[lamford]

---

IMP pairs; Table Result 1NTx-7 EW+2000; Lead 5♣

SB was unhappy at this hand from a North London club on Tuesday. East-West, the Chimp and the Toucan, were playing modified EHAA with a 12-14 NT and 4 weak twos which were 4-card suits or longer with 0-8, so that all hands below 9 points opened the bidding, and they announced this gleefully as they arrived. SB opened a 14-16 NT and the Chimp doubled, bouncing up and down in his chair with obvious pleasure. This was passed out, as East had no LA to Pass despite the UI, and SB did not make any tricks as 6 rounds of clubs decimated his hand. SB had a recovery plan mapped out, however. "I think there was a failure to alert an artificial call", he claimed. "Director, please", he bellowed. "How can I help?" asked Oscar the Owl, the TD on the evening.

"Well," began SB. "The laws specify that 'a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength' is an artificial call and therefore alertable, and the new laws confirm that. East's pass showed 9-11 without a suitable hand for a one level opener, and was therefore artificial". If it had been alerted, then 1NT would have been too risky, and I would have downgraded the hand to 1D. E-W would have made 3NT+4, which I submit is the normal result." "Also the EW method with Pass showing values is a HUM, which is not permitted at this club, and we should get Ave+ anyway".

How would you rule?

[weejonnie]

I don't think that being informed that RHO has 9-11 points would affect South's call - after all when a normal hand passes it is much more likely to have 9-11 points than a smaller number - and East's pass merely confirms this. (26 points divided by 3 hands means that one hand AT LEAST will have 9+ HCP and the odds are 2:1 on it being an opponent.)

I think that SB didn't do enough to protect himslelf - having known that all hands in the 0-8 range would be opened then surely he should expect a pass to show some values. So at this point in the argument SB gets his (just) desserts.

Certainly in EBULand (does this club apply EBU regulations in the Blue Book) then I think that SB does have a case, since the pass promises some values and has some values, so since the call is illegal at level 4 (and I assume the club doesn't use level 5) then we have to award AV+, AV-.

After all - a system has to be compliant in all its calls, not just most of them, and calling it EHAA does not make it so.

PS - do you know when the EBU are going to adopt the new laws - and when do the new White and Blue books come out - it seems a bit pointless issuing amended books in August and then having to re-issue them in September if that is the date the EBU decide the new laws will be implemented"

[mycroft]

Well, as someone who's played with Eric Landau, and definitely has discussed system with him, "I've heard of Modified Precision, but what you're playing is a strong diamond with 4-card majors and a nebulous club. I think that's a little more 'modified' than is really acceptable." EHAA with 4+weak 2s, a strong (for EHAA) NT, and a gap between a 2-bid and a 1-bid seems - more than 'modified'. More like "not-EHAA".

But yes, if the system is such that there are no zero-counts that pass, then they're not playing a legal system under EBU Level 4.

If they truly do open 864 942 532 T854 2♣, then...well done describing your illegal system. Here's the book and the door. If they'll open 85 6 T854 T86542 2♣, but pass the square garbage, then I don't think SB has a case, even if the HCP-distribution of initial pass is wildly shifted from "normal" and "expected"; that fact was announced pre-round.

Now, whether pass is artificial and requires an Alert is a whole different story; one that I'm not capable of answering from this side of the water.

[weejonnie]

I suppose they could play a 9-11 1NT (legal in EBU) and then the only hands they have to accept an average - are the 9-11 hands that are too distributional for a 1NT call, but not distributional enough for, say a pre-emptive 3 bid.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2017-April-12, 14:31, said:

I don't think that being informed that RHO has 9-11 points would affect South's call - after all when a normal hand passes it is much more likely to have 9-11 points than a smaller number - and East's pass merely confirms this. (26 points divided by 3 hands means that one hand AT LEAST will have 9+ HCP and the odds are 2:1 on it being an opponent.)

This is a misapplication of probability, in my opinion. Given that hands of 12 points or more will also be opened, the chances of the player having 9-11 is 27.71/65.19 which is 42%. East's pass confirmed to his partner that he was not in the more common 58% of 0-8 hands, and should have been alerted. SB does not need to ask about the pass; he is quite entitled to assume that the call did not fall into an alertable category and for all he knew 9-11 balanced might have been opened 2NT in keeping with the rest of the stupid system. The pre-announcement did not eliminate the need to alert, even if the system is legal.

