Intermediate Pass

[awm]

So I've actually played a system where we passed hands of up to 14 hcp with clubs as the primary suit, but opened light on other hands. So for example we would pass with:

 

♠Kxx

♥AJx

♦x

♣AQxxxx

 

but we would open 1♠ with:

 

♠AQxxx

♥x

♦Kxxx

♣xxx

 

I think it's fairly clear that the first hand is stronger than the second. But of course they have different shapes, and pass didn't show any particular values (we would also pass on many very weak hands). Would there be a problem with this under EBU regulations?

[gnasher]

I think it's clear enough that Lorenzo Twos are not allowed (if pass shows 8-11HCP or suchlike).

Are we still talking about English regulations? In England you can play a two-bid as any meaning that promises four of the suit bid.

 

I have a different problem with this regulation - I'd like to play pass as "0-10 HCP any shape, or 11-14 HCP with clubs", and I have no idea whether this would be ruled legal. I tried to get this clarified many years ago and didn't have any luck; does anyone have any new insight on this?

The rules seem clear to me. There is only one rule about passes, which is "It is not permitted to play an opening Pass to show values". Your pass doesn't show values, so it's allowed.

 

If, however, you want official confirmation of this, it's very easy to obtain an official answer: send an email to the secretary of the Laws and Ethics Committee. In my experience such an question usually receives a prompt and helpful reply.

[Trinidad]

Sure. If it didn't matter, we would have only one forum in which to discuss matters pertaining to law and regulation, whether existing or hypothetical.

That isn't true. People meet to discuss things. You go to a sports bar to have a drink and discuss sports. People go to zoos to look at animals and learn about them. They both have a right to exist. Your logic would mean that you need to move to the zoo as soon as a discussion on sports evolves into a discussion about animals ("The Cardinals beat the Wolverines in the NCAA final."). Neither do you need to move to a sports bar to discuss whether it's better to go to Saint Louis or to Arizona to see Cardinals.

 

I would not go to a sports bar with the aim to start a discussion on animals or to a zoo to discuss sports. But something like that is not the case here. If this thread would have started with suggestions to change laws/regulations then you can move it to the appropriate forum right from the beginning. But this thread was started in the correct forum. It doesnot make sense to split threads and sort out what remark was about animals and what remark was about sports. Then the whole discussion loses its context and most likely the simple answer to the animals discussion would be: "Let's ask a zoologist.".

 

Rik

[barmar]

Are we still talking about English regulations? In England you can play a two-bid as any meaning that promises four of the suit bid.

The issue isn't what the 2-bid shows, it's what Pass shows in the Lorenzo system.

[gnasher]

The issue isn't what the 2-bid shows, it's what Pass shows in the Lorenzo system.

Indeed, the interesting question is the legality of a Lorenzo pass. But I was responding to a post which said "it's clear enough that Lorenzo Twos are not allowed", not "it's clear enough that a pass when playing Lorenzo Twos is not allowed".

 

It's certainly legal in England to play Lorenzo Two Bids as long as you never find yourself needing to start with a pass.

Edited April 16, 2013 by gnasher

[Zelandakh]

Presumably it is also allowed if you remove some hands from the 2 bids. So, for example, if you were to pass instead of making a 2 level opening on 4333 hands with 0 hcp with no honour in the 4 card suit. The question is whether you could include a specific 0 hcp hand in pass with the same effect (432/432/432/5432) or whether the valueless hands in Pass need to be of a reasonable frequency.

[lamford]

It's certainly legal in England to play Lorenzo Two Bids as long as you never find yourself needing to start with a pass.

Not so; the requirement is that if you find yourself needing to start with a pass it will not guarantee values. And on campboy's point, a change that might work would be to insert "usually" before values, so that you are not allowed to play that an opening Pass will usually show values.

[Zelandakh]

Does an opening pass in Acol not usually show values? I know I do not tend to expect partner to hold 0hcp when they start with pass...

[gnasher]

Not so; the requirement is that if you find yourself needing to start with a pass it will not guarantee values.

You've lost me. How does that conflict with what I said?

