[manig]

In last 3 days saw two different 'experts' open 2C following
xxx, KQJTxxx, AKxx, void and he announced Strong or 8.5 or more tricks.
Another example AKQJXXXXX, VOID, X, AXX. In this case 2C was announced as strong
I think THESE BIDS ARE NOT LEGAL PER ACBL.
ACBL requires that 2C opening A) can not be psyched has certain ( 17 ? ) HCPS. Some of Tds do not know this or fail to inforce this rule, pls clarify and let TDs know exactly what is permitted.
I would like to see reponse to this. Thanks

[awm]

While it's true that 2♣ can't be psyched, there is no specific rule about high card point or defensive trick requirements for the 2♣ opening. There is somewhere a semi-official document indicating that AKQJxxxxx xx x x is a legal 2♣ opening (9 tricks). I've seen regional-level directors rule that opening 2♣ on the same hand with diamonds instead of spades (so not one trick from game) is also okay.

Basically I think the rule is based on intent -- if the person opening 2♣ thinks they have a strong hand (and explains it as "I have nine tricks" or the like) then it's okay. If they say "I was trying to trick the opponents" then it's a psych.

[inquiry]

These can hardly be psyches, as they were properly alerted and explained.

xxx, KQJTxxx, AKxx, void
was alerted as either Strong or 8.5 or more tricks. It is not hard to imagine that hand winning 6H and 2.5 diamonds for 8.5 tricks

AKQJXXXXX, VOID, X, AXX.

In this case 2C was announced as strong has 10 tricks, 5 controls, 3 quick tricks and first round control in 3 suits and second round control in the fourth. That, is clearly a strong hand.

[glen]

inquiry, on Feb 4 2007, 03:13 AM, said:

xxx, KQJTxxx, AKxx, void
was alerted as either Strong or 8.5 or more tricks. It is not hard to imagine that hand winning 6H and 2.5 diamonds for 8.5 tricks

The actual hand had only 13 cards, and only 6♥s (one less x to get 3-6-4-0), so for this hand itself only 5 tricks available in ♥s and thus less than 8.5 tricks.

[keylime]

Hand 2 I'd consider a 2C. Hand 1, not close.

Hand like these are why I have a defense over 2C. Recently I had a legitimate expert open 2C on AQJxxxxxx KQx x void.

[blackshoe]

The GCC says a 2♣ opener, with one exception not applicable here, must be "strong". Unfortunately, nowhere does the ACBL define "strong", so I asked Rick Beye, ACBL CTD, for clarification. IIRC, he said "if the player believes his hand to be strong, it's a legitimate 2♣ opener." Another National TD told me "players are opening 2♣ on weaker and weaker hands these days."

That first hand is, imo, with seven playing tricks, not close to "strong". I would rule illegal convention, but based on the above I could be wrong. The second one I would rule a legal 2♣ opening.

These days, when an opponent opens 2♣, I ask about style, and I am much more willing than I used to be to compete against it, particularly at matchpoints.

[Winstonm]

I took this to committee in Dallas years ago.

Unless something has changed, and I don't think so, here is the findings.

As long as the convention card is properly marked as either x number of HCPs or some trick requirement, then QJxxxxxxxxx, x, x, void could be opened 2C under the 9 tricks requirement of the bid and be legal.

[blackshoe]

Quote

As long as the convention card is properly marked as either x number of HCPs or some trick requirement, then QJxxxxxxxxx, x, x, void could be opened 2C under the 9 tricks requirement of the bid and be legal.

That hand is so wildly unbalanced as to not constitute a valid illustration of the problem.

IMO, the implication of "strong" in connection with the Std American artificial 2♣ opening is that it includes not only offensive strength, but also defensive strength. The hand above has no defensive strength whatsoever.

I believe it was Paul Soloway who suggested a 2♣ opener should have more quick tricks than losers. Works for me.

[jikl]

IMHO, I only open 2♣ on hands I am scared will get passed out otherwise. I would not even think about opening any of the examples given with 2♣. I have plenty of time to get back in and just bid game if need be without screwing with partner's mind.

