[paulg]

 mycroft, on 2011-October-24, 13:33, said:

So, a "strong" hand, to those definitions is *either*:
13 Milton Work points "with no distributional values", or
something less in HCP with distributional values.

What that something is is somewhat Justice Stewartic in current implementation - "[we] know it when [we] see it";

Yes, it doesn't *say* it, but where do you put distributional values? I'd bet everyone, even with those definitions, would consider ATxxx QJTxxx - xx "average" - or better. This would make AJxxx KQTxxx - xx a "strong hand". So, okay, we could add "or with less strength and compensating distribution" to "average hand", or do something for "strong", but (my self-described anal-retentiveness aside), if that was the worst "read it like a human, rather than a lawyer" in the WBF regulations - even the system regulations, I'd be very happy.

It does say it. It says distributional values are not counted in this part of the regulations. However, as I originally said, when this is the case why not refer to specific points counts consistently.

Far be it from me to defend the policy since there are huge chasms with other aspects of it, but I think it is clear what they want in this area even if they struggle to get it across.

[blackshoe]

Interesting. It occurs to me that by the WBF definition ♠ Jxx ♥ QJx ♦ QJx ♣ QJxx is an "average hand". Comments?

[paulg]

As I've said, this definition of strong is only for use in the context of the System Policy. The only meaningful use of 'strong' in the policy is in the definition of Brown Sticker opening bids, where the WBF has decided not to regulate opening bids that guarantee 13 HCP or more and has used 'strong' to help elaborate this.

This seems reasonable to me. It provides an objective measure that everyone understands. It could be even clearer, but it is not bad.

[blackshoe]

What happens if your partnership claims that your opening bids guarantee 13 HCP, and then one of you opens on a nice 12 count? Summary execution?

I really don't like "guarantees" or "promises" in descriptions of bidding agreements.

[RMB1]

 blackshoe, on 2011-October-25, 07:03, said:

What happens if your partnership claims that your opening bids guarantee 13 HCP, and then one of you opens on a nice 12 count? Summary execution?

It is a matter of judgement whether the particular "nice 12 count" is as strong as a "king above average".

But the real answer is: if you are an unknown player from an NBO without policical clout, then yes ("Summary execution"); if you are a well known player from an NBO with clout, then your opponents will be reprimanded for even asking the question.

[Oof Arted]

 RMB1, on 2011-November-08, 10:38, said:

It is a matter of judgement whether the particular "nice 12 count" is as strong as a "king above average".

But the real answer is: if you are an unknown player from an NBO without policical clout, then yes ("Summary execution"); if you are a well known player from an NBO with clout, then your opponents will be reprimanded for even asking the question.

Is this one of the Main reasons off putting 'Newbies' from entering competitions ???

[mikestar13]

Weird, on this one the ACBL is actually more liberal about a convention than WBF: 3(any)=Solid Suit is in the defense database for Mid-chart, legal in 2 board or longer segments.