[hv=pc=n&n=sq6hakj876432d7c9]133|100[/hv]

 

I said the second met the EBU's "Extended Rule of 25". In particular:

a) 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,

...

Examples:

♠ A K Q J x x x x ♥ x x ♦ x x ♣ x does count as 8 clear-cut tricks.

♠ A K Q x x x x x ♥ x x ♦ x x ♣ x does not.

 

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

 

Further examples:

AKQxxxxx (7 CCT), KQJxxxx (5), AQJ98xx (5), KQJTx (3), KQJTxxx (6), AKT9xxxxx (8), KJTxxx (2)

Does either hand above meet the rule?

[blackshoe]

I suppose it depends on what "normal high card strength associated with a one level opening" means. It's been nearly 20 years since I last played Acol, but I seem to remember that a normal one level opening might be on as few as 9 or 10 HCP. If that memory is correct, then both of these hands meet the criteria.

[Cyberyeti]

As the rule is stated, the clear cut tricks are definitely satisfied. 9 card suit, 2-2 is best break, 3-1 is second best. I would open either hand with those honours in a 6322 so I think the HCP stricture is met, but arguable on the 10 count.

[jallerton]

The EBU Laws & Ethics Committee has spent several meetings developing this rule, including providing an extensive definition of how the term "clear cut tricks" is to be interpreted.

 

Unfortunately, despite Bluejak's best efforts, the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee has failed to provide a definition of "the normal high card strength associated with a one-level opening". Worse than that, the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee has positively refused to provide a definition of this term when asked to do so.

 

Everywhere else in the Orange Book, "high card strength" is measured using the 4-3-2-1 point count. A case could be made for any of 8+HCP, 9+HCP, 10+HCP, 11+HCP and 12+HCP (in my view using either the first or the last of these would be most logical), so it is up to the individual TD to decide.

 

This could lead to the bizarre situation where it is legal to agree to open a particular hand (such as the ones quoted by Robin) with a Benjamin 2♣ opening in one EBU Level 4 tournament, but it is illegal to agree to open the same hand with the same convention at another EBU Level 4 tournament (just because the TD happens to be different).

[campboy]

I would think 11+ would be more logical than 12+, since you are permitted to open one of a suit by agreement on any hand with 11 points, and it is the smallest such integer. Happily this is also -- provided we are considering first or second seat openers -- independent of the level of permitted agreements. The case for 8+ presumably is the corresponding statement with "some" rather than "any".

[bluejak]

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

But do not forget "subject to proper disclosure". If they describe the opening bid as "Benjamin" then neither opening is legal.

[Cascade]

I suppose it depends on what "normal high card strength associated with a one level opening" means. It's been nearly 20 years since I last played Acol, but I seem to remember that a normal one level opening might be on as few as 9 or 10 HCP. If that memory is correct, then both of these hands meet the criteria.

 

Even in Acol I would have thought that 9 hcp openings are "light" rather than "normal".

[RMB1]

But do not forget "subject to proper disclosure". If they describe the opening bid as "Benjamin" then neither opening is legal.

Neither hand occured in EBU juristriction. Something like the first one occured online. There was a 1♠ opening, this hand bid 4♥ and 5♥. (Dummy had ♠K and ♦A but there was a diamond lead, and RHO won ♠A at trick 2. Luckily he had had singleton ♦K and returned a ♥, so a pseudo squeeze established the ♦10!)

 

The second was posted to another part of the forums, asking what the right opening was playing a strong club system. Someone, who had had a run in with the extended rule of 25, said you could not open this hand as a strong club in the EBU and I said otherwise. But I guess "proper disclosure" applies to "strong club" as well.

[WellSpyder]

The second was posted to another part of the forums, asking what the right opening was playing a strong club system. Someone, who had had a run in with the extended rule of 25, said you could not open this hand as a strong club in the EBU and I said otherwise.

Indeed. And as far as I can tell from the discussion above, we still don't know who was right!

 

For what it is worth (virtually nothing, I realise) I think the only logical way to interpret the regulation is in terms of the normal high-card strength associated with a typical opening (eg the 11+ suggested by campboy) rather than the minimum high-card strength associated with a shapely opening (eg the 9 or 10 suggested by blackshoe). Otherwise, the restriction on strength means virtually nothing since this sort of hand will almost always have the playing strength to suggest it might be opened at the one level.

[Cyberyeti]

Indeed. And as far as I can tell from the discussion above, we still don't know who was right!

 

For what it is worth (virtually nothing, I realise) I think the only logical way to interpret the regulation is in terms of the normal high-card strength associated with a typical opening (eg the 11+ suggested by campboy) rather than the minimum high-card strength associated with a shapely opening (eg the 9 or 10 suggested by blackshoe). Otherwise, the restriction on strength means virtually nothing since this sort of hand will almost always have the playing strength to suggest it might be opened at the one level.

