The point of the rule is to stop people playing systems such as:
Pass = 10-20 HCP
1S = 7-10 HCP
or similar.

One of the main tenants of bridge is that hand evaluation is a fluid and subjective thing. HCP are only a rough guide, and a player might very well legally choose to open the first hand and pass the second -- showing the first hand as a 'minimum' opener; and the second hand as a 'maximum' pass.

This is just that player judging that the first hand is worth more than the second. It's not that when you pass you have a follow-up method to reveal to partner that you actually had an opening hand (just typically ways to show a maximal pass).

Indeed, if you look at Kaplan & Ruebens (I personally believe this to be the most accurate 'simple' method), you get:

K&R (AKT2 J94 6 Q9654) = 11.50

K&R (Q432 QJ2 QJ2 QJ6) = 6.75

I would regard opening one of these hands at the one level as tantamount to a psyche; and it's not the 10 count.
This is the same as the following bidding problem:

1S p 3S (invite) p;
?

AKJxxx QTxxx x x

Here you "only" have 10 HCP. And accepting the invitation shows 15+ points, right?
Therefore accepting this invite is a 'psyche'.

Except ... it isn't, is it?

Hope this helps clear up some of your misconceptions around hand evaluation & systems :)

Hi Brad, 

Thanks for your feedback :).

You may well be right about the original intent of this clause, but a literal interpretation doesn’t appear to exempt a system with a systemic 0 - 11+ HCP pass in opening position and 10+ HCP 1 level systemic openings from being a Yellow system if relative weakness is solely determined by HCP. Possibly the clause may have been written the way it is to simplify systems that could be played in pairs-style events?

If application of this clause only uses HCP strength to determine relative weakness it is very easy for directors, partnerships, and opponents to evaluate if a system is Yellow or not, whereas if other hand evaluation methods are allowed to be used (such as Kaplan Ruebens, modified losers, or BJ points etc) that also allow for distribution and other considerations, it may be very subjective, and if disputed may well require system assessment by NZ Bridge’s chief director to finally determine. For example, if you want to systemically open 10+ HCP 1 level systemic openings then you simply just have to ensure your systemic pass in opening positions is 0 - 10 HCP to not play a Yellow system. If instead you decide this is too restrictive and that you want to also be able to systemically pass some 11+ HCP hands at certain opening positions and vulnerabilities, say, then you declare a Yellow system and accept that you can’t play this system version in pairs-like events and must provide opponents an opportunity to prepare a defence when playing teams-style events. Simple. 

It appears that Kaplan & Ruebens hand strength evaluation also accounts for distribution as well as specific card combinations. So it would appear that your opinion is that comparisons of weakness when applying this clause should allow for distribution values and specific card combinations to be taken into account. However, to answer Richard Solomon’s questions fully it still needs to be definitively clarified by a qualified director whether application of this clause actually allows this, or not.

I’m not sure whether or not you are a qualified director, but if not, I hope a qualified director will clarify this.

You can dive into the 2017 laws (40A.4) to read the following:

The agreed meaning of a call or play shall not alter by reference to the member of the partnership by whom it is made (this requirement does not restrict style and judgement, only method).

A definition used throughout the manual in different places where it's needed is the following:

Opening Strength: At least 11 HCP or equivalent with allowance for distribution (for which the guideline is: Add one point for every card after the eighth in the two longest suits). [Rubber competition]

Or more generally:

Average Hand: A hand containing 10 HCP with no distributional values.

Weak: High-card strength below that of an average hand.

Note that not every pair plays opening bids at the one level as showing '11+ HCP', some play a sounder (e.g. Roth-Stone or ironically Every Hand an Adventure) system, where opening at the 1-level shows at least 13 HCP. This is just to show that while there's an underlying "rule" in place (and also why it's legal for pairs to open with 10+ HCP, which is most commonly seen in a strong club structure).

Altogether this shows that pairs are definitely allowed to have a set criteria for opening hands that a hand such as Q432 QJ2 QJ2 QJ6 woldn't fit, but a hand like AKT2 J94 6 Q9654 would. People don't even need to prealert this, because there's always going to be a HCP / hand judgement cut-off for each pair / players opening style and individual differences in hand evaluation preclude having a proscriptive bottom line. Most "better" pairs are adding a line such as "Points are a guideline, judgement can be used in all situations"; to cover the "disparity" of ranges here.

