Re: An incredible hand

Robert Geller wrote:
 > Yes, but nothing in the Laws allows the RA to mandate that players use a
 > 4321 point count (or quick tricks or LTC or anything else) to evaluate
 > their hand.

True, but the WBF does not do that. A weak hand is defined as being a 
king or more below an average hand, with an average hand being one with 
a 4432 distribution and one card of every rank. So seven points without 
distribution, basically. The WBF does not prescribe a way of converting 
length into strength, and the usual (1 in your longest = 1 HCP) is 
assumed. This would make this hand barely acceptable. But in how far is 
this conversion true for an 8-card suit. Eight trumps with QJT is a sure 
six tricks, whereas 6 to QJ8 can never be counted for four. So the 
conversion does not hold, IMO, and I did not rule illegal system in this 
case.

Herman.

>
> Let's face it, rules like this are of questionable legality in a strict
> sense, but probably most countries (Japan is one) have some rules like
> this in ordinary events open to all players. Such rules should be
> eschewed in top flight events, but are probably an unfortunate necessity
> to keep the punters coming back.
>
>
>
> On 2017/12/08 9:57, Richard Hills wrote:
>> "The Regulating Authority is empowered without restriction to allow,
>> disallow, or allow conditionally, any special partnership
>> understanding."  Law 40B2(a)(i).
>>
>> The Regulating Authority may designate a partnership understanding to
>> open 1S with 3 hcp to be a special partnership understanding if its
>> "meaning, in the opinion of the Regulating Authority, may not be readily
>> understood and anticipated by a significant number of players in the
>> tournament." Law 40B1(b).
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Richard Hills, significant number
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 7:49 PM, Peter Smulders <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>      >From: Herman De Wael <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>      >Precedence: list
>>      >MIME-Version: 1.0
>>      >To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>      >References: <[email protected]
>>     <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>      >         <[email protected]
>>     <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>      >         <[email protected]
>>     <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>      >         <[email protected]
>>     <http://svenpran.net>>
>>      >In-Reply-To: <[email protected]
>>     <http://svenpran.net>>
>>      >Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 17:14:36 +0100
>>      >Reply-To: Bridge Laws Mailing List <[email protected]
>>     <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>      >Message-ID: <[email protected]
>>     <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>      >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>      >Subject: Re: [BLML] ***SPAM*** Re: An incredible hand
>>      >Message: 4
>>      >
>>      >Sven Pran wrote:
>>      >>I don't understand how any jurisdiction may forbid for instance
>>     opening bids
>>      >>at the one level with less than 8 HVP.
>>      >>
>>      >>What they can do (and what I assume most have done) is to have
>>     restrictions
>>      >>on agreements which implies opening such weak hands at the one level.
>>      >>
>>      >>There is a difference.
>>      >
>>      >There is, a theoretical one.
>>      >
>>      >But in practice, when a player opens a particular hand with a
>>      >paticular bid (or more general, makes any bid with that hand), then
>>      >the Director will ofte have to assume that the particular bid is
>>     systemic.
>>      >So in many cases the difference is only theoretical.
>>      >
>>      >In the current case, the opening bid of 1Sp certainly has the
>>      >meaning "I think I can make a majority of tricks in this strain,
>>      >partner, if you have three more tricks, you can bid 4Sp.
>>      >Certainly a systemic meaning.
>>      >So under the old "rule of 18", this opening must be prohibited.
>>      >Which only shows that the rule of 18 is not optimum.
>>      >
>>      >Herman.
>>
>>     Most players don't have agreements on freak hands like this.
>>     Apparently you consider ideas such as "bid what you think you can
>>     make" or "use common sense" a concealed understanding.
>>     The hand has 6 solid tricks, and with a partner who is not completely
>>     bust but has less than opening values a part score is possible but
>>     game is very unlikely.
>>     I would not call a call of 1S a psyche, and even if it s, it is
>>     certainly not artifcial. Thus it does not meet the condition of Law
>>     40B2:
>>     The RA "v) may restrict the use of psychic artificial calls".
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Blml mailing list
>>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>     http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>     <http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Blml mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> http://www.avg.com
>
_______________________________________________
Blml mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml