[lamford]

 campboy, on 2013-April-14, 10:30, said:

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.

That is the main problem with the current regulation. It is a major problem that anybody can play both strong and intermediate pass, just by including a hand that is a million to one. The wording "show values" is no good. An improvement might be that "an opening Pass cannot include any hands with a K&R hand evaluation of 12 or more". Frances' example of K QJxx QJxx KJxx gets a very low 10.05. Change the K to the ace, and it would be illegal for Pass to systemically include the hand - it is 12.65. One could still pass but it would be a deviation.

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2013-April-15, 07:21, said:

That is the main problem with the current regulation. It is a major problem that anybody can play both strong and intermediate pass, just by including a hand that is a million to one.

"Major problem" is a bold phrase. Do you actually know of anyone in England who actually does this?

You can't, in fact, play a strong pass in practice, because the sequence pass-1X has to promise at least an 8-count.

You might just be able to play a limited medium pass, if you were willing for responder to be compelled to pass or bid at the two-level on all 7-counts. Personally I'd be quite happy to play against such a system. I'd defend against it by ignoring it, except for occasionally thanking the opponents for allowing me an uncontested auction when everyone else had to deal with an opening bid.

Quote

The wording "show values" is no good. An improvement might be that "an opening Pass cannot include any hands with a K&R hand evaluation of 12 or more".

So as to further disadvantage those players who like to have 13 for an opening bid?

[jeffford76]

I like the suggestion mentioned earlier, slightly reworded as so:

"It is not permitted to pass a hand if a hand with the same cards except for one or more honors replaced by spot cards or lower honors in the same suits would be opened at the one-level."

[campboy]

 lamford, on 2013-April-15, 07:21, said:

That is the main problem with the current regulation. It is a major problem that anybody can play both strong and intermediate pass, just by including a hand that is a million to one. The wording "show values" is no good. An improvement might be that "an opening Pass cannot include any hands with a K&R hand evaluation of 12 or more". Frances' example of K QJxx QJxx KJxx gets a very low 10.05. Change the K to the ace, and it would be illegal for Pass to systemically include the hand - it is 12.65. One could still pass but it would be a deviation.

Quite aside from the fact that the L&EC could hardly include such a regulation without a clear explanation of whatever "K&R hand evaluation" means, it would allow people to play an intermediate pass without even bothering to include an unlikely weak type.

Essentially what we're trying to prohibit is methods where being below a certain strength is either impossible or barely possible. What proportion of possible 0-counts would you in fact pass? The proportion of n-counts you would pass shouldn't be vastly higher than this, for any n. I'd base a regulation on that sort of idea.

[blackshoe]

Can someone explain to me why this entire thread does not belong in "Changing Laws" instead of "Laws and Rulings"?

[nige1]

 blackshoe, on 2013-April-15, 11:46, said:

Can someone explain to me why this entire thread does not belong in "Changing Laws" instead of "Laws and Rulings"?

It's unclear how to rule on this case under current law; but rigid application of that criterion would move most cases to "Changing the Laws".

[gordontd]

 blackshoe, on 2013-April-15, 11:46, said:

Can someone explain to me why this entire thread does not belong in "Changing Laws" instead of "Laws and Rulings"?

Can someone explain to me why it matters?

[PeterAlan]

It seems to me that it is in the interests of the game and its players that regulators should apply Occam's Razor and (try to) limit regulation as much as is sensible and possible. This suggests that regulations should be confined to matters that either are, or could be likely to become, real-world problems. It also suggests that we do not seek to vary and complicate regulations in order to address arcane and possibly hypothetical loopholes that are extremely unlikely to be exploited in practice. Hard cases make bad law.

[dcrc2]

I think it's clear enough that Lorenzo Twos are not allowed (if pass shows 8-11HCP or suchlike). I have a different problem with this regulation - I'd like to play pass as "0-10 HCP any shape, or 11-14 HCP with clubs", and I have no idea whether this would be ruled legal. I tried to get this clarified many years ago and didn't have any luck; does anyone have any new insight on this?

[blackshoe]

 gordontd, on 2013-April-15, 15:52, said:

Can someone explain to me why it matters?

Sure. If it didn't matter, we would have only one forum in which to discuss matters pertaining to law and regulation, whether existing or hypothetical.

[awm]

So I've actually played a system where we passed hands of up to 14 hcp with clubs as the primary suit, but opened light on other hands. So for example we would pass with:

♠Kxx
♥AJx
♦x
♣AQxxxx

but we would open 1♠ with:

♠AQxxx
♥x
♦Kxxx
♣xxx

I think it's fairly clear that the first hand is stronger than the second. But of course they have different shapes, and pass didn't show any particular values (we would also pass on many very weak hands). Would there be a problem with this under EBU regulations?

