Fluffy Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 I'm reading http://worldbridge.org/departments/systems/policy.asp and it says that any opening that "could be weak" that doesn't promise a known suit is forbidden. And they define average hand as 10 Milton Work points without distributional values. So if I open Alder 3♠ with any suit AKQ10xxx is this considered weak? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 Yes, that would be Brown Sticker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted October 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 But if I say it at leasts promises 10 HCP in the form of a jack doubleton or whatever, then it is ok? I don't fully understand the definition of average, I am not subjective if I say that AKQ10xxx is stronger than 10 milton work points once you add some distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 But if I say it at leasts promises 10 HCP in the form of a jack doubleton or whatever, then it is ok?It is okay if the bid promises 10 HCP or more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted October 13, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 and if I do it with AKQ and out then I am psyching? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 and if I do it with AKQ and out then I am psyching?No, but if the director has read this thread then he will probably rule that you have an implicit agreement to open with only AKQ, rule an illegal convention and award an artificial score that is not to your benefit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 lol Fluffy! You might as well define your agreement as ♣AKQxxxx, then the suit is known. If partner holds any of the 3 ♣ top honours, he can "see" that you psyched and bid like you've forgot the agreement. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted October 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 its just that I don't fully understand the laws. Does a suit have be known in all the options, or only in the weak ones?, if only in the weak ones I can allow 9 HCP hands in clubs for example, and 10 HCP for the rest. nice advice Free, but my follow ups are highly artificial, can't have agreements after psyches :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 hi Gonzalo, you can play an opening with a suit that is know insofar the hand is weak, but then the other options have to be "strong", whatever that means. I.e. you can play an opening that shows either a weak hand with four hearts or an 18+ hand with any shape. You can't play an opening that shows a weak hand with hearts or 11+ with any shape. Not sure exactly where the threshold is, though. If there are no weak options there are no restrictions. You can for example play an opening defined as 11-15 any two-suiter. This all applies to openings from 2♣ through 3♠. A 3NT opening and higher can mean whatever you like. 1-level openings are not subject to BSC restrictions but they are subject to other restrictions. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted October 14, 2011 Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 you can play an opening with a suit that is know insofar the hand is weak, but then the other options have to be "strong", whatever that means."strong" is defined as a king above average strength: why they don't just say 13+ HCP is beyond me. So if you wish to define a bid with an option for 9 HCP and another option with 10+ HCP, then there must be a known suit of at least four cards in both options. If you define a bid with an option for 9 HCP, and further options all of which have 13+ HCP, then there only has to be a known 4+ suit for the 9 HCP option. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Let me note that playing 3♠ as a weak hand with ♠ is likely to be more effective than playing it as a solid minor. Especially since in Veldhoven, people may have discussed auctions like 3♥ (weak with ♠) Pass 3♠ Pass Pass Dbl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fluffy Posted October 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 I agree that;s why we use nat 3♥ and 3♠ and use 3♦ as alder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelandakh Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 By the wording of the OP the trusty old Gambling 3NT opening would also be brown sticker. I assume this was not the intention of the regulations and that some latitude might be allowed for such a hand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 By the wording of the OP the trusty old Gambling 3NT opening would also be brown sticker. I assume this was not the intention of the regulations and that some latitude might be allowed for such a hand... Brown sticker regulations cover 2♣ through 3♠. There are no WBF restrictions on opening bids from 3NT upwards (or an opening 1NT). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 Classic discussion about BSC, but there's always one who doesn't know what he's talking about... The suit must be known in case you're weak only (otherwise a standard 2♣ opening would be BSC). You can have multiple weak versions, but then you need the same suit (for example "2♦ = weak 6+♥ or weak 55+♥-m" is allowed because ♥ is known). Fluffy, I think the consensus is that the Alder opening will need to require at least 10HCP (you already have 9 in the standard version). A side suit J or trump J won't make a big difference and is still quite frequent. But don't deviate that 1HCP because it will definitely be penalized. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mgoetze Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 "strong" is defined as a king above average strength: why they don't just say 13+ HCP is beyond me. Because A109xxx - x KQJ10xx is above "average strength" by at least the king of clubs. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Because A109xxx - x KQJ10xx is above "average strength" by at least the king of clubs. ;)You may think so, I may even agree. Unfortunately the regulation states "Strong = high card strength a king or more greater than that of an average hand" and "Average Hand = a hand containing 10 high card points (Milton Work) with no distributional values". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Hm. Is, by those definitions, a hand with 10 HCPs + another Q and another J "strong"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semeai Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Hm. Is, by those definitions, a hand with 10 HCPs + another Q and another J "strong"? Is part of those 10 HCP a King? (Irrelevant of course, but I couldn't resist!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 So, a "strong" hand, to those definitions is *either*:13 Milton Work points "with no distributional values", orsomething less in HCP with distributional values. What that something is is somewhat Justice Stewartic in current implementation - "[we] know it when [we] see it"; Yes, it doesn't *say* it, but where do you put distributional values? I'd bet everyone, even with those definitions, would consider ATxxx QJTxxx - xx "average" - or better. This would make AJxxx KQTxxx - xx a "strong hand". So, okay, we could add "or with less strength and compensating distribution" to "average hand", or do something for "strong", but (my self-described anal-retentiveness aside), if that was the worst "read it like a human, rather than a lawyer" in the WBF regulations - even the system regulations, I'd be very happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 So, a "strong" hand, to those definitions is *either*:13 Milton Work points "with no distributional values", orsomething less in HCP with distributional values. What that something is is somewhat Justice Stewartic in current implementation - "[we] know it when [we] see it"; Yes, it doesn't *say* it, but where do you put distributional values? I'd bet everyone, even with those definitions, would consider ATxxx QJTxxx - xx "average" - or better. This would make AJxxx KQTxxx - xx a "strong hand". So, okay, we could add "or with less strength and compensating distribution" to "average hand", or do something for "strong", but (my self-described anal-retentiveness aside), if that was the worst "read it like a human, rather than a lawyer" in the WBF regulations - even the system regulations, I'd be very happy.It does say it. It says distributional values are not counted in this part of the regulations. However, as I originally said, when this is the case why not refer to specific points counts consistently. Far be it from me to defend the policy since there are huge chasms with other aspects of it, but I think it is clear what they want in this area even if they struggle to get it across. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Interesting. It occurs to me that by the WBF definition ♠ Jxx ♥ QJx ♦ QJx ♣ QJxx is an "average hand". Comments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 As I've said, this definition of strong is only for use in the context of the System Policy. The only meaningful use of 'strong' in the policy is in the definition of Brown Sticker opening bids, where the WBF has decided not to regulate opening bids that guarantee 13 HCP or more and has used 'strong' to help elaborate this. This seems reasonable to me. It provides an objective measure that everyone understands. It could be even clearer, but it is not bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted October 25, 2011 Report Share Posted October 25, 2011 What happens if your partnership claims that your opening bids guarantee 13 HCP, and then one of you opens on a nice 12 count? Summary execution? I really don't like "guarantees" or "promises" in descriptions of bidding agreements. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMB1 Posted November 8, 2011 Report Share Posted November 8, 2011 What happens if your partnership claims that your opening bids guarantee 13 HCP, and then one of you opens on a nice 12 count? Summary execution? It is a matter of judgement whether the particular "nice 12 count" is as strong as a "king above average". But the real answer is: if you are an unknown player from an NBO without policical clout, then yes ("Summary execution"); if you are a well known player from an NBO with clout, then your opponents will be reprimanded for even asking the question. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.