SB was impressed with the success of the EW methods on this hand and he has adopted the same system himself, but with all (3334) Yarboroughs (no ten) also passing. As the pass no longer promises values (although it is around 1800-1 on to have them) he cocks a snook at the definition of artificial pass which is: "a pass which promises more than a specified amount of strength". My emphasis. The huge advantage of SB's new method is that he can open a 9-11 weak NT, a) without telling the opponents and b) without actually opening 1NT and c) the system is no longer HUM. And somebody asked me why the Chimp was bouncing up and down on his chair when doubling 1NT with only a 15-count. Well ... he knew his partner had a balanced 9-11, so he thought Christmas had come eight months early.

There is an easy remedy. Change the definition of "artificial pass" to be "a pass which is more likely than not to have more than a specified amount of strength"

[weejonnie]

If SB wants to do a bit better, he could define all hands with no card higher than a 5 as being a pass, rather than no card higher than a 9. (Or even a hand that is 4-3-3-3 with 4 spades and no card higher than a 5. (5-4-3-2, 4-3-2, 4-3-2, 4-3-2) There are only 64 of them and I am sure we can get it down to 5-4-3-2, 5-4-3-2, 5-4-3-2, (2-5) - so there are only 4.

The multi 2D once required the strong hand(s) to occur with reasonable frequency to stop people using it to describe 37 points as the strong option.

[lamford]

weejonnie, on 2017-April-13, 07:12, said:

If SB wants to do a bit better, he could define all hands with no card higher than a 5 as being a pass, rather than no card higher than a 9. (Or even a hand that is 4-3-3-3 with 4 spades and no card higher than a 5. (5-4-3-2, 4-3-2, 4-3-2, 4-3-2) There are only 64 of them and I am sure we can get it down to 5-4-3-2, 5-4-3-2, 5-4-3-2, (2-5) - so there are only 4.

The multi 2D once required the strong hand(s) to occur with reasonable frequency to stop people using it to describe 37 points as the strong option.

SB is a past master at ensuring that he complies with the letter of the regulations - what is a reasonable frequency? - although he doesn't care much about the spirit.

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2017-April-13, 07:58, said:

SB is a past master at ensuring that he complies with the letter of the regulations - what is a reasonable frequency? - although he doesn't care much about the spirit.

The EBU's definitions of the times allowed a 24-26 balanced hand to be of reasonable frequency as well as an Acol 2 in diamonds with a solid suit. The latter was spectacular as it allowed a hand with ♦Q and nothing else to pass without falling foul of the "must investigate game" clause. I am rather surprised that SB was not using something like this at the time!

As for the EHAA system stuff, you do not even need to go to the lengths of defining 6 high or 9 high or whatever. Simply give Opener the freedom to open the weak 2 or choose not to. This is even more effective as it allows Opener to pass tactically without the opps having any clear rule that they can refer back to for reference. And since you only have to pass once in 2000 hands or so, it is going to be rather difficult for anyone to prove that you never actually choose the pass option even if that is what actually happens in practice.

[FrancesHinden]

lamford, on 2017-April-13, 02:03, said:

There is an easy remedy. Change the definition of "artificial pass" to be "a pass which is more likely than not to have more than a specified amount of strength"

Yes, that's a really easy remedy.

South "Pass", alerted by North.
West asks, and is told "The pass is artificial, because it is more likely than not to have at least 7 HCP"
West asks "so what is your basic system" and is told "Basic Acol with strong twos, we open many 10-counts at the one level but only very rarely with 9, our 3-level and higher pre-empts are based far more on suit length than on high card strength"

[lamford]

FrancesHinden, on 2017-May-29, 11:02, said:

Yes, that's a really easy remedy.

South "Pass", alerted by North.
West asks, and is told "The pass is artificial, because it is more likely than not to have at least 7 HCP"
West asks "so what is your basic system" and is told "Basic Acol with strong twos, we open many 10-counts at the one level but only very rarely with 9, our 3-level and higher pre-empts are based far more on suit length than on high card strength"

Indeed, that is a problem, and one could change 7 HCP to 5 HCP if necessary. Perhaps we need:
Change the definition of "artificial pass" to be "a pass which is considerably more likely to have more than a specified amount of strength". Alternatively, we could insert a percentage, such as 75%, instead of "considerable" or a value instead of "specified amount of strength", such as 7 HCP. It does seem that for Pass to show 8-10 (or even some higher value) or a balanced Yarborough is HUM.

[Zelandakh]

Is there actually any need to define it specially at all? We already alert strong calls that appear to be weak and it seems to me that that is precisely what this regulation is attempting to encapsulate for a pass. If the pass systematically shows an unexpected level of values then alert it; if the range is within expected norms then not - seems easy (provided that all pairs are familiar with the local expectations anyway).

