[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2013-April-12, 07:06, said:

If you open your 10 counts at the 1 level then yes (unless HUM is allowed in the event), if you open them at the 2 level (or higher) then OK.

This can be taken to absurd levels though. Is "weaker" purely defined by HCP ? Saying I open all unbalanced rule of 19 hands with 9 or more points 1suit but require rule of 20 if balanced would seem to be a reasonable way of defining hand strength, and not make the pass "stronger" than the bids in playing strength even if it does in HCP.

[lamford]

PeterAlan, on 2013-April-11, 08:17, said:

BTW, opening 2x on a 4-card suit is not EHAA as I know it, where such a bid specifically guarantees 5+ cards.

That is NEHAA, nearly every hand an adventure. Perhaps they were playing MEHAA, modified EHAA. All I know is that they opened all 0-9s.

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2013-April-12, 07:06, said:

If you open your 10 counts at the 1 level then yes (unless HUM is allowed in the event), if you open them at the 2 level (or higher) then OK.

This seems like a really bad rule. Is traditional Precision not a HUM by this definition? You are supposed to pass all 10-12 point hands (1NT is 13-15) and 1♦♥♠ are opened light with a maximum of 15 - 10hcp would be completely normal. And, of course, 1♣ is 16+. Of course, if your regulation defined weaker as "weaker for the same hand type" then this would not be a problem. But, as Cyberyeti points out, there are lots of ways of measuring the strength of a hand, and any scheme that does factor in distribution is so flawed as to be worse than useless.

[helene_t]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-12, 07:55, said:

Of course, if your regulation defined weaker as "weaker for the same hand type" then this would not be a problem.

I think this is reasonably straight-forward. If a given hand is a 1-level opening, but changing (say) a jack to a queen would make it a pass, then we are playing a HUM system.

[barmar]

Trinidad, on 2013-April-11, 16:01, said:

This case may be constructed, but when Sjoert Brink was (even) younger than now he played pretty much exactly this system: Openings were 12+ and 2 level preempts were 0-7, leaving pass to show 8-11.

Some (older) players were arguing that this system was illegal.

Rik

What did he open with balanced 0-7? Did he preempt in a 4-card suit?

[campboy]

FWIW I thought this system was called Lorenzo, not EHAA.

[Trinidad]

barmar, on 2013-April-12, 10:32, said:

What did he open with balanced 0-7? Did he preempt in a 4-card suit?

Yes. He played his system with Oltmans. They called it Oltbrink.

And, for the record, they nicely alerted their opening passes as showing approximately 8-11.

Rik

[lamford]

campboy, on 2013-April-12, 10:40, said:

FWIW I thought this system was called Lorenzo, not EHAA.

You are right.

Briefly this is
* 2C = 0-7 4+C, no 4cM, longest suit clubs
* 2D = 0-7 4+D, no 4cM, but may have clubs same length or less
* 2H = 0-7 4+H, your longer major (could have longer minor)
* 2S = 0-7 4+S, your longer major (could have longer minor)

This is bid on ALL hands fitting this description (so can infer 8-11 HCP from
a pass).

The matter was first raised in 2006:

On 2006-04-28, David Collier <col3435@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I wrote to the secretary of the L&E to ask about this. Apparently
it is not legal at any level, because of the conventional meaning
of a pass. This is not explicitly stated in the current Orange Book,
but it will be in the next version which comes into effect in
August.

http://newsgroups.de...4/msg02558.html gives further reading. And even then they realised that if one chucked in to the Pass the 4-4-4-3 0 HCP hands, it would be legal. Far better to chuck in the genuine Yarborough of course.

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-12, 07:55, said:

This seems like a really bad rule. Is traditional Precision not a HUM by this definition? You are supposed to pass all 10-12 point hands (1NT is 13-15) and 1♦♥♠ are opened light with a maximum of 15 - 10hcp would be completely normal. And, of course, 1♣ is 16+. Of course, if your regulation defined weaker as "weaker for the same hand type" then this would not be a problem. But, as Cyberyeti points out, there are lots of ways of measuring the strength of a hand, and any scheme that does factor in distribution is so flawed as to be worse than useless.

This part of our HUM regulation is a strickt HCP rule independent of hand type.

I don't see how precision would be HUM under this rule, AFAIK there is no hand with more HCP than required for an opening bid at the 1-level with which a precision player must pass instead of making an opening bid. (1♦ takes care of all "impossible" hands.)

[mycroft]

I play 10-12 NT in EHAA, and my 1 bids are sound. As a result, there are 10-12 4441 hands that can not be opened NT, can not be opened 1-of-a-suit, and have no 5-card suit to open 2x. Illegal?

[Cyberyeti]

pran, on 2013-April-12, 14:53, said:

This part of our HUM regulation is a strickt HCP rule independent of hand type.

I don't see how precision would be HUM under this rule, AFAIK there is no hand with more HCP than required for an opening bid at the 1-level with which a precision player must pass instead of making an opening bid. (1♦ takes care of all "impossible" hands.)

Not if you play the really old style 3+ card diamond, there is no opening bid for a 4324 11 count, but you open 1 of a suit on a 5-5 10.

[blackshoe]

As I said in another thread I'm tired and cranky, so maybe I'm over reacting, but that kind of regulatory structure strikes me as insane.

[FrancesHinden]

The WBF regulations (same as the one pran quoted for Norway) make no sense at all read literally. They only 'work' at international events because everyone 'knows' what they are intended to mean. It's easy to pick severe holes in the rest of the WBF system regs as well if you want.