[gnasher]

 dcrc2, on 2013-April-15, 18:08, said:

I think it's clear enough that Lorenzo Twos are not allowed (if pass shows 8-11HCP or suchlike).

Are we still talking about English regulations? In England you can play a two-bid as any meaning that promises four of the suit bid.

Quote

I have a different problem with this regulation - I'd like to play pass as "0-10 HCP any shape, or 11-14 HCP with clubs", and I have no idea whether this would be ruled legal. I tried to get this clarified many years ago and didn't have any luck; does anyone have any new insight on this?

The rules seem clear to me. There is only one rule about passes, which is "It is not permitted to play an opening Pass to show values". Your pass doesn't show values, so it's allowed.

If, however, you want official confirmation of this, it's very easy to obtain an official answer: send an email to the secretary of the Laws and Ethics Committee. In my experience such an question usually receives a prompt and helpful reply.

[Trinidad]

 blackshoe, on 2013-April-15, 18:14, said:

Sure. If it didn't matter, we would have only one forum in which to discuss matters pertaining to law and regulation, whether existing or hypothetical.

That isn't true. People meet to discuss things. You go to a sports bar to have a drink and discuss sports. People go to zoos to look at animals and learn about them. They both have a right to exist. Your logic would mean that you need to move to the zoo as soon as a discussion on sports evolves into a discussion about animals ("The Cardinals beat the Wolverines in the NCAA final."). Neither do you need to move to a sports bar to discuss whether it's better to go to Saint Louis or to Arizona to see Cardinals.

I would not go to a sports bar with the aim to start a discussion on animals or to a zoo to discuss sports. But something like that is not the case here. If this thread would have started with suggestions to change laws/regulations then you can move it to the appropriate forum right from the beginning. But this thread was started in the correct forum. It doesnot make sense to split threads and sort out what remark was about animals and what remark was about sports. Then the whole discussion loses its context and most likely the simple answer to the animals discussion would be: "Let's ask a zoologist.".

Rik

[barmar]

 gnasher, on 2013-April-16, 00:58, said:

Are we still talking about English regulations? In England you can play a two-bid as any meaning that promises four of the suit bid.

The issue isn't what the 2-bid shows, it's what Pass shows in the Lorenzo system.

[gnasher]

 barmar, on 2013-April-16, 05:05, said:

The issue isn't what the 2-bid shows, it's what Pass shows in the Lorenzo system.

Indeed, the interesting question is the legality of a Lorenzo pass. But I was responding to a post which said "it's clear enough that Lorenzo Twos are not allowed", not "it's clear enough that a pass when playing Lorenzo Twos is not allowed".

It's certainly legal in England to play Lorenzo Two Bids as long as you never find yourself needing to start with a pass.

This post has been edited by gnasher: 2013-April-16, 05:59

[Zelandakh]

Presumably it is also allowed if you remove some hands from the 2 bids. So, for example, if you were to pass instead of making a 2 level opening on 4333 hands with 0 hcp with no honour in the 4 card suit. The question is whether you could include a specific 0 hcp hand in pass with the same effect (432/432/432/5432) or whether the valueless hands in Pass need to be of a reasonable frequency.

[lamford]

 gnasher, on 2013-April-16, 05:57, said:

It's certainly legal in England to play Lorenzo Two Bids as long as you never find yourself needing to start with a pass.

Not so; the requirement is that if you find yourself needing to start with a pass it will not guarantee values. And on campboy's point, a change that might work would be to insert "usually" before values, so that you are not allowed to play that an opening Pass will usually show values.

[Zelandakh]

Does an opening pass in Acol not usually show values? I know I do not tend to expect partner to hold 0hcp when they start with pass...

[gnasher]

 lamford, on 2013-April-16, 06:51, said:

Not so; the requirement is that if you find yourself needing to start with a pass it will not guarantee values.

You've lost me. How does that conflict with what I said?

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2013-April-16, 01:47, said:

That isn't true.

Be very careful here, Rik. David set up the original forum on another site. IIRC, when we moved here we had "Laws and Rulings" and "Simple Rulings"; the other two were added later. Bottom line: David and I set this up, David and I run it, and I say again, if we (David and I) felt that one forum was sufficient, it would be set up that way.

We don't split threads or move them often, but we are always on the lookout for situations where that is appropriate - by our standards. I asked for opinions because I wasn't sure this one was appropriate. What I seem to be getting in response is "go away, we're talking here". Fair enough. For now.