Definitions of a strong club.

[benlessard]

Im wondering if there a strict definitions for a strong club in the sense of the laws ?

[blackshoe]

Nowhere do the laws talk about a strong club, so "in the sense of the laws" makes no sense. :) Why are you asking?

[gordontd]

Im wondering if there a strict definitions for a strong club in the sense of the laws ?

The WBF give the following definition of strong: high card strength a king or more greater than that of an average hand.

 

So, if you wanted to play your strong club as showing 13+, that would seem to be acceptable under WBF regulations.

[AlexJonson]

The WBF give the following definition of strong: high card strength a king or more greater than that of an average hand.

 

So, if you wanted to play your strong club as showing 13+, that would seem to be acceptable under WBF regulations.

 

Am I right in think that this is subject to regulation, so that, for example, the definition is very specific in the EBU, and not the same as the WBF?

[gordontd]

Am I right in think that this is subject to regulation, so that, for example, the definition is very specific in the EBU, and not the same as the WBF?

Absolutely.

[pran]

"Strong club" was (is) the name of a group of systems having in common that the 1♣ opening bid is artificial and shows at least 16 HCP ("Blue Club" and "Precision" just to mention two such systems).

 

This has nothing to do with the word "strong" as used to describe a hand of strength at least a King above an average hand.

[gordontd]

"Strong club" was (is) the name of a group of systems having in common that the 1♣ opening bid is artificial and shows at least 16 HCP ("Blue Club" and "Precision" just to mention two such systems).

 

This has nothing to do with the word "strong" as used to describe a hand of strength at least a King above an average hand.

Oh, yeah, sure, and the fact that a one CLUB opening in those systems was STRONG is simply co-incidental :lol:

 

I wonder if you think that strong club systems where the minimum strength of the 1♣opener is 14 or 15 hcp (like Moscito) are not strong club systems at all?

[campboy]

"Strong club" was (is) the name of a group of systems having in common that the 1♣ opening bid is artificial and shows at least 16 HCP ("Blue Club" and "Precision" just to mention two such systems).

 

This has nothing to do with the word "strong" as used to describe a hand of strength at least a King above an average hand.

 

"Strong club" is also a term used in the WBF systems policy; together with "strong diamond" it covers the systems in the blue category. In this usage it has everything to do with the word "strong" as used to describe a hand of strength at least a King above an average hand.

 

"Strong club" is also a term used in the EBU's regulations; in that usage it means a 1♣ opening is "strong" in the sense that all hands covered have 16+ HCP or satisfy the extended rule of 25 (whatever that is).

[blackshoe]

The ACBL regulations are, as usual, a mess. The pertinent regulation governing an agreement to open 1♣ on any hand with 16+ (or whatever) HCP says

ONE CLUB OR ONE DIAMOND may be used as an all-purpose opening bid (artificial or natural) promising a minimum of 10 high-card points.

The alert chart requires an alert for

Conventional and/or artificial openings which do not require an Announcement such as a strong/artificial forcing club

The alert procedure says of a 1♣ opening :

Not Alertable if natural (three or more cards in minor) and non-forcing. Announceable if fewer than three cards is the only unnatural meaning. Any other meaning must be Alerted (e.g., a Precision opening 1♣).

The General Convention chart allows

ARTIFICIAL AND CONVENTIONAL CALLS after strong (15+ HCP), forcing opening bids

There is one other place where a 15+ point requirement is mentioned wrt the word "strong". This might lead me to conclude that "strong" means "15+ HCP" if I hadn't been told by people at ACBL HQ (in the context of a "strong 2♣ opening") that "strong" means whatever the player making the bid thinks it means. Y'ask me, that's a pretty stupid way to regulate a game, but that's what we've got. :rolleyes:

 

I did run across the term "strong club" in the regs somewhere, but it was just a passing reference, not a definition.

[bluejak]

Oh, yeah, sure, and the fact that a one CLUB opening in those systems was STRONG is simply co-incidental :lol:

 

I wonder if you think that strong club systems where the minimum strength of the 1♣opener is 14 or 15 hcp (like Moscito) are not strong club systems at all?

Yes. If someone decides to play 1♣ as 13+, clubs or diamonds or balanced, and call it a strong club system, no, it is not.

 

Sadly, people come up with names, then others produce something different and call it the same name. Such is life.

 

But if a TO or RA decides to regulate "strong clubs" they should define them.

[dburn]

This isn't altogether clear to me. For example, several of the systems I have encountered in my years as a coach have been referred to as "strong pass" systems, and in most of those an opening pass has shown a minimum of 12 or 13 hcp. If a strong pass is 13+, why can't a strong club be 13+?

 

To me, a "strong club system" means that on almost all hands above a certain strength the opening bid is one club; all hands weaker than this strength open something else. But what that strength may be is a matter for the system designers, not the regulators.

 

Of course, if you want to disclose your system adequately it is not very helpful to describe it as "strong club" without further elaboration unless an opening one club starts around the 16-hcp mark.

[AlexJonson]

This isn't altogether clear to me. For example, several of the systems I have encountered in my years as a coach have been referred to as "strong pass" systems, and in most of those an opening pass has shown a minimum of 12 or 13 hcp. If a strong pass is 13+, why can't a strong club be 13+?

 

To me, a "strong club system" means that on almost all hands above a certain strength the opening bid is one club; all hands weaker than this strength open something else. But what that strength may be is a matter for the system designers, not the regulators.

