[Zelandakh]

You know very well that you cannot use "deviation" to get around playing an illegal agreement Paul. In the same way that you cannot open AKQxxxx and out as gambling in WBF rules when the agreement is only legal with an average hand or better, since according to the WBF an average hand in this context means 10hcp using the 4-3-2-1 scale. You have been SBing long enough to know these things so I wonder why you continue to play Devil's advocate in this way.

[lamford]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-November-14, 08:20, said:

You know very well that you cannot use "deviation" to get around playing an illegal agreement Paul. In the same way that you cannot open AKQxxxx and out as gambling in WBF rules when the agreement is only legal with an average hand or better, since according to the WBF an average hand in this context means 10hcp using the 4-3-2-1 scale. You have been SBing long enough to know these things so I wonder why you continue to play Devil's advocate in this way.

Then why does 40C1 say: "A player may deviate from his side’s announced understandings always provided that his partner has no more reason to be aware of the deviation than have the opponents" if the player is not allowed to deviate from an otherwise legal agreement?

And 40A3 states, unambiguously, "A player may make any call or play without prior announcement provided that such call or play is not based on an undisclosed partnership understanding". So the RA is not allowed to prevent the 1NT opening on an 8-count. They are only allowed to prevent one having an agreement to do so, under their power to regulate without restriction partnership understandings.

With the other, I would say, "Our agreement is that we open 3NT on AKQJxxx or better; partner has deviated a few times with AKQ to eight." And I am amazed if the WBF prevents 3NT on AKQxxxxx, for that matter.

[barmar]

 lamford, on 2016-November-14, 05:36, said:

Well. I surveyed half-a-dozen lower standard members of a North London Club, and none of them had heard of Milton Work. One of them thought it was Paradise Lost, and another thought it was a Nobel-prize-winning book on Consumptive Analysis by Friedmann.

I agree, the official name of the 4321 point count system is trivia that most bridge players don't know.

Quote

Where I agree with you is that high-card points (HCP) are indeed understood by practically every beginner to be 4-3-2-1. However, the 4-3-2-1-½ system is also readily understood, but perhaps should be stated on the CC if this is what is used (as it is by almost all top players, even if not rigorously). When people write, as I found two cards yesterday stating, 11½ to 14, are they using an illegal HCP system?

I think I would have to look far and wide to find someone who admitted to counting 10's as 1/2 HCP. What many good players do is upgrade hands that have well-placed 10's and 9's, just as they know that an unsupported Jack isn't worth the full 1 HCP that the Work count assigns and downgrade.

[lamford]

 barmar, on 2016-November-14, 09:32, said:

I think I would have to look far and wide to find someone who admitted to counting 10's as 1/2 HCP. What many good players do is upgrade hands that have well-placed 10's and 9's, just as they know that an unsupported Jack isn't worth the full 1 HCP that the Work count assigns and downgrade.

I think that good players take into account all aspects of a hand, with an approximate adjustment of 1/2 point for a working ten, and it would be far better for the Laws (or any RA) to specify that a 1NT opener had to have 9 HCP (or 10 HCP at lower levels if they choose) or the equivalent in playing strength. And please tell me that Zel is joking when he says that agreeing to open a gambling 3NT on x x AKQTxxxxx xx would be illegal in some jurisdictions! Points Schmoints!

[Zelandakh]

 lamford, on 2016-November-14, 14:58, said:

And please tell me that Zel is joking when he says that agreeing to open a gambling 3NT on x x AKQTxxxxx xx would be illegal in some jurisdictions! Points Schmoints!

3NT would be ok but not 3♠. Here is one of the threads where it came up. As you can see, I am with you in thinking judgement should be allowed but it was later made clear by the WBF that the 9hcp hands were not allowed. "Average hand" means 10hcp using the 4-3-2-1 count. It might not make much sense but there is nothing new in that.

[lamford]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-November-14, 17:46, said:

3NT would be ok but not 3♠. Here is one of the threads where it came up. As you can see, I am with you in thinking judgement should be allowed but it was later made clear by the WBF that the 9hcp hands were not allowed. "Average hand" means 10hcp using the 4-3-2-1 count. It might not make much sense but there is nothing new in that.

Yes, you are right, if, as I expect, RMB1 is right. "There are no WBF restrictions on opening bids from 3NT upwards (or an opening 1NT)." So you can play an opening 1NT Fert as 0-7 balanced or a weak two in clubs if you want, and partner can, if he chooses, ask with 2C which it is, when pass shows both hand types. Other bids will be the final contract, from your point of view. Much more effective than the old Dutch random 2C bid. And also not brown sticker. But only in WBF events; and you can play a 3NT opener as anything you like.

And there does not seem to be any logic (other than laziness) in having a different set of rules for 3S showing a gambling 3NT in a minor, or for 3NT showing a gambling 3NT in a minor. The former is easier to deal with as there are four easy bids over it, Double, 3NT, 4C and 4D as opposed to three over 3NT.

But then the WBF cannot get the Laws right. Why should we expect them to get the system regulations right?

[nige1]

 FrancesHinden, on 2016-November-13, 11:45, said:

Funnily enough, 9 A 1 only applies in Level 5 events. You can tell that if you look carefully, by the fact that it's in the section headed Partnership Understandings: Level 5
The definitions are a direct copy from the WBF systems policy.
In spite of what you might like to believe, I am 100% certain that the WBF reference to Milton Work means 4-3-2-1. However, the WBF being what they are, there is no definition of this.
You can try asking the WBF chief TD.

It's weird that these anomalies persist, decade after decade. The WBF could easily eliminate most such controversies. They could delegate a law-committee member, for a couple of days a month, to clarify and simplify the law and to remove gross anomalies. Each month, the appointee could post the latest version of proposed changes on-line to prompt suggestions and feedback until he was happy with the results. He might eliminate most ambiguities within a year or so.

Perhaps this task is regarded as too onerous and would cost too much in over-time.

[RMB1]

I was wrong about 1NT. At some point since I had to rule on HUM regulations, the regulations have changed.

HUM regulations now refer to "opening bids at the one level" (not, for example, "opening suit bids at the one level"). So 1NT opening bids are restricted by WBF system policy.