[jallerton]

NickRW, on Jul 24 2010, 04:25 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 24 2010, 11:33 AM, said:

NickRW, on Jul 23 2010, 03:35 PM, said:

We're just saying that the way that the regs are worded right now makes illegal something that was always intended to be part of a 1♣ opener in Precision.

Oh, no. That is definitely untrue. When Precision was invented players believed much more that points were necessary for strong openings. At that time, Precision players had 16 points for 1♣. It is a new idea to open distributional hands with strong artificial openings.

What does the sequence 1♥ 1NT 3♥ show in Precision? Simple: a hand that these days players want to open 1♣.

Not as I recall it. Some of you perhaps have the benefit of a copy of the old books - I gave my Reese book on Precision to a former partner - but I seem to clearly recall a couple of examples that were powerful rule of 24 hands that he did recommend be included in 1♣.

I am afraid your memory is faulty. I repeat below the results of my research from several months ago.

In Precision Bidding for Everyone (Goren & Wei), it is explained that the correct opening bid is 1♦ on:

♠AQ ♥none ♦KJ1095 ♣ KQ10973

Quote

Even though your playing strength is exceptional, you lack the required 16HCP to open 1♣.  As we shall discuss later, strong rebids are available to describe excellent distributional hands  after a "limited" opening bid like 1♦ 

So in original Precision, it seems that there are no upgrades for distribution or exceptional intermediates!

In Precision Bidding and Precision Play, Terence Reese is slightly less strict. Although he explains that it would be a mistake to open 1♣ on:

♠5 ♥AK10974 ♦KQJ86 ♣4

he goes on to say that:

Terence Reese said:

It is quite right to open 1♣ on an exceptional hand such as:

♠AQJ10852 ♥none ♦AK84 ♣62.

Here you have three first round controls and will not be carried into space by a partner who may also have a good hand.

Interestingly, Reese's exceptional hand both conforms with the Rule of 25 and contains eight "clear cut tricks", whilst the hand on which it would be a "mistake" to open 1♣ does not meet either of those criteria.

In "either or" 1♣ systems such Carrot/Swedish Club and Polish Club then the traditional minimum strength for the strong option is 17, 18+ or 19+HCP so the EBU's 16+ minimum does allow slack for judgement upgrades when playing the traditional versions of these system.

[dburn]

helene_t, on Jul 24 2010, 05:18 PM, said:

dburn, if you are happy for opps to play a 1♣ opening that is basically defined as rule-of-23, but just not happy for them to call it "strong club", then it sounds to me as if you and Cascade agree, at least with respect to what the regulation should say.

When I say that I am happy for my opponents to play whatever they like, it does not follow that I think there should be a regulation to the effect that everyone should be happy for the opponents to play whatever they like.

I don't think that at all. As I have remarked elsewhere, I think that people who organise tournaments should be free to impose whatever restrictions they want to impose on the methods that may be played in those tournaments. If you don't like the restrictions, don't play in the tournaments.

I also think it ridiculous for the organisers of any event billed as a World, or European, or English, or Outer Mongolian Championship to impose any restrictions at all on what people play in those tournaments. But, as above, they can if they want to - after all, no one is going to say "we won't play in the Bermuda Bowl if we can't play a strong pass". Moreover, although I believe that the USA currently hold only the World Championship For People Who Still Bid Like Your Auntie Gladys, there isn't any other World Championship for them to hold, and their achievement is as considerable as it could possibly be.

Whatever you play, though, you must tell the opponents what it is. Because there are considerable restrictions on the methods we allow, it is just about possible to describe those methods in a way that can readily be understood by those who must play against them at short notice for a limited period of time. We should be (nay, we are) gradually relaxing those restrictions, but there are limits.

If you want to play "1♣ shows 16+ balanced or 13+ unbalanced, but unbalanced 13-15 point hands will only be opened 1♣ if they conform to the Rule of 25", try asking us whether you may. No one has actually done that yet, and I don't know what our answer would be. But don't ask us "if we call our system a strong club, may we open 1♣ on some thirteen counts?" You may not.

[hrothgar]

dburn, on Jul 26 2010, 02:06 AM, said:

If you want to play "1♣ shows 16+ balanced or 13+ unbalanced, but unbalanced 13-15 point hands will only be opened 1♣ if they conform to the Rule of 25", try asking us whether you may. No one has actually done that yet, and I don't know what our answer would be. But don't ask us "if we call our system a strong club, may we open 1♣ on some thirteen counts?" You may not.

Out of curiosity, what are the alert/announcement requirements if I were to play a Blue Club style 1NT opening in the EBU?

[blackshoe]

The problem as I see it is that if you say "anything goes" at World Championships (which are held by the WBF, not the USA), but disallow some methods at all lower levels, people don't get a chance to practice their methods, perhaps to refine them, at least to become familiar with them.

No one in his right mind is going to wake up on the first day of his first (or tenth) World Championship match and suggest to his partner "today, let's play Regres", never having played it before.

[dburn]

hrothgar, on Jul 25 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

Out of curiosity, what are the alert/announcement requirements if I were to play a Blue Club style 1NT opening in the EBU?

Oh, you simply announce "13-17". The fact that you will be 13-15 only if you do not have a four-card suit other than clubs is left for your opponents somehow to discover. The regulations do not permit them to do this very easily, if at all, but the purpose of alerting and announcing anything in England is to conform to the regulations, not to assist the opponents.

[Cascade]

dburn, on Jul 25 2010, 09:54 AM, said:

Cascade, on Jul 24 2010, 04:11 PM, said:

jeremy69, on Jul 24 2010, 03:28 AM, said:

Even if they overcall then they probably won't have discussed a cue bid to show a good hand with support so they are disadvantaged in my view if 1C sinks to a lower level as they will have more of these hands so this is a further reason for the limit that has been set.