Sean

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Feb 4 2007, 05:44 PM, said:

Quote

As long as the convention card is properly marked as either x number of HCPs or some trick requirement, then QJxxxxxxxxx, x, x, void could be opened 2C under the 9 tricks requirement of the bid and be legal.

That hand is so wildly unbalanced as to not constitute a valid illustration of the problem.

IMO, the implication of "strong" in connection with the Std American artificial 2♣ opening is that it includes not only offensive strength, but also defensive strength. The hand above has no defensive strength whatsoever.

I believe it was Paul Soloway who suggested a 2♣ opener should have more quick tricks than losers. Works for me.

I do not disagree - I am just stating what is legal under the current law. My opponents card in Dallas was marked: 2C-strong exp: 9 tricks or points. That was the exact marking. Phil Merry, national tournament director, ruled this legal and threated to bring action against me for a frivilous committee if I questioned his ruling - I did so anyway.

Now what is legal is not necessarily right - and obviously I didn't think so back then and haven't changed my mind. If an opponent can open 2C on a 24 HCP NT hand or a 14-count 9 trick hand then overcaller is in a tremendously vulnerable position if he happens to have a decent hand would warrant action against a less powerful HCP opening but is suicide to bid on if opener holds the big NT hand.

I only brought up the QJ 11th hand because I brought up that very hand in committee, and Phil Merry said as long as the card was marked 9 tricks or points it would be a legal bid.

So according to law, if the bid meets either the trick requirement or the point requirement it is not a psyche.

[helene_t]

Sigh. Bridge is much more interesting if you focus on improving your own bidding instead of that of the opps.

The TD should just tell the complainers to shut up and get a life.

[glen]

helene_t, on Feb 5 2007, 04:06 AM, said:

Sigh. Bridge is much more interesting if you focus on improving your own bidding instead of that of the opps.

The TD should just tell the complainers to shut up and get a life.

The focus would be on improving the explaining and ruling-following of the opps. xxx KQJTxx AKxx --- is not 8 1/2 tricks and is not strong, and one is (sadly) not allowed to psyche a 2♣ opening in ACBL events. So the TD has to consider if 7 and a bit tricks is anywhere close to 8 1/2 tricks - if not the TD needs to rule it as a psyche and adjust correspondingly. Whether or not the TD rules it is not a psyche, then the TD should explain to the 2♣ opening side that if they continue to open hands like this, they should change their description of the bid to reflect their implicit agreements.

So quite a bit of work for the TD instead of "just tell the complainers to shut up and get a life." Did you focus much on this thread before posting?

[keylime]

Here's my thought on this:

As most of you know, I play a forcing club 90% of the time. Due to this the ACBL GCC has clear language on what is considered "strong" (15+ hcp).

So, there have been times where I've opened a strong club on this hand type:

xx
AKT9xxx
AK9x
x

Surely this is a good playing hand. Yet I've been called to committe twice because the point counters are thinking it's not a "strong hand". For the record I won both appeals with deposits retained.

Thusly, some definition of a strong 2C opening is sorely needed. I don't have a problem when it's an acol 2 bid that has excellent playing strength (like the example I gave). It's the 15 count 2 suiters with a void and lack of controls that I have a problem with.

I do want the concept of judgment to be retained, but not at the cost of potentially damaging the opps' methods.

[pbleighton]

"Thusly, some definition of a strong 2C opening is sorely needed. I don't have a problem when it's an acol 2 bid that has excellent playing strength (like the example I gave). It's the 15 count 2 suiters with a void and lack of controls that I have a problem with."

Why do you have a problem with this, as long as it is properly disclosed?

It seems to me that you have a sense of false entitlement on this issue, strange coming from one who plays (somewhat) unusual methods. A little cognitive dissonance here

Perhaps the best solution to this is to require an alert if the 2C opener may be made on less than x points, with x something like 19 or 20.

We should also get a definitive ruling from the ACBL that we know if the 2C opener has an absolute floor of x hcp or not, regardless of alerting, and if so what is x.

If we get such a ruling, I suspect x will turn out to be 15.

I don't care one way or the other. I consider the strong 2C opening to be an abomination.

Peter

[blackshoe]

Quote

I only brought up the QJ 11th hand because I brought up that very hand in committee, and Phil Merry said as long as the card was marked 9 tricks or points it would be a legal bid.

