[WellSpyder]

jeremy69, on Jul 22 2010, 04:16 AM, said:

Quote

After all, opening 1♣ is one of the weaknesses of the system (unless your opponents can be guaranteed to keep quiet), so minimising its frequency is a good idea

I agree that vigorous intervention can make life difficult but I don't agree that it is a weakness of the system! Sometimes the intervention gets too vigorous and 800 or 1100 follows if you have your methods sorted out.

My view is that it is not necessarily the prospect of intervention that makes 1♣ the potential weakness of a strong club system, but rather the fact that there are quite a wide range of potential hands. The more you shift hands from one opening bid to another the more you simplify the bidding after the opening bid you have taken the hands away from and the more you potentially make life more difficult after the opening bid you have moved the hands into.

[bluejak]

WellSpyder, on Jul 22 2010, 08:47 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 21 2010, 09:14 PM, said:

If a pair is playing Extended Rule of 25 as a minimum I suppose they will have to put that on their card, but I do not think it helpful.  But I think a pair who have this agreement is exceptional.

Now I'm really confused. Do you think it is exceptional because not many people play a strong club these days, or because most of those who do are in breech of the regulations? Or do you simply not accept that this regulation rules out opening 1♣ on a number of hands that many Precision players will feel would otherwise be worth a 1♣ opening?

I do not think that one in a hundred Precision players puts their minimum opening at "Extended Rule of 25".

When I played Strong Clubs I followed Garozzo's approach: you need 16 points for a Strong Club. Of course, I may be exceptional in this.

The very next time you play against someone who plays Precision or any other Strong Club ask them what their absolute minimum is. If the say "Extended Rule of 25" I shall give you fourpence.

[CamHenry]

bluejak, on Jul 22 2010, 06:19 AM, said:

The very next time you play against someone who plays Precision or any other Strong Club ask them what their absolute minimum is. If the say "Extended Rule of 25" I shall give you fourpence.

mjj29 and I play a strong diamond, but our absolute minimum IS ER25. There are bad ER25 hands that we downgrade, but very few (it would have to be singleton kings, quacks all over the place, and a six-card suit to the jack, or something similar).

... but it's a strong diamond, so Bluejak's money is safe.

[bluejak]

jeremy69, on Jul 22 2010, 10:16 AM, said:

Quote

Multi Landy is already noted as unacceptable: 4C4.

I agree but in this respect and others players do put this sort of shorthand on their card which is unhelpful and rarely, if ever, penalised. Try saying to a director that the opponents convention card has "Ghestem" on it with no further explanation and see how far you get.

I hope, trust, and expect that the opponents will get a lecture on correct filling in of a SC. They certainly will if I am the TD. But penalising, no, it is not normal to penalise for this - or most offences - unless there is evidence of repetition or it is a very high level event or pair. In the case of Ghestem especially, I shall also return to check they have amended the card.

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on Jul 22 2010, 06:19 AM, said:

I do not think that one in a hundred Precision players puts their minimum opening at "Extended Rule of 25".....

The very next time you play against someone who plays Precision or any other Strong Club ask them what their absolute minimum is.  If the say "Extended Rule of 25" I shall give you fourpence.

Of course I don't expect them to say this, or to use this as a guide.

But I also expect the vast majority of them would say they upgraded some hands with less than 16 points, and that many would react with disbelief if they were then told that in that case they had better use the extended rule of 25 or they will be ruled to be playing an illegal system. "Don't be ridiculous, the EBU would never do something so stupid. Precision has been around for fifty years. Of course I can open this hand 1♣ if I want to, it's worth at least as much as a typical 16-point hand. Etc, etc"

It seems to be that you are implying two contradictory things in suggesting that the regulation doesn't cause any problems but that no-one takes any notice of it in defining their system. These two views are only compatible if you believe strong club players define 1♣ strictly in terms of points in a way that hardly anyone seems to do for any other bid. This may, of course, be your experience, but it is so contrary to what I have seen, heard or read that it feels to me more like a convenient fiction than a genuine reflection of how people play bridge.

[bluejak]

Where did I say that the regulation never caused any problems? I think the fiction is in your presumption as to what I have said.

I said I do not think it helpful as a description of your methods. Mainly because such a description will certainly cause trouble.

As for being around for fifty years, it is a modern idea to weaken strong bids to include pre-empts.

[mjj29]

bluejak, on Jul 22 2010, 06:19 AM, said:

The very next time you play against someone who plays Precision or any other Strong Club ask them what their absolute minimum is. If the say "Extended Rule of 25" I shall give you fourpence.

What about if they give a minimum that's _below_ ER25?

Matt

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on Jul 22 2010, 07:22 AM, said:

it is a modern idea to weaken strong bids to include pre-empts.

Do you think either of the hands I quoted above (♠Q10x♥AKQ10xx♦Ax♣xx and ♠KQxx♥-♦AJxxx♣AJxx) are pre-empts?

[mjj29]

WellSpyder, on Jul 22 2010, 08:07 AM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 22 2010, 07:22 AM, said:

it is a modern idea to weaken strong bids to include pre-empts.