Trying to enforce these rules to a logical extreme is trying to play the game of red-tape and getting logically tangled / not interested in playing bridge. This is different to in places like America where the system restrictions are quite stringent, so a lot of irked people have designed "legal" but ridiculous systems to poke fun at the requirement. 
Most legislature is written in such a way that opening 2H with 0-10 HCP and 4+ Hs (known suit, weak hand) is allowed; even though this method of weak 2s would be orders of magnitude more destructive than any "illegal" methods.

There's a list of qualified directors here, for your information.

Hey Brad,

Thanks again for your constructive feedback. I appreciate your astute observations and compelling arguments.

However, clause 24.6 g(ii) doesn’t limit the different agreements partnerships may have to open at the 1 level or pass in opening position, it simply defines whether or not these agreements meet the requirements of a Yellow system, and whether they may be played in pairs-style events within New Zealand. By comparison, there is no equivalent clause in the ABF bridge manual, for instance.

Like you, I hope that bidding system restrictions in New Zealand never get as restrictive as the United States, however rules are rules, and provided they are adhered to by all partnerships they provide the existing boundaries for the game to be played within fairly. Ethically, any transparent system agreements created within those boundaries are allowable, although the events they may be played in may be restricted. Differences of interpretation may occur where the bidding rules are not clearly defined, ambiguous, or the intent is unclear which may blur the boundaries and sometimes require further clarification by a director.

Thanks for providing a link to the list of directors. However, I have since realised that I already had a clear written demonstration from a director as to how this clause is to be applied.

I recalled that NZ Bridge’s  Chief Director, Murray Wiggins, referenced this clause when earlier this year he assessed our loser based bidding system. You may recall last year recommending we get this system checked by a National Director before we played it again as you believed it may not comply with NZ bidding rules.

The system was assessed as being Yellow. One of the 3 reasons given for the system being assessed to be Yellow was because some of the potential 1 level opening hands had fewer HCP than potentially contained in a pass in opening position, even though they contained equal or lesser losers than a pass and systemically were considered as being equivalent or stronger strength hands.

The following is an extract from their assessment:

You would open the following hand 1H – 7L with 5 hearts and 5 HCP.

S xxxx

H KQxxx

D xxxx

C void

You would pass the following hand – 9L balanced with 11 HCP.

S Kxx

H Axxx

D Axx

C xxx

24.6(g)(ii)

You would open the first hand with 5 HCP but not the second with 11 HCP.

This qualifies your system as Yellow

His application of this clause above demonstrates that only the relative HCP strengths of hands are to be considered when clause 24.6 g(ii) is applied. This was further confirmed when I didn’t receive any response to my specific written follow up query regarding whether distributional values should also have been considered when applying this clause. 

The application of this clause in this manner simplifies the identification of complying Yellow systems: any system that features a systemic pass in opening position where the HCP strength exceeds the minimum possible HCP strength for a systemic opening at the 1 level is Yellow. 

So, now that we have this clear demonstration from the Chief Director for how to apply this clause we can now come back to fully answering Richard’s earlier question regarding the minimum HCP required to systemically open a 5431 shape hand at the 1 level.

This depends on whether playing a Yellow system, or not. If so, then there is no minimum limit. If not, then clause 24.6 g (iii) must also be considered. With a 5431 shape, a 7 HCP or less hand would arguably have insufficient compensating distributional values to systemically open at the 1 level. Therefore, 8 HCP would be the minimum systemically allowable. When clause 24.6 g(ii) is then applied the maximum HCP systemically allowable for a pass in opening position must also be the same number of HCP (i.e 8 HCP if the minimum HCP strength for a systemic 1 level opening were 8 HCP, 9 HCP if minimum HCP strength for a systemic 1 level opening were 9 HCP, etc). Distributional values are not considered even if the systemic 1 level opening hand has less or equal losers than a systemic pass in opening position.

So, finally, if we then consider the specific 10 HCP 5431 hand example given by Richard (AKT2 J94 6 Q9654) then to systemically open this hand at the 1 level as part of a non-Yellow system a systemic pass in opening position must also be 0 - 10 HCP (i.e can’t systemically pass any 11 HCP hand in opening position, such as Qxxx QJx QJx QJx).

I think you're missing the trees and the forest for the binoculars there, to be frank.

Losing trick count is a hand evaluation method that is only applicable when a fit has been found.
Without any prior knowledge of having a fit [say, defending the opponents best fit with an "even distribution" of shape; or in no trumps], how many tricks would you expect to take holding your first example hand (xxxx KQxxx xxxx -)? Now how many tricks would you expect to take holding the second hand (Kxx Axxx Axx xxx) under similar conditions?

