[lamford]

---

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?

[blackshoe]

If I were south, I would call the TD and repeat verbatim what the SB said.

If I were the TD I'd tell the SB to get a life.

[barmar]

blackshoe, on 2013-April-11, 07:37, said:

If I were the TD I'd tell the SB to get a life.

Isn't the meaning of life for the SB to haggle over the laws?

[PeterAlan]

Whilst endorsing blackshoe's response, Paul, I'll rise to your bait. The Pass isn't showing values - rather, it's denying the values for a 1-level opening. Yes, it happens to be a consequence of the other methods played that this implies exactly 10 HCP, but that's not the same as the Pass "showing values".

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

[ahydra]

So the point here is that the White Book shouldn't say "It is not permitted to play an opening Pass to show values", but more "It is not permitted to play an opening Pass as (potentially) showing values stronger than those shown by any 1-level opening bid in the partnership's system"? (No doubt there's an exploit there also, but I'm meant to be fixing my code at work...)

ahydra

[RMB1]

ahydra, on 2013-April-11, 08:34, said:

So the point here is that the White Book shouldn't say "It is not permitted to play an opening Pass to show values", but more "It is not permitted to play an opening Pass as (potentially) showing values stronger than those shown by any 1-level opening bid in the partnership's system"? (No doubt there's an exploit there also, but I'm meant to be fixing my code at work...)

Suppose the L&E want to make a different regulation for a Pass before any player has bid, what should it say?

"Any meaning is permitted for an initial Pass, unless it [both] shows values and may be stronger than 12 HCP / rule of 19" ?

[billw55]

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

[lamford]

RMB1, on 2013-April-11, 08:46, said:

Suppose the L&E want to make a different regulation for a Pass before any player has bid, what should it say?

"Any meaning is permitted for an initial Pass, unless it [both] shows values and may be stronger than 12 HCP / rule of 19" ?

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".

[lamford]

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

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

I agree with you. It was intended to be uninteresting, which is why it was passed out. And I would not be trying to find some hidden point in the construction, if I were you.

[gnasher]

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".

If someone wants to play that an opening bid promises 14+, why shouldn't they?

[RMB1]

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.

But it is legal now.

I guess they were aware of that when they wrote the current regulation.

[lamford]

gnasher, on 2013-April-11, 09:43, said:

If someone wants to play that an opening bid promises 14+, why shouldn't they?

Because they might well miss a game when each has 13 points. Did you mean: "Why shouldn't they be allowed to"? Well, the OB sets a minimum for an opening bid; it is logical to set a maximum for a pass.

[gnasher]

lamford, on 2013-April-11, 09:53, said:

Because they might well miss a game when each has 13 points. Did you mean: "Why shouldn't they be allowed to"? Well, the OB sets a minimum for an opening bid; it is logical to set a maximum for a pass.

Saying that something is logical doesn't make it so.

The EBU sets a minimum for an opening bid. I believe that is because most players don't want to play against openings with a low minimum, and because such openings are hard to defend against.

The EBU doesn't currently set a maximum for an opening pass. I expect that is because most players are happy to play against passes with a high maximum, and have no difficulty in defending against them.

[campboy]

About 13 years ago my partner (who didn't look much like a secretary bird but was a facetious young man from Oxbridge) wrote to the UBC committee because he'd noticed a pair playing these methods and knew that they weren't permitted by EBU regulations. He got a reply along the lines of "fortunately the UBC doesn't have any system regulations, EBU or otherwise".

Anyway, 60/40 wtp? And obviously SB needs to be told not to make his own rulings.

[pran]

gnasher, on 2013-April-11, 11:14, said:

[...]
The EBU doesn't currently set a maximum for an opening pass. I expect that is because most players are happy to play against passes with a high maximum, and have no difficulty in defending against them.

I am not particularly familiar with EBU regulations, but I would bre surprised if they are much different from the corresponding Norwegian regulations on HUM and BS:

Our rules say that a system is HUM if an opening bid at the 1 level is or can be weaker than PASS in the same position.

This is of course equivalent to say that a system is HUM if PASS before any player has bid is or can be stronger than an opening bid at the 1-level.

But that doesn't seem to be the case here?

[gnasher]

pran, on 2013-April-11, 14:28, said:

I am not particularly familiar with EBU regulations, but I would bre surprised if they are much different from the corresponding Norwegian regulations on HUM and BS:

I'm not sure why you should expect the two to be similar, but they're not. The English regulations don't define or use the terms HUM or BS. The regulation about an opening pass is the one quoted by Ahydra in post no 5: "It is not permitted to play an opening Pass to show values."

[Cyberyeti]

campboy, on 2013-April-11, 12:11, said:

About 13 years ago my partner (who didn't look much like a secretary bird but was a facetious young man from Oxbridge) wrote to the UBC committee because he'd noticed a pair playing these methods and knew that they weren't permitted by EBU regulations. He got a reply along the lines of "fortunately the UBC doesn't have any system regulations, EBU or otherwise".

Anyway, 60/40 wtp? And obviously SB needs to be told not to make his own rulings.

Andrew Dyson and John Hobson in 1985/86 played their "pass throughout" system at the UBC scoring pretty well, not sure whether that's legal either, you can have a 30+ point pass, but pass doesn't show more values than a bid as they never bid.

[Trinidad]

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

[Zelandakh]

pran, on 2013-April-11, 14:28, said:

Our rules say that a system is HUM if an opening bid at the 1 level is or can be weaker than PASS in the same position.

So if I want to open all unbalanced 10 counts but pass all balanced 11 counts, this is illegal?

[pran]

Zelandakh, on 2013-April-12, 04:28, said:

So if I want to open all unbalanced 10 counts but pass all balanced 11 counts, this is illegal?

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.