[FrancesHinden]

I don't want to drop a burning candle onto the oil on the troubled waters (if you see what I mean) but I think the L&E minutes are right, and the updated OB wrong.

The problem probably came from the fact that much discussion was over various 8-card suits, when 'second worst' and 'second best' are both 4-1 breaks.

I don't believe I ever knowingly agreed to a proposal that makes AKQJ102 only 5 'clearcut' tricks.

There's an L&E meeting next week, I imagine we'll sort it out then.

[NickRW]

FrancesHinden, on Sep 15 2009, 08:52 PM, said:

...I don't believe I ever knowingly agreed to a proposal that makes AKQJ102 only 5 'clearcut' tricks...

You appear to be saying, "assuming a defender has no more than 5 trumps" (or whatever the suit is - it is mostly the trump suit anyway) - which is about how I think of clear cut tricks personally.

All I can say is that most players don't know this regulation - which means that I generally don't get director calls about it - which is a good thing IMO.

Nick

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Sep 11 2009, 03:22 PM, said:

I am investigating.

Incidentally, note that when campboy says "OR 8 clear-cut tricks and enough HCP for a 1-level opening" he has missed out the important "subject to proper disclosure". If you play 2♣ as including this last, saying "Benjamin" when asked is MI.

Well, the exact wording of that particular part of the regulation is:

"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".

It seems to me that there is little point in the L&EC spending a long time (re-)debating whether or not a hand such as:

♠KQJ108765 ♥ QJ102 ♦J ♣ none

counts as "eight clear cut tricks" unless they also define what they mean by "the normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening". Without such a definition, it will still not be clear to TDs whether or not the hand quoted above is supposed to fall within the Orange Book definition of "Strong".

I would suggest that the term "normal high-card strength associated with a one-level opening" can be defined in rather more simple terms than the one that may or may not have been agreed for "eight clear cut tricks". As the concept of high card points (HCP) is widely understood by the EBU membership and is used elsewhere in the Orange Book, the L&EC simply needs to agree on a number, presumably one of 8,9,10,11 and 12.

[bluejak]

I do not think you will get anywhere putting that view here. If you want to get the L&EC to revisit that, you need to ask them to. Since it was my proposal that was defeated I can hardly re-propose it. I would suggest urgency: I doubt they will even agree to reconsider it after Thursday's meeting.

[NickRW]

jallerton, on Sep 22 2009, 10:30 PM, said:

♠KQJ108765 ♥ QJ102 ♦J ♣ none

Well, to add fuel to the fiire, even if they set the limit at say 10, does that stiff Jack really count as 1 or not?

I have to say that I, never the less, generally support your idea. I hate HCP from the bottom of my heart because it is old and crap and shouldn't even be taught anymore let alone find its way into a book of regulations - there are better systems on the market. But, even so, rules which a playing TD has to interpret in about 10 seconds flat are complete rubbish. As for getting old ladies, who have opened strong twos in violation of this rule for years because they were never taught properly in the first place, to even understand vague rules, let alone remember them - argh - it just makes me want to scream.

For pitys sake - write a bl**dy rule that we can all agree what the hell it means.

Nick

[jallerton]

bluejak, on Sep 23 2009, 02:35 AM, said:

I do not think you will get anywhere putting that view here.  If you want to get the L&EC to revisit that, you need to ask them to.  Since it was my proposal that was defeated I can hardly re-propose it.  I would suggest urgency: I doubt they will even agree to reconsider it after Thursday's meeting.

Well, I think the agenda is a matter for the Chairman and Secretary of the L&EC!

The L&EC minutes of 12th February seem to explain the problem:

Quote

Mr Stevenson also suggested that ‘the normal 1bid opening value’ part of the definition was unworkable. Some people thought it meant 12 HCP, some 11, 10 or even 8. 8 HCP is what the Orange Book says is the lowest permitted count for a 1level opening bid (OB11C1).

The minutes then record:

Quote

After discussion the committee voted 3 to 3 to attach a specific point count for a 1level opening. The Chairman used his casting vote to maintain the status quo i.e. no specific point count.

but the argument of those voting against is not recorded.

[bluejak]

I think the Chairman and Secretary rely on things offered to them as correspondence or in other similar ways. One of the advantages of the English approach that I have claimed over the years is the fact that the EBU L&EC listens, but they cannot listen if no-one talks to them.

[shintaro]

NickRW, on Sep 23 2009, 06:43 AM, said:

For pitys sake - write a bl**dy rule that we can all agree what the hell it means.

Nick

Nick dont be silly it is just a no no

[bluejak]

L&EC draft minutes Thu 24/9/9 said:

The committee revisited the minute 2.3.8 of February 12th 2009. There had been several comments either by email or through online forums that the definition of clear-cut tricks did not agree with the examples that had been published and that perhaps the wording was incorrect. It was confirmed that the wording of the minute, and therefore the amendment, was correct. i.e. ‘second best break’. However closer scrutiny revealed that the numbers of clear cut tricks in the examples was incorrect in some cases. In particular KQJxxxx was 5 rather than 4; KQJTxxx was 6 rather than 5 and KJTxxx was 2 rather than 1. With these corrections the committee agreed things were now in order.

Mr Stevenson raised the question of attaching minimum point count to opening values and the committee’s decision not to do so. In particular he had been asked what the objection to doing so was. Mr Burn suggested that placing a limit would lead to TD’s having to make decisions in circumstances such as distributional hands with a singleton jack that were a point under. The chairman suggested that we judge opening bids by more than just high card points and to say that 10HCP was okay, but 9HCP was not would be too restrictive.

[campboy]

Great, thanks for sorting this out.