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-30, 05:39, said:

Is there actually any need to define it specially at all? We already alert strong calls that appear to be weak and it seems to me that that is precisely what this regulation is attempting to encapsulate for a pass.

I'm sure SB has a problem with that alerting rule, since it's so vague -- how strong does it have to be and what does it mean to "appear to be weak"?

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2017-May-30, 08:35, said:

I'm sure SB has a problem with that alerting rule, since it's so vague -- how strong does it have to be and what does it mean to "appear to be weak"?

I thought SB loves vague rules as they allow him to interpret them as he likes according to need and opportunity...

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-30, 09:23, said:

I thought SB loves vague rules as they allow him to interpret them as he likes according to need and opportunity...

He likes it when he can convince the TD of his interpretation, hates it when the TD interprets it differently.

Although SB also seems to like arguing with the TD, so I guess it's a win-win for him.

[lamford]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-30, 05:39, said:

Is there actually any need to define it specially at all? We already alert strong calls that appear to be weak and it seems to me that that is precisely what this regulation is attempting to encapsulate for a pass. If the pass systematically shows an unexpected level of values then alert it; if the range is within expected norms then not - seems easy (provided that all pairs are familiar with the local expectations anyway).

The potential problem currently is the word "promises" in the definition of "artificial" both in the new Laws and the old Laws. SBs need only group together a rare hand-type with their "intermediate pass" and they do not even have to alert as the pass is not artificial. And FrancesHinden correctly points out that "is more likely than not to have" does not work instead of "promises".

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2017-May-31, 13:12, said:

The potential problem currently is the word "promises" in the definition of "artificial" both in the new Laws and the old Laws. SBs need only group together a rare hand-type with their "intermediate pass" and they do not even have to alert as the pass is not artificial. And FrancesHinden correctly points out that "is more likely than not to have" does not work instead of "promises".

I suspect this is an example of an attempt to provide an aid to interpretation that ends up worse than the original. Much like the addenda to the handball law designed to aid referees in interpreting it has ended up creating more confusion than ever. I think the logic runs like this - if an opening pass promises values then it has a potentially unexpected meaning and must be alerted. Of course there are other ways for an opening pass to have a potentially unexpected meaning but those got driven under the bus somewhere within the editing process, thus giving SB his opening. I could be wrong of course - perhaps RMB or Jallerton could clarify - but I doubt the intention at the end of the day was to exclude unexpected meanings from alerts here.

[RMB1]

weejonnie, on 2017-April-12, 14:31, said:

PS - do you know when the EBU are going to adopt the new laws - and when do the new White and Blue books come out - it seems a bit pointless issuing amended books in August and then having to re-issue them in September if that is the date the EBU decide the new laws will be implemented"

All three will apply from 1st August (in time for the Summer Meeting).

There will be changes to the Blue Book but they are largely unrelated to the new laws.
There will be changes to the White Book mainly to ensure consistency with the new laws.

[barmar]

lamford, on 2017-May-31, 13:12, said:

The potential problem currently is the word "promises" in the definition of "artificial" both in the new Laws and the old Laws. SBs need only group together a rare hand-type with their "intermediate pass" and they do not even have to alert as the pass is not artificial. And FrancesHinden correctly points out that "is more likely than not to have" does not work instead of "promises".

I don't think "promise" is meant to imply an absolute guarantee (promises can be broken). It's just the word the Laws use to refer to the meaning of a call. "shows" or "implies" would probably be better, but this is really nit-picking -- no matter what word they use, someone could have a complaint if the bidder's hand doesn't conform, or the bidder's evaluation doesn't match the opponent's.

[lamford]

barmar, on 2017-May-31, 16:08, said:

I don't think "promise" is meant to imply an absolute guarantee (promises can be broken). It's just the word the Laws use to refer to the meaning of a call. "shows" or "implies" would probably be better, but this is really nit-picking -- no matter what word they use, someone could have a complaint if the bidder's hand doesn't conform, or the bidder's evaluation doesn't match the opponent's.

Indeed, promises can be broken, but someone playing that Pass is either 12-15 balanced or any Yarborough would not systemically be "promising" values. Therefore "not artificial". Therefore "no alert".

[Zelandakh]

lamford, on 2017-June-01, 05:25, said:

Indeed, promises can be broken, but someone playing that Pass is either 12-15 balanced or any Yarborough would not systemically be "promising" values. Therefore "not artificial". Therefore "no alert".

My point is precisely that "promising" should not be an identical criteria to "requiring an alert". I am sure that even SB would accept that the suggested meaning of Pass would qualify as a potentially unexpected meaning, which at the end of the day should really be the measure for when an alert is required.