We certainly won't be adopting in the EBU a regulation that says if you systemically open 1S on AJ109xx A109xx x x then you can't also systemically pass on QJxx QJx Qxx Qxx

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2013-April-11, 09:19, said:

The wording is quite poor. If, for example, a pair had the method that Pass was either a 4333 genuine Yarborough (about 10,000-1) or 12+ any shape, then their method would be legal, because the Pass does not show values.

As you want a better wording, can I suggest "It is not permitted to play an opening pass to include any hand of 13 points or more".

When I was learning, I was taught that it's correct to pass in any seat on, say, K QJxx QJxx KJxx

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-13, 09:24, said:

When I was learning, I was taught that it's correct to pass in any seat on, say, K QJxx QJxx KJxx

That is because this hand is downgraded and is not worth 13 points.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-April-13, 12:25, said:

That is because this hand is downgraded and is not worth 13 points.

Then your rule should be "It is not permitted to play an opening pass to include any hand which is worth 13 points or more". Though that still doesn't solve the problem of forcing a conservative opener to act against his judgement.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-13, 12:29, said:

Then your rule should be "It is not permitted to play an opening pass to include any hand which is worth 13 points or more". Though that still doesn't solve the problem of forcing a conservative opener to act against his judgement.

The object is to prevent strong pass systems - I have no idea why but an eminent poster said that this is "squarely what the regulation is against". If you want to prevent a strong pass (I don't but the EBU do) you have to have some regulation to stop pass showing an opening bid. Perhaps the regulation should be something like "It is not permitted to play an opening pass to show only hands above 10 points".

[nige1]

lamford, on 2013-April-11, 07:08, said:

Game All. Dealer South. Matchpoints
The above hand was, unsurprisingly, passed out at all tables at a local club last night. However, East, who looks and behaves like SB, was not happy. "I thought you juniors opened every hand with your EHAA system?" he asked. "Well", said South,"we play a 11-13 NT vul and 10-12 non-vul and we open all 0-9s as weak twos which can be a four-card suit even vulnerable, so, yes, we pretty much open every hand". "Pretty much is not good enough", retorted SB. "On this hand, you breached OB 12B1, in that your Pass showed exactly a 10-count, and it is not permitted to play an opening pass to show values."
"I can score it as 60-40 to us if you like", SB continued, quoting WB90.4.2 verbatim, "or would you like the TD to rubber-stamp that?". How would you rule?

---

billw55, on 2013-April-11, 08:47, said:

Lamford, most of your constructions are interesting, but IMO this isn't one of them.

Only 36+ replies Some of us find Lamford's topics challenging and fascinating

helene_t, on 2013-April-12, 08:16, said:

I think this is reasonably straight-forward. If a given hand is a 1-level opening, but changing (say) a jack to a queen would make it a pass, then we are playing a HUM system.

Best to to scrap such regulations but if the EBU want to retain this regulation then Helene_t's formulation seems to work

Trinidad, on 2013-April-12, 10:47, said:

And, for the record, they nicely alerted their opening passes as showing ...

Trinidad is right, The pass may or may not be legal but it is certainly alertable. The Secretary Bird with an intimate knowldge of opponents' entire system was able to work it out. But most opponents would need to be told

FrancesHinden, on 2013-April-13, 09:22, said:

The WBF regulations (same as the one pran quoted for Norway) make no sense at all read literally. They only 'work' at international events because everyone 'knows' what they are intended to mean. It's easy to pick severe holes in the rest of the WBF system regs as well if you want.
We certainly won't be adopting in the EBU a regulation that says if you systemically open 1S on AJ109xx A109xx x x then you can't also systemically pass on QJxx QJx Qxx Qxx

Bridge law-makers belong to different legislatures and develop sophisticated rules spread over a complex structure of of laws, regulations, conditions and minutes, so it's amazing that they manage to get so much right. Imagine what they could achieve if they amalgamated the rules, dropped those deemed unnecessary, and drastically simplified the rest! Then players might understand and.abide by rules as written, rather than guess at law-makers' intentions.

[campboy]

lamford, on 2013-April-13, 12:30, said:

The object is to prevent strong pass systems - I have no idea why but an eminent poster said that this is "squarely what the regulation is against". If you want to prevent a strong pass (I don't but the EBU do) you have to have some regulation to stop pass showing an opening bid. Perhaps the regulation should be something like "It is not permitted to play an opening pass to show only hands above 10 points".

I don't see what the problem with the current regulation is, other than the possibility of getting round it by including some very rare weak option, which your suggestion doesn't solve either.

It seems clear to me that intermediate passes, as well as strong ones, are intentionally not permitted. If they were to be permitted there would certainly need to be provision for opponents to play some sort of defence against them, which there currently isn't.

[nige1]

lamford, on 2013-April-11, 09:19, said:

The wording is quite poor. If, for example, a pair had the method that Pass was either a 4333 genuine Yarborough (about 10,000-1) or 12+ any shape, then their method would be legal, because the Pass does not show values.

You could instead agree to pass on weak hands with four deuces and four treys. If partner held any of these cards, he would know you had an intermediate+ pass. And opponents would have the same clue.

lamford, on 2013-April-11, 09:19, said:

As you want a better wording, can I suggest "It is not permitted to play an opening pass to include any hand of 13 points or more".

Simple. As Gnasher says that outlaws judgement; but so do many attempts at system-regulation. .