Do you think either of the hands I quoted above (♠Q10x♥AKQ10xx♦Ax♣xx and ♠KQxx♥-♦AJxxx♣AJxx) are pre-empts?

I think bluejak is more referring to people who open a benji two clubs on AQJxxxxx Kxx xx - because "it has 8 tricks", rather than strong club players who upgrade

[WellSpyder]

mjj29, on Jul 22 2010, 08:16 AM, said:

I think bluejak is more referring to people who open a benji two clubs on AQJxxxxx Kxx xx - because "it has 8 tricks", rather than strong club players who upgrade

Indeed. But the argument seems to be being used to justify unnecessary restrictions on the hands that can be opened with a strong 1♣.

[jeremy69]

Quote

Do you think either of the hands I quoted above (♠Q10x♥AKQ10xx♦Ax♣xx and ♠KQxx♥-♦AJxxx♣AJxx) are pre-empts?

No but you would be nuts to open the second hand 1C Strong. In any event if the limit became 15 then you would remove a jack and ask the same question again and if it became 14........ etc.

[bluejak]

Not at all, WellSpyder. I am not justifying the restrictions in this thread because that isn't the purpose of this thread, which is about disclosure. As for unnecessary, restrictions are certainly necessary because players love opening strong bids with weak hands and getting unfair advantages. But if you want to discuss what they should be, feel free, but please use the correct forum, Changing Laws & Regulations.

It is my view that disclosure needs to be accurate, simple, and intelligible to the audience. In fact, that means there must be some compromise over those three. Yes, the theorists tell you otherwise, but they are talking theory, not playing bridge.

In the past, players made strong bids to show strong hands. There is a growing tendency to use strong bids to show hands strong in distribution. The purpose of this differs from pair to pair, some because they think it more accurate, some because of irrational fear of opening 1-bids with long suits, some because they have had good boards from frightening opponents, some because everyone else is doing it.

Now, if you are going to do this, you have to make sure it is legal and fully disclosed. The EBU has had to tighten its regulations because of a total lack of disclosure, especially where the Benjamin 2♣ is concerned. Have they made the right decision? Again, that is a matter for Changing Laws & Regulations, but one thing that has happened since the first rules were invented for system regulation is that people have complained loudly that the rules are WRONG, UNFAIR, BIASED, and SHOW THE AUTHORITY HAS NO IDEA WHAT IT IS DOING. What they actually mean is that they are not allowed to play their pet agreement.

Ok, here we are worried about disclosure. Now, I think that playing a strong club with the agreement that its minimum is the legal minimum in the Orange book is pretty poor bridge. But what do I know? I am not trying to teach bridge. And if you really are playing that then some sort of indication may be fair. But when Mrs Guggenheim asks what a 1♣ opening is I still think that "Artificial, showing at least Extended Rule of 25" is not an answer that falls within the ethical bounds of Full Disclosure.

[WellSpyder]

jeremy69, on Jul 22 2010, 10:06 AM, said:

Quote

Do you think either of the hands I quoted above (♠Q10x♥AKQ10xx♦Ax♣xx and ♠KQxx♥-♦AJxxx♣AJxx) are pre-empts?

No but you would be nuts to open the second hand 1C Strong.

It is true that my partner and I did not see eye to eye about whether the second hand was worth a 1♣ opening. I am aware of at least one other strong club pair that opened the hand 1♣, though, so your opinion is clearly not a universal one. The hand is clearly worth a lot more than ♠KQxx♥Jx♦AJxxx♣Ax, for instance, which would be valued exactly the same by the Rule of 25.

Quote

In any event if the limit became 15 then you would remove a jack and ask the same question again and if it became 14........ etc.

Actually, no I wouldn't (though I'm not sure it would cause my opponents much discomfort if at the extreme I played a system where all opening hands were opened 1♣!) - but it was precisely to try to allay any concern over the point you raise that when I asked the EBU Laws & Ethics Committee to review this regulation I suggested one option would be to define a lower limit as 16 points or the equivalent allowing for extra distribution, suit quaility, or intermediates. This is not as simple as, for example, specifying a 15-point lower limit, but would certainly be an alternative if the only reason not to allow a 15-point hand was the concern that a 14-point hand would be next....,

[RMB1]

WellSpyder, on Jul 22 2010, 04:32 PM, said:

I suggested one option would be to define a lower limit as 16 points or the equivalent allowing for extra distribution, suit quaility, or intermediates. This is not as simple as, for example, specifying a 15-point lower limit, but would certainly be an alternative if the only reason not to allow a 15-point hand was the concern that a 14-point hand would be next....,

Because pairs would agree to open all 15HCP hands and manage to find some extra distribution, suit quaility, or intermediates to justify meeting the regulation on any given hand that was questioned.

"Oh, I think 87 combinations are particularly powerful"

[NickRW]

Well, FWIW, when I started playing more IMPs, I thought for quite a while about going over to Precision again with my normal P. However, this nonsense in the Orange book that makes illegal quite a few openers that many strong 1♣ers would upgrade, made me reject the idea out of hand.