 

The EBU needs to specify a number of points, I went for 10 rather than 9 or 11 because that is the minimum you can have with a semi balanced (6322/5422) hand to open at the one level. I would feel very peeved if ruled against on this basis, although with no strong bid available other than an Acol 2♣ which I'm not going to open on this type of hand, it's unlikely to happen to me.

[RMB1]

Indeed. And as far as I can tell from the discussion above, we still don't know who was right!

If I had known I was right, I wouldn't have started the thread. :)

[bluejak]

Ok, as a pure personal approach, I do not think you can interpret this regulation any way except by deciding a figure for openings, and I go with 11. So I would allow the first and not the second.

 

No doubt people will point out the ludicrousness from adding a singleton jack - they always do. I do not care: there will always be borderline cases where an authority gives a minimum [or a range, or a maximum].

 

Of course, I think it crazy that anyone would consider a strong opening on either hand, but this forum is for legalities, not teaching people bridge.

[NickRW]

Ok, as a pure personal approach, I do not think you can interpret this regulation any way except by deciding a figure for openings, and I go with 11....

 

....but this forum is for legalities, not teaching people bridge.

 

Well, I appreciate the apparent difficulty you've had with the Ethics people. But I consider the following 9hcp hand an entirely normal Acol opening in the absence of a suitable two suited gadget:

 

AJ754

AT932

943

void

 

Thus, speaking as an untrained nerk who has to enforce this excuse for a regulation, I consider AKQxxxxxx and out as legal - technically.

 

The clause about the high card strength is therefore pretty much meaningless and has to largely be ignored on the grounds that it is worthless rubbish

 

Nick

[Chris L]

In EBU-land, the Orange Book (Paras 11C1 and 11C9) provides that the minimum requirement for opening 1 of a suit is 11 HCP or - at Level 2 - Rule of 19 and - at Levels 3&4 - Rule of 18 (subject in either case to a minimum of 8 HCP). Thus, any hand with a nine card suit and at least 8 HCP may be opened one of that suit. Whether it is good or bad bridge to do so is irrelevant. In the absence, in the Orange Book or elsewhere, of any definition of the "normal high card strength associated with a one-level opening" it seems to me that 8+ HCP must be normal, since otherwise players are left entirely to the views of individual TDs as to what constitutes "normal" - which in principle can't be right and may be influenced by that director's view of what constitutes good (or bad) bridge.

[jallerton]

I would think 11+ would be more logical than 12+, since you are permitted to open one of a suit by agreement on any hand with 11 points, and it is the smallest such integer. Happily this is also -- provided we are considering first or second seat openers -- independent of the level of permitted agreements. The case for 8+ presumably is the corresponding statement with "some" rather than "any".

 

It is generally accepted that the minimum high card strength for a one-level opening bid depends at least to some extent on distribution. Unfortunately the clause in the regulation makes no acknowledgement of this fact.

 

My logic for 12+ is that with the least distributional hand possible, a 4333 shape, "the normal high card strength associated" is 12+ HCP (Yes, it is permitted to agree to open a 4333 11-count, but it is not normal to do so.

 

My logic for 8+ is that is the absolute minimum permitted and I can construct extreme distributional hands on which it might be considered desirable to open at the 1-level.

 

However, as I mentioned earlier, there is also a case for 9+, 10+ and 11+; I see that a case has already been made for each of these criteria in the replies we have had to this topic thus far.

 

Interestingly, if an interpretation of this clause of the regulation were ever to be the subject of an appeal, I don't think the AC should ever be entitled to over-rule a TD's reasonable interpretation of this regulation, as the AC would not have any grounds for ruling that the TD was demonstrably wrong.

[jallerton]

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

But do not forget "subject to proper disclosure". If they describe the opening bid as "Benjamin" then neither opening is legal.

 

I've never really understood why the term "subject to proper disclosure" appears only in this particular regulation. Shouldn't all partnership agreements be subject to proper disclosure?

[RMB1]

I've never really understood why the term "subject to proper disclosure" appears only in this particular regulation. Shouldn't all partnership agreements be subject to proper disclosure?

I think it means that you can not describe your opening bid as "strong" without further qualification. You must describe it as "strong, or weaker with a long suit, in which case 8 tricks and opening values".

 

"subject to proper disclosure" = subject to disclosure that makes this option (OB 10B4a) explicit?

 

There used to be an Orange Book regulation that some bid had a "strict minimum of 16HCP". This suggested to me that all other "minimum"s were not strict and could be fudged. The regulation was changed to "minimum of 17HCP". :)

[Cascade]

Ok, as a pure personal approach, I do not think you can interpret this regulation any way except by deciding a figure for openings, and I go with 11. So I would allow the first and not the second.

 

No doubt people will point out the ludicrousness from adding a singleton jack - they always do. I do not care: there will always be borderline cases where an authority gives a minimum [or a range, or a maximum].

 

Of course, I think it crazy that anyone would consider a strong opening on either hand, but this forum is for legalities, not teaching people bridge.