If this is true they are disadvantaged by their own lack of preparation.

Not really. You see, they need to know that there is something against which they should prepare.

Whereas I don't mind my opponents opening 1♣ with any thirteen cards they happen to hold, I take considerable exception to their doing so under the guise of playing a "strong club system". They are not playing a strong club system - what they are actually doing is playing a system in which it is safer for them than it would otherwise be to open some horrible nine count, since partner will know that they did not open a "strong" club.

Now, all that is also perfectly fine - if it's what you want to play, you should be allowed to play it. My experience with systems such as Magic Diamond, which is more closely defined than this New Precision in that it uses two nebulous openings rather than one for most hands better than a horrible nine count, is that they do not work. But I do not want to prevent you from playing a method that does not work - I just do not want you as a team-mate.

What you should not be allowed to do, though, is go around confusing people into thinking that they should play their strong club defence against your "strong club system". They should not. But they will not know that they should not, and that is why we make the regulations we make. If you had to disclose your methods properly, they would fall foul of those regulations, and it is not open to you to attempt to circumvent this by calling your methods something that they are not.

Of course Reese wouldn't open a 1=6=5=1 13-count a strong club. He knew what would happen if his opponents bid spades, and in those days (unlike these days) his opponents had to have spades before they could bid them.

I agree with most of what you have written.

However I see this as an argument about disclosure not for system restriction.

[mjj29]

dburn, on Jul 25 2010, 06:06 PM, said:

We should be (nay, we are) gradually relaxing those restrictions

How ironic, given the most recent Laws and Ethics committee meeting just banned my system in all the tournaments that I play in

[bluejak]

dburn, on Jul 26 2010, 12:42 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Jul 25 2010, 06:17 PM, said:

Out of curiosity, what are the alert/announcement requirements if I were to play a Blue Club style 1NT opening in the EBU?

Oh, you simply announce "13-17". The fact that you will be 13-15 only if you do not have a four-card suit other than clubs is left for your opponents somehow to discover. The regulations do not permit them to do this very easily, if at all, but the purpose of alerting and announcing anything in England is to conform to the regulations, not to assist the opponents.

Maybe. Or maybe not. The only pairs whom I know who play this alert it.

[helene_t]

yeah I think it makes sense to alert it.

[jallerton]

Well it might make sense from an "active ethics" point of view, but the pairs Bluejak knows are clearly breaching the Orange Book regulations (5C1 says that natural 1NT openinggs are announceable and 5E1 implies that announceable bids are not alertable) and despite their good intentions they should apparently (according to 5H2) be given procedural penalties.

If I were playing this system I would make an effort to draw my opponents' attention to this part of the system at the start of the round. I might also risk procedural penalties by announcing it as something like: "16-17 or perhaps 13-15 with a precise shape"

mjj29 said:

How ironic, given the most recent Laws and Ethics committee meeting just banned my system in all the tournaments that I play in

I thought you played Strong Diamond. That is still allowed at Level 4, isn't it?

[bluejak]

Well, they banned my favourite system.

It is the view of the people who play the Blue Club 1NT that it is not natural and so needs an alert.

[gnasher]

bluejak, on Jul 26 2010, 06:29 PM, said:

It is the view of the people who play the Blue Club 1NT that it is not natural and so needs an alert.

But it appears to be the view of the authors of the Orange Book that it does not:

Orange Book said:

5 G 3 Players should not alert:
...
(3) A natural 1NT opening that has some agreed distributional constraints such as having no four card major, or allowing a six card minor.

If I played this method, I too would find a way, legal or otherwise, to make sure that the opponents knew what the bid meant.

[bluejak]

gnasher, on Jul 26 2010, 06:44 PM, said:

bluejak, on Jul 26 2010, 06:29 PM, said:

It is the view of the people who play the Blue Club 1NT that it is not natural and so needs an alert.

But it appears to be the view of the authors of the Orange Book that it does not:

Orange Book said:

5 G 3 Players should not alert:
...
(3) A natural 1NT opening that has some agreed distributional constraints such as having no four card major, or allowing a six card minor.

If I played this method, I too would find a way, legal or otherwise, to make sure that the opponents knew what the bid meant.

Really? Which authors are those?

The paragraph you quote starts "A natural 1NT opening ..." so is not relevant if this is not a natural 1NT opening.

[campboy]

If it is natural they should not alert it. If it is not natural, they may not play it: the Orange Book only permits 1NT openings which are "natural" (level 2+), "strong and artificial" (level 3+), "intermediate and artificial" (level 4+, in this case a known suit of at least four cards is required) or "Stoker" (level 4+, showing a three-suited opening hand).

[gnasher]

The passage I quoted above implies that a 1NT opening which shows a balanced hand but denies a 4-card heart or spade suit is "natural". Given that, it seems difficult to argue that a 1NT opening which shows a balanced hand but denies a 4-card diamond, heart or spade suit for part of its range is not "natural".

On the other hand, the Orange Book also tells us that a "natural" 1NT bid is

Orange Book, on Glossary, said:

A bid of no trumps which shows a preparedness to play in no trumps, and which conveys no unusual information about suit holdings

It seems to me that either "no four-card major" or "no four-card suit outside clubs" would constitute unusual information in this context.

[mjj29]

jallerton, on Jul 26 2010, 11:45 AM, said:

mjj29 said:

How ironic, given the most recent Laws and Ethics committee meeting just banned my system in all the tournaments that I play in

I thought you played Strong Diamond. That is still allowed at Level 4, isn't it?

A strong diamond with the majors showing the other major. Which is now not allowed at level 4