[piratepete]

Hi, this is a system regulation question primarily about the EBU.

The Orange book has lower limits on what can be opened 1x, and opening pass `cannot be used to show values'. Does this mean that something like opening pass in first/second: 0-9/10 any or 13-15 bal would be legal, as the pass doesn't usually show values, and 1x shows 9+?

This method would have no fert, and would basically rely on 3/4 opening light to control the 13-15 option.

Would it make a difference if it were 0-9/10 any or 10-15, 5+♣?

Thanks for your time.

[pran]

piratepete, on 2011-December-06, 09:11, said:

Hi, this is a system regulation question primarily about the EBU.

The Orange book has lower limits on what can be opened 1x, and opening pass `cannot be used to show values'. Does this mean that something like opening pass in first/second: 0-9/10 any or 13-15 bal would be legal, as the pass doesn't usually show values, and 1x shows 9+?

This method would have no fert, and would basically rely on 3/4 opening light to control the 13-15 option.

Would it make a difference if it were 0-9/10 any or 10-15, 5+♣?

Thanks for your time.

The general rule (I don't know EBU specifically) is that any system allowing (in an opening position) PASS to be made on a hand with more strength than a hand that can make an opening bid at the one level is HUM.

So if you can open at the one level with 9+ HCP there must be no hand holding 10 or more HCP that can be passed in this position.

[gnasher]

The only relevant EBU regulation appears to be "It is not permitted to play an opening pass to show values.". In the suggested methods pass doesn't show values, it merely may have them. Hence it's allowed.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-December-06, 10:40

[gnasher]

pran, on 2011-December-06, 09:39, said:

The general rule (I don't know EBU specifically) is that any system allowing (in an opening position) PASS to be made on a hand with more strength than a hand that can make an opening bid at the one level is HUM.

The relevant part of the WBF system policy reads: "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass." That's a bit ambiguous.

Sven appears to interpret this as "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than another hand that would pass." That would make quite a lot of systems into HUMs. It's quite common, for example, to agree that minor-suit openings are sounder than major-suit openings.

I think that it is actually intended to mean "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than a hand of the same shape that would pass." That would still make PiratePete's methods a HUM.

Quote

So if you can open at the one level with 9+ HCP there must be no hand holding 10 or more HCP that can be passed in this position.

That's certainly not what the WBF system policy says (though maybe it's different in other jurisdictions). The WBF regulations don't mention HCP: they talk about strength. Suppose that I agree to open AQxxxxx Kxxxx x - at the one-level, but to pass AQxx Kxx xxx Jxx. That is clearly not a HUM by the WBF's definition.

[Edited because I got it wrong the first time]

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2011-December-06, 10:39

[mrdct]

gnasher, on 2011-December-06, 10:31, said:

The relevant part of the WBF system policy reads: "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than pass." That's a bit ambiguous.

Sven appears to interpret this as "By partnership agreement an opening bid at the one level may be weaker than another hand that would pass." That would make quite a lot of systems into HUMs. It's quite common, for example, to agree that minor-suit openings are sounder than major-suit openings.

Playing mini 1NT with a range of, say, 8-10 bal at favourable vul may also run into problems as there will certainly be some unbalanced 9-10 hands which will be passed.

[dcrc2]

I don't believe this is permitted in the EBU, otherwise I would be playing it myself. (The version with clubs as the stronger option, that is - I don't think "weak or 13-15 bal" is such a good idea, because you won't be able to get back into the auction if LHO opens.)

Why not permitted? When I've asked about this in the past, the argument was something like: the OB does not define which passes are allowed (saying that passes which show values are disallowed does not imply that anything else is allowed). In the absence of any regulation, we then fall back on the default of "conventional calls are not allowed unless stated otherwise". These passes are definitely conventional so they are not allowed.

You may not find this argument convincing. (It isn't convincing.) But I think the system is sufficiently likely to be ruled illegal that personally I don't think it's worth the hassle of trying to play it. And even if it was legal it would surely be treated as playing different systems in different positions so you could only play it at Level 4/5 in an event with rounds of 7+ boards.

[gnasher]

dcrc2, on 2011-December-06, 18:21, said:

Why not permitted? When I've asked about this in the past, the argument was something like: the OB does not define which passes are allowed (saying that passes which show values are disallowed does not imply that anything else is allowed). In the absence of any regulation, we then fall back on the default of "conventional calls are not allowed unless stated otherwise". These passes are definitely conventional so they are not allowed.

Where does the Orange Book say that conventional calls are not allowed unless stated otherwise?

In any case, all passes are conventional, because they deny other hand-types. If the above argument were valid, you wouldn't be allowed to agree to pass in any system.

Quote

And even if it was legal it would surely be treated as playing different systems in different positions so you could only play it at Level 4/5 in an event with rounds of 7+ boards.

If the difference is merely "playing a different range for certain bids", you're not playing a different basic system.

[FrancesHinden]

I agree that according to the OB as written, this is plausibly allowed in the EBU. But I don't think it was intended to be, and perhaps we'll need to re-write the regulation slightly.