[blml] Borderline rulings

[Tim West-Meads]

Todd wrote:

> > Ok, but the EBU explicitly gives permission to use personal 
> > evaluation methods (proviso that they should be explainable) and 
> > the yardstick is "weaker than RoX" not "compliant with RoX".  Thus 
> > judgement is required *and* the basic measure is silly.
> 
> But what are you measuring?

The strength/weakness of the hand.  OK a somewhat nebulous concept but 
if one polled a group of reasonable players as to whether 
AT98xx,QT98x,x,x was stronger or weaker than QJ,QJ,Kxxx,xxxxx one would 
not expect much variation in the answers.

> I don't suppose a large number of people will be interested, 
> but the regulation goes into effect next month?  I'm curious 
> to know if and how the limits of 3rd seat 1-level openers 
> are tested in the EBU.  

Oh - You mean the new regulations!  Those are, quite blatantly, illegal.

11 C 9 Minimum opening bid strength in first and second seat
The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is Rule of 18. However a 
partnership may not agree to open with 7 HCP or fewer even if the hand 
is at least Rule of 18.
11 C 10 Minimum opening bid strength in third and fourth seat
The minimum agreement for opening one of a suit is 8 HCP.

The wording elsewhere has also been changed such that judgement/personal 
evaluation methods (however reasonable and explainable) are no longer 
permitted with regard to the above.

The EBULC are, IMO deliberately, mocking the laws of bridge.  For them 
even to contemplate the idea that AT987xx,KT98xx,-,- is a hand that is 
not within "a king of average strength" is simply too stupid to be 
accidental.  It's good for a grand opposite x,A76xx,Kxx,Qxxx and under 
current regs might be bid 1S-1N-2H-3H-4C-4H-4S-5H-6D-7H.  Under the new 
regs the bidding goes P-P-P-P  (OK I know the opps will likely open but 
we should not have to *rely* on them doing so in order to bid our grand 
slams!).

Tim