 

Of course, if you want to disclose your system adequately it is not very helpful to describe it as "strong club" without further elaboration unless an opening one club starts around the 16-hcp mark.

 

Without disagreeing with a single word in your post, I recall that you are (?) the longest serving member of a relevant EBU regulating committee, and your idea of a strong club here is not the same as that in the EBU regulations.

[barmar]

This isn't altogether clear to me. For example, several of the systems I have encountered in my years as a coach have been referred to as "strong pass" systems, and in most of those an opening pass has shown a minimum of 12 or 13 hcp. If a strong pass is 13+, why can't a strong club be 13+?

Words often mean different things in different contexts. In particular, "strong" is often used in bridge to mean "stronger than normal" or "stronger than the alternative". So the minimum depends on the alternative meaning of the bid.

 

Since an opening pass normally shows <13 HCP, in a strong pass system it shows more than this. Although in my experience, the more common term is "forcing pass", but maybe that's a regional difference.

 

Since a standard 1♣ bid just shows normal opening strength, "strong club" shows something significantly stronger than this.

 

"strong NT" is a case where it's distinguishing from the alternative, even though it's actually the most common. It would probably be more logical to refer to "weak NT" and "normal NT", but since when is language logical? When weak NT's appeared, people started calling normal NT "strong" by comparison.

[blackshoe]

"strong NT" is a case where it's distinguishing from the alternative, even though it's actually the most common. It would probably be more logical to refer to "weak NT" and "normal NT", but since when is language logical? When weak NT's appeared, people started calling normal NT "strong" by comparison.

 

"Weak" NT is "normal" in a lot of places. Great Britain. Australia. New Zealand. Anyplace Acol is the "standard".

[mycroft]

Alex, without disagreeing with either of you, DBurn is talking about *disclosure*, not *legality*. I wouldn't explain a "strong club" that is "any ERo25 hand" as just, undifferentiated, "strong" - that would not be adequate disclosure. There have been several threads where people have tried to convince people that "we allow a strong club that fits these criteria" does not mean "if it fits these criteria, 'strong' is going to not mislead the opponents" - and I don't think we did convince them, even though it's true (mostly they got to "well, there's a definition, and if they expect what 99+% of people mean it as rather than what the definition says, that's their problem not mine." I happen to still disagree.)

 

Basically, what the regs say is whether you can play it, provided you disclose it adequately.

What adequately is is what will give your opponents a correct view of your agreement, and the regs don't prescribe what that may be (it will be different when I'm playing Precision against my Precision class in practise than when I'm playing the Blue Ribbon Pairs to when I'm playing against Mr. and Mrs. Just Out of Rubber, for instance!)

[bluejak]

Without disagreeing with a single word in your post, I recall that you are (?) the longest serving member of a relevant EBU regulating committee, and your idea of a strong club here is not the same as that in the EBU regulations.

There is no reference to a strong club in EBU regulations.

[gordontd]

There is no reference to a strong club in EBU regulations.

OB11C3

Strong Club

A 1♣ opening may have any combination of meanings if it is forcing and promises a

minimum of ‘Extended Rule of 25’ (see 10 B 4).

[gnasher]

And also

 

OB4E1

Definitions of one of a minor openings

...

(d) Strong Club:

forcing, artificial, showing 'Extended Rule of 25' (see 10 B 4). – see 11 C 3

 

and it's mentioned in 11R2, 12 and the index (twice).

[AlexJonson]

There is no reference to a strong club in EBU regulations.

 

Are you saying there is not, or you wish there were not, or something else?

[Jeremy69A]

or satisfy the extended rule of 25 (whatever that is).

 

As you are pretending to not know what this is let me help. It is a regulation that says that if you want to agree to open a strong and artificial bid such as 1♣ or 2♣ then in EBU/WBU land you must satisfy one of the following criteria:

 

a. 16+ HCP

b. Rule of 25

c. 8+ clear cut tricks(definition available) and the points normally associated with a one level opening.

[Jeremy69A]

There is no reference to a strong club in EBU regulations.

 

I think we are going to need to fill in a psyche form. What sort of amnesia is it when the author can't remember his own words? ;)

[bluejak]

My post was done without checking. Of course it appears in the headings, which are not really part of the regulations. But you are correct.

[Vampyr]

when I'm playing the Blue Ribbon Pairs to when I'm playing against Mr. and Mrs. Just Out of Rubber, for instance!)

 

Is the implication that rubber bridge players who venture occasionally to tournaments are weak players? Perhaps that is true in some places, but not in cities with high-quality rubber bridge clubs.

[barmar]

Is the implication that rubber bridge players who venture occasionally to tournaments are weak players? Perhaps that is true in some places, but not in cities with high-quality rubber bridge clubs.

He's not commenting on their competence, just their experience with the panoply of different bridge systems. Social bridge players don't generally encounter many different systems and fancy conventions.

[mycroft]

I do not expect anyone Just Out Of Rubber - whether it's been 20 years as 5c/point or playing the Elks Club for ever, or the kind of kitchen bridge where the bridge is at best the fourth-most-important part of the game - to have ever seen a Strong Club system, never mind understand the nuances of a 1H-2NT!-4D!-4H auction either straight up or changed due to a Precision framework - so *my* disclosure requirements when playing against them are different.

 

Similarly, I would never explain my semi-standard 2♦ opener with the definition we use - "4=4=1=5 minus one card in any suit" to anyone who does not themselves play Precision; it's perfectly accurate, and makes perfect sense to people once they work it out, but is not full disclosure for rank-and-file.