[blackshoe]

That isn't true.

Be very careful here, Rik. David set up the original forum on another site. IIRC, when we moved here we had "Laws and Rulings" and "Simple Rulings"; the other two were added later. Bottom line: David and I set this up, David and I run it, and I say again, if we (David and I) felt that one forum was sufficient, it would be set up that way.

 

We don't split threads or move them often, but we are always on the lookout for situations where that is appropriate - by our standards. I asked for opinions because I wasn't sure this one was appropriate. What I seem to be getting in response is "go away, we're talking here". Fair enough. For now.

[gnasher]

We don't split threads or move them often, but we are always on the lookout for situations where that is appropriate - by our standards. I asked for opinions because I wasn't sure this one was appropriate. What I seem to be getting in response is "go away, we're talking here". Fair enough. For now.

I think your question probably came across as rhetorical rather than a simple request for opinions.

 

Since you ask for opinions, I think that the problem is that the Laws and Rulings forum has too wide a scope. It would be better if we had:

- A Rulings forum for discussing real-life rulings. This would be the clean, unintimidating forum that I think you and David are keen to see.

- A Laws forum for discussing the meaning, application and shortcomings of the rules. Some conversations in this would naturally lead to discussions of how to improve the Laws. Lamford's imaginary scenarios would naturally belong in this forum.

[lamford]

You've lost me. How does that conflict with what I said?

Because you can play Lorenzo Two Bids as long as there is some hand without values which will Pass. Lorenzo Two Bids are not allowed, effectively, if they include any hands from 0 to any upper range. They are allowed if they include any hands from 1 to any upper range. Assuming that "shows values" means "shows any values at all". If you define "Lorenzo Two Bids" as "all hands from 0-9", then you are right.

[lamford]

Lamford's imaginary scenarios would naturally belong in this forum.

The criterion for including a scenario in one or other forum should not be whether it is real or imaginary (that seems irrelevant), but whether the main aim is to draw attention to faulty law or how to implement correct law.

[WellSpyder]

The criterion for including a scenario in one or other forum should not be whether it is real or imaginary (that seems irrelevant), but whether the main aim is to draw attention to faulty law or how to implement correct law the law in practice.

FYP.

[campboy]

It seems to me that it is in the interests of the game and its players that regulators should apply Occam's Razor and (try to) limit regulation as much as is sensible and possible. This suggests that regulations should be confined to matters that either are, or could be likely to become, real-world problems. It also suggests that we do not seek to vary and complicate regulations in order to address arcane and possibly hypothetical loopholes that are extremely unlikely to be exploited in practice. Hard cases make bad law.

In general there is no reason why loopholes in system regulations are unlikely to get exploited (and I don't mean either "loophole" or "exploited" pejoratively, but can't think of a suitable neutral phrase). The fert 2♣ that some people were playing at congresses a few years ago caused no end of trouble; so did Groove in the Heart (although that wasn't really an exploit since everything in it was deliberately permitted). Especially while the Orange book is being completely rewritten, closing a loophole now is much better than being forced to close it in the future.

[Trinidad]

I asked for opinions because I wasn't sure this one was appropriate.

I didn't interpret your post as asking for opinions. I interpreted it as stating your own opinion.

 

But I can give you my opinion. When it comes to moving or splitting threads, simply follow how the other moderators at BBF have been doing that successfully for years now (and long before the Bridge Laws forums started on BBF). Roughly sketched, they seem to abide by the following:

 

• A thread can be moved if it is started in the wrong forum. In that case, it should be moved sooner rather than later.
  
• Once a thread is started in the correct forum, it should never be moved.
  
• If a separate, easily identifiable discussion is started within a thread (such as this one), it is possible to split the thread, but again only at the start of the spin-off discussion. This should be very rare but it should certainly be considered when the original discussion is suffering from the off-topic spin-off. If the original discussion does not suffer, there is no reason to split.
  

 

I am sure that those other moderators can tell you better what guidelines they follow than I can. I can only add that they discuss their guidelines with the community from time to time.

 

Rik