You can't with a straight face say that you expect to take more tricks with the former hand than with the latter. This is the crux of the matter. You can't get to wear rose tinted glasses and assume partner will have a H fit and enough entries for you to elope all your small trumps. Partner will be dealt a 3235 with slow non-H values, and you will have no tricks. Looking at particular deals is the wrong way to go about it; but the concept of "expected playing strength" is the important one. With hand 1 above, you would assume most people would fall into one of 4 camps:

1. Open a weak 2-suiter in the Ms
2. Open a weak H+other
3. Open a weak H hand
4. Pass and bid later if it looks right.

This last one is the "interesting" one, as if partner ends up showing a suit where we have good support (opening 1H, or making a takeout X, etc); then this hand massively improves in value, and one would be able to bid to show it. You can't simply speculate that this hand has massive value and open it accordingly (one would take it in good faith you don't know the contents of your partner's hand before you decide to open or not...) - and this "variability" in the value of this hand is what damns it as an opening bid.

Compare it to your second example hand (Kxx Axxx Axx xxx). You have 2 'quick tricks'. If partner or RHO has the AS, you can reasonably expect the KS to also be a trick. That's 2.67 tricks (I'll round down, for the ruffs/ potential lack on entry). You have 2.5 tricks in your hand. You aren't speculating here. This hand has playing strength, and it also has defensive/wholistic values too.

Here are some "quick thoughts" for what someone might think, holding each of the following hands.

AKT2 J94 6 Q9654
"I can open 1C, if partner bids a M; I can raise it to show a minimum hand with a (moysian) fit, and not much playing strength. I expect to take the AK of S, a D ruff, and maybe a long C as tricks. If partner responds 1D, I can bid 1S; which shows an unbalanced hand with Cs and Ss. We'll now typically find our best black suit fit and be able to play there and ruff the other one good."

Qxxx QJx QJx QJx
"I don't have a calculator on me - but I know that I should be considered lucky for each of my offsuit QJx's that don't get knocked off. This hand will not take many tricks without significant help from partner. I will not open it; because opening it will likely committ us to too high of a level contract; as partner will expect I have more playing strength than this."

An equally valid way to think about these hands would also be:
"Ace plus King plus Queen plus Jack is only ten HCP, I can't open this"
vs
"Two plus three plus three plus three - gee, this doesn't really look like 11 points; but partner said we're playing an 11-14 NT; so I suppose I open it".

I'm running out of ways to try and explain this concept; so if you still have questions, I'd advise seeking a resolution from a national director, as evidently qualified tournament directors can't gainsay your beliefs.

Hi Brad,

Thanks again for taking the time to provide feedback. 

We clearly have some differing views on the use of LTC for evaluating opening hands and, in the end, we may eventually have to agree to disagree. However, before doing so, and at the risk of getting off topic about the application of clause 24.6 g(ii), I’ve provided some further clarifications in response to your feedback.

Firstly, to clear up some confusion (and perhaps create more), actually we would not open the first hand (xxxx KQxxx xxxx -) at the 1 level as we use modified losers (this minor detail was overlooked by NZ bridge’s chief director when he provided this hand for his example in his written assessment) and as this is a 7.5 loser hand we would round it up to 8 losers. We would also pass the second hand (Kxx Axxx Axx xxx) as although we would consider this also an 8 loser hand it only has 11 HCP, which is less than we require to systemically open this shape. 

With the same number of losers for both hands we would systemically consider them to both promise the same number of tricks offensively; but not defensively. Without knowledge of hand shape no definitive conclusions can initially be draw about defensive values from loser strength, although some initial assumptions of probable HCP held may be made based on probable hand shape frequencies.

If non-vulnerable vs vulnerable, we can open xxxx KQxxx xxxx - at the 2 level preemptively by bidding 2H (8 L 0 - 16 HCP if 5H will have 4+ another suit), but for all other vulnerabilities we would pass this hand; essentially following your recommended bidding approach.

However, as we would open Kxxx Kxxxx xxxx - (7 losers) at the 1 level and pass Kxx Axxx Axx xxx (8 losers) NZ bridge’s chief director’s application of clause 24.6 g(ii) remains essentially the same: any system where the HCP strength of a systemic pass in opening position exceeds the minimum HCP strength required for a systemic 1 level suit opening is Yellow.