 

Perhaps the ludicrousness is that some think these things should be regulated which only seems to lead to silly rules.

[manudude03]

I'm not sure if it's of any relevance, but the WBF defines "strong" as high card strength of a king or more stronger than an average hand. It might imply that you would have to be content (and legal) to open the hand at the one level with about a queen less.

 

WBF Policy

[Free]

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

For me it's nicely explained and very clear: if you expect partner to have a void, then the suit breaks 2-2, 3-1 or 4-0. 3-1 is the 2nd best suit break, so hand 1 has 9 tricks, hand 2 only has 8 tricks because it's reasonable to expect ♥Q in the 3 card suit.

[jeremy69]

Thus, speaking as an untrained nerk who has to enforce this excuse for a regulation, I consider AKQxxxxxx and out as legal - technically.

 

1. You don't HAVE to enforce it. No club has to accept the OB regulations although I think they are wise to do so in general.

2. x QJ10xxxxxxx x x is undoubtedly 8 clearcut tricks but no-one would suggest this had "the values" normally associated with a one level opening. Although an extreme example you dfo'nt want this hand being described as strong, Benjamin or any other phrase that will put people off wading in over it.

3. I think most people would open a shapely (5-5+) 10 count so would allow any hand that met that criterion as well as the 8 clearcut tricks

 

Some deprecate the lack of a precise point count but even when a regulation is precisely framed e.g. clear cut tricks this still leads to vigorous debate about exactly what it means when, irrespective of whether one agrees or not, it is, to my mind, completely clear.

[jeremy69]

In EBU-land, the Orange Book (Paras 11C1 and 11C9) provides that the minimum requirement for opening 1 of a suit is 11 HCP or - at Level 2 - Rule of 19 and - at Levels 3&4 - Rule of 18 (subject in either case to a minimum of 8 HCP). Thus, any hand with a nine card suit and at least 8 HCP may be opened one of that suit.

 

I don't agree with this. I would not consider opening at the one level on an 8 or 9 count with some distribution normal. All thi is saying, in my view, is that you can't use the fact that a hand conforms to the rule of 18 or 19 if it does not also meet the minimum of 8 points.

[phil_20686]

I don't agree with this. I would not consider opening at the one level on an 8 or 9 count with some distribution normal. All thi is saying, in my view, is that you can't use the fact that a hand conforms to the rule of 18 or 19 if it does not also meet the minimum of 8 points.

 

everyone I know (who plays acol) would think that AKQTxx xx xx xxx was too strong to be opened 2s and must be opened 1s. So I think opening some 9 counts at the 1 level is completely "normal" at the level of advanced players.

 

Moreover, if you play precision an "opening bid" is generally defined to be about 10HCP, and some 9's will be opened routinely. Why should you consider an "openeing bid" as applying only to acol? Somewhere like Italy a 9 or ten HCP opening of 1M would be the majority field action.

[jeremy69]

everyone I know (who plays acol) would think that AKQTxx xx xx xxx was too strong to be opened 2s and must be opened 1s. So I think opening some 9 counts at the 1 level is completely "normal" at the level of advanced players.

 

Moreover, if you play precision an "opening bid" is generally defined to be about 10HCP, and some 9's will be opened routinely. Why should you consider an "opening bid" as applying only to acol? Somewhere like Italy a 9 or ten HCP opening of 1M would be the majority field action.

 

Many who play Weak Two's around the country play it as 6-10.

Whilst some would certainly regard the hand as too strong it is worth remembering that the original Ogust meaning for 2S 2NT 3NT was AKQxxx and out.

The regulations are not made for advanced players but all players and a nine count is not normal

We are not in Italy nor writing our regulations for Italians.

Traditional Precision is 11-15 although the more aggressive will open some 10 counts. No reason why the definition of opening should not apply to all systems. not just Acol and it does.

[NickRW]

1. You don't HAVE to enforce it. No club has to accept the OB regulations although I think they are wise to do so in general.

2. x QJ10xxxxxxx x x is undoubtedly 8 clearcut tricks but no-one would suggest this had "the values" normally associated with a one level opening. Although an extreme example you dfo'nt want this hand being described as strong, Benjamin or any other phrase that will put people off wading in over it.

3. I think most people would open a shapely (5-5+) 10 count so would allow any hand that met that criterion as well as the 8 clearcut tricks

 

Some deprecate the lack of a precise point count but even when a regulation is precisely framed e.g. clear cut tricks this still leads to vigorous debate about exactly what it means when, irrespective of whether one agrees or not, it is, to my mind, completely clear.

 

Well, I do have to try to enforce it as the club does not attempt to produce its own regulations.

 

I appreciate the, to my mind, very easy to understand definition of clear cut tricks. It is true that people can still find room for debate, but, as a TD, I make my ruling, which I feel sure enough about, and any query of it would be met with "speak to the appeal committee".

 

On the hcp requirement, I definitely do not feel that I am on any kind of firm ground and the wording of the regulation is literally no help whatsoever.

 

Nick