Still thinking about a strong 1D - but, if you put the headline rate for that at, say, "18+ bal, 17+ unbal - maybe a few upgrades" you're much less likely to fall foul of the well intentioned by silly rules.

Nick

[WellSpyder]

bluejak, on Jul 22 2010, 10:26 AM, said:

if you want to discuss what they should be, feel free, but please use the correct forum, Changing Laws & Regulations.

Fair enough - and I have discussed exactly this issue in that forum previously. It was certainly not my intention to hijack this thread by raising issues about changing the regulations. But I felt (and still feel) that some of your points about disclosure ignored the reality of what this regulation means for many people who play a strong club.

Quote

Ok, here we are worried about disclosure.  Now, I think that playing a strong club with the agreement that its minimum is the legal minimum in the Orange book is pretty poor bridge.  But what do I know?

I'm sure you know a lot about what is and is not poor bridge. But my impression from previous discussions on these forums is that there are stronger players than me (and perhaps even stronger players than you) who believe it is good bridge to open a strong club on some hands that fall foul of the current EBU regulation. And I think a good many very good Precision players will want to open 1♣ on hands that are pretty damned close to the legal minimum in the Orange book.

[NickRW]

I have to say that, on the one hand, I appreciate the problem the regulators face. It would be possible to make a 'more accurate' rule that took account of shortages and controls and so on. But as a sometime TD in a local game, I don't relish the thought of reading out the new Orange Book regulation at the start of a session and trying to answer all the questions in five minutes flat. So it has to be simple.

On the other hand, I think maybe it is a little too simplistic. I am sure that the main problem uppermost in the regulators minds at the time was how to regulate the Benji 2♣ opener, especially given the backdrop of this being England and Acol (with its 8 playing tricks notion) being so prevalent. Yet the same rule is used to regulate all strong openings, including 1♣ starting a whole level lower - when it is clearly a different beast.

Nick

[mycroft]

Playing Precision in my partnership, I would feel comfortable opening the long heart hand 1C, and I might even do it - but only because the response I fear is 1S 4+, and if I open it 1C, I'll either get 4 or 5+. I don't *want* to upgrade it, it's just easier to bid that way. The second hand I would never push to open 1C, but that's because a) it's hard to show three suiters, so if partner doesn't have one (that isn't hearts), I'm liable to get too high, b) if partner bids 1D, you don't really have enough strength to "reverse", so you're stuck misdescribing your hand, and c) you have to have one positive hand bid 2D, and (knowing it's bad) for us that hand is the game force with hearts - which is more likely than any other single positive response. I'd *downgrade* that shape out of 1C, not upgrade it.

But that's not disclosure - except that the opponents are entitled to the fact that the evil 1C-2D auction for us is GF Hearts.

The reason I think "ERo25" is almost always bad disclosure is that there are very few pairs who will bid hands that are <16HCP but meet ERo25, that don't meet non-extended Rule of 25. The "extended" is for the "eight clear-cut trick" hands - and those are, in almost everyone's estimation, better opened in the suit. By claiming you open ERo25 1C, if you agree with this argument, you are explicitly informing your opponents that you will open your strong bid on hands you don't, and in a way that implies less average defence (over the class of all 1C openers) than you actually have.

The "Acol 2" 2C bidders that do open "eight clear-cut trick" hands and don't/badly disclose it benefit because they get to "preempt-by-power" (while partner knows not to double the opponents' making "sacrifice" if they bid it); the strong 1C players who claim "ERo25" when in fact they open the strong 1-suiters in the suit benefit from the additional risks that truly opening 1C "ERo25" would allow the opponents.

"16+ or Rule of 25", if that's what you play, fine. "16+, upgrading Ro25 hands with at least one major", again. But saying that 1C is "ERo25" (which it is, to be legal, but there's other limitations on it, so not full disclosure) is like me saying that 2D is "three-suited with 10+ HCP" (which it is, to be legal, but there are other limitations on it...)

"But the opponents gripe if I say 16+, and I have AKQxxx KQJxx x x, and the TD will rule in their favour" - really, the TDs have played this game before. They may not have an world-class player's judgement, but they have some. And if the TD, using judgement, says that you've misdescribed your agreement, then it's at least worth thinking about whether your agreement really is what you say, or whether your "occasional upgrades for distibution" is actually "frequent upgrades" or even "Rule of 25, but we downgrade the bad ones and the ones without a major". Because if, in the TD's judgement, the hand you opened doesn't fit in the description you gave, it's very likely that at least half the field agrees with her, not you.

[mjj29]

WellSpyder, on Jul 22 2010, 10:32 AM, said:

Actually, no I wouldn't (though I'm not sure it would cause my opponents much discomfort if at the extreme I played a system where all opening hands were opened 1♣!)

Maybe you should play in the ACBL then, when you are allowed to have 1C show 'any opening hand' (but can't open 1NT with a singleton...) (-;

[blackshoe]

From the ACBL Tech Files:

Quote

There is not now, nor has there ever been, any regulation which prohibits a player from opening (or overcalling) a natural NT with a singleton if sound bridge judgment dictates doing so.