So according to law, if the bid meets either the trick requirement or the point requirement it is not a psyche.

Not according to law, according to Phil Merry. I wonder if Rick Beye would agree with him?

What I wrote upthread is my opinion of what constitutes a "strong" hand. I am fully aware that opinion does not entirely coincide with current ACBL policy.

[awm]

It just seems weird to me that there are hands where I will be ruled against if I try to open a strong 1♣ but where the field is allowed to open a strong 2♣ without it being considered a psych. After all, the precision 1♣ opening has a much lower minimum than a "normal" strong 2♣ method. I'm pretty sure that if anyone tries to open 1♣ strong with nine solid spades and out it will not fly, whereas this is specifically a legal 2♣ opening.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on Feb 5 2007, 04:06 AM, said:

Sigh. Bridge is much more interesting if you focus on improving your own bidding instead of that of the opps.

The TD should just tell the complainers to shut up and get a life.

Okay, Helene. Here's a challenge for you. Your RHO opens 2♣, showing anything from the QJ to eleven card suit posted above to a 24 (or more) HCP balanced hand to an unbalanced hand with 3 or fewer losers and more quick tricks than losers. How do you compete against this opening? How do you defend against it in the play?

[pbleighton]

"Okay, Helene. Here's a challenge for you. Your RHO opens 2♣, showing anything from the QJ to eleven card suit posted above to a 24 (or more) HCP balanced hand to an unbalanced hand with 3 or fewer losers and more quick tricks than losers. How do you compete against this opening? How do you defend against it in the play?"

You guess.

Since when are you entitled to have your opponents' bidding methods be easy to deal with?

As I said in a provious post, I think it comes down to disclosure.

Peter

[jtfanclub]

awm, on Feb 5 2007, 12:04 PM, said:

It just seems weird to me that there are hands where I will be ruled against if I try to open a strong 1♣ but where the field is allowed to open a strong 2♣ without it being considered a psych. After all, the precision 1♣ opening has a much lower minimum than a "normal" strong 2♣ method. I'm pretty sure that if anyone tries to open 1♣ strong with nine solid spades and out it will not fly, whereas this is specifically a legal 2♣ opening.

That's the real issue. If the cops see you doing 65 in a 65 zone, they aren't allowed to pull you over for speeding. If they see you doing 70 in a 65 zone, they aren't forced to pull you over. The ACBL 'rules cops' have decided to let things skate on the strong openings.

But by using selective enforcement, and not letting people open it as 1♣, would be a serious issue for those of us using Precision. In fact, everybody I've played against understands that 16+ means 16+ or the equivalent strength, and I've never had the director called on me for being a little under. I haven't tested it too far, as of yet.

[blackshoe]

pbleighton, on Feb 5 2007, 12:11 PM, said:

"Okay, Helene. Here's a challenge for you. Your RHO opens 2?, showing anything from the QJ to eleven card suit posted above to a 24 (or more) HCP balanced hand to an unbalanced hand with 3 or fewer losers and more quick tricks than losers. How do you compete against this opening? How do you defend against it in the play?"

You guess.

Since when are you entitled to have your opponents' bidding methods be easy to deal with?

As I said in a provious post, I think it comes down to disclosure.

Peter

I don't think it's possible to set up a defense to a "strong" 2♣ opening with as wide a possible variation as we are discussing. Certainly, as someone mentioned upthread, there will be hands with which one would be foolish not to compete against the weak end, yet suicidal to compete against the strong end.

Nota Bene: I have no objection to such a wide ranging strong opening as such, but I don't believe it should be legal under the GCC.

I never said anyone was "entitled" to have easy to deal with opposing methods - though I will say that if one is playing under the GCC one is entitled to have easier to deal with opposing methods than if one was playing under the Mid-Chart or Superchart.

Yes, it comes down to disclosure. I expect I will die before I get full disclosure from any but the most ethical bridge players - around here, it's like pulling teeth to get more than a one word response, usually the name of the damn convention - and yes, I know the alert regulation says lhat's insufficient, and so do the TDs around here. Not that it makes any difference.