Secondly, your comparison of the playing strength of the two 8 loser hands (xxxx KQxxx xxxx vs Kxx Axxx Axx xxx) appears to overlook that the strength of the first hand shape lies not only in the heart suit. While there is only a 54% chance of a fit in the heart suit, there is a ~90%  chance of a fit being found in any one of the three suits. Whereas the 4333 shape only has a ~80 %  chance of a fit being found, and fits, if found, are more likely to be more balanced with more total losers, requiring more HCP. 

There is also only a ~5% chance of partner specifically having a S xxx H xx D xxx C xxxxx shape. It is true we would likely score poorly for this particular deal if partner did have this shape and, especially, if they also had a 7 loser hand as it is unlikely we could put the brakes on our bidding below the 3 level. However, this would be hopefully balanced by the 90% of deals we may score fair or better.

Thirdly, contrary to your statement that LTC is only applicable when a fit has already been found, there is actually a sound basis for using it for assessing opening hand strength as before a hand is dealt there is an 82+% chance of an 8+ card fit being found. Noting this will not always be in the first suit bid.

If you are interested please refer to:

Bridgeweb.com/taverham/probabilities.pdf

Finally, we are not claiming that utilising LTC to evaluate the strength of opening hands is superior to using HCP for this purpose. We have chosen to use this method as a basis for our Imperspicuity LTC bidding system as it has advantages to do so specifically for a LTC bidding system. 

This 'problem' is an old one that has been thrashed out many times in many fora. 

If I may oversimplify a bit the current position is (well established by precedent and WBF Laws minutes) as follows.

THere are really two issues here.

1.  The HUM status of this stuff is very well established.  Judgement is permitted.  Just because you might open some 10 point hands at the one level and pass other 11 counts (like everyone in the world) does not make your methods yellow.  This was settled decades ago. 

1(b).  However, you are not permitted to decide that Kxxx Kxxxx xxxx -  is systemically a one level opener in the context of a non-HUM method.  This has nothing to do with a player's possible judgement that this is a good hand.  It is because of issue 2...

2.  It is well establised that HCP are the defacto standard for hand evaluation.  If you take some time to look at some WBF documents like the guide to system card completeion you will find that definitions for calls need to be described in terms of high card points.  More specifically the WBF have mandated that system cards MUST use HCP. 

There are very good reasons for this.  There are many methods of hand eveluation.  All of them are rough and ready, HCP, LTC, Zar points, Kaplan-Rubens to name a few, and theyall have variants.  Your oponents may well have no knowledge of LTC and an explanation that a bid shows "7 or fewer losers" may mean nothing to them.  One's opponents are entitled to know everything about a call that you know, and are not required to sit  through a lesson on Zar points or LTC. 

The upshot is that no matter how strongly you believe in LTC, you are required to have systemic agreements in terms of HCP.  No-one is saying that they are perfect, and no-one is claiming that all 10 counts are equal, but your opponents will have an idea what sort of hands a bid shows.  Basically a LTC based system is illegal as it stands.  If you can't explain what set of hands a bid shows in terms that ypur opponents will understand then you can't play the method. 

Personal Addendum (Warning - Don't read unless you have a reasonably thick skin)

At the club we had to go through this HCP exercise some time back.  Some pairs were playing LTC and explaining bids as showing for example "x-losers" or "3-4 cover cards".  Against inexperience dplayers this is obviously illegal, and often intimidating.  If people try

Ron Klinger was a major proponent (back in the day) of losing trick count.  Kieran Dyke (another Aussie expert) who played with Klinger for years said that in the entire time he never heard Klinger mention LTC or losers even once.  There is a good reason for this - they are worthless for any good player.  Any good player incorporates any improvement in hand eveluation that LTC might provide in certain situations automatically and without conscious thought.  Hand evaluation is ONLY developed through experience.  As for less experienced players? well teaching them LTC will only stunt their development.  They need to learn what features of a hand to look out for-not just add another mechanical rule. 

Obvious example,

Kxxx    void

xxxx    Kxxx

Kxxxx  xxxx

void     Kxxxxx

4-4 heart fit, 2 "7-loser" hands.  After two rounds of trumps we make perhaps only 4 tricks while the opponents can make nothing. 

Perhaps I should be clearer: I am NOT saying that all explanations must be in terms of HCP.  The better the game the more descriptions are along the lines of "strong" "weak" "invitational" "preempt" "Forcing" "To Play" and so on.