[glen]

The use of 2♣ as an artificial "strong" opening is covered under the GCC as "strong", not "strong or some number of tricks". However "strong" can be considered in points, or tricks, or some other measure of playing value. So "strong or 8 1/2 tricks" means "strong in points or strong by 8 1/2+ tricks".

One wonders what the minimum number of tricks is? It is tempting to go to the NABC with a cc marked for the 2♣ opening as "strong or 3+ tricks" just to see what happens.

If they allow 7+ tricks, it is possible to have the gambling 2♣ opener - putting in those solid 7 card suit hands without lots of stoppers. One could even have fun sequences like 2♣(strong or 7+ tricks)-2♦(waiting, not 11+);-Pass(by opener with long ♦s). This certainly makes the 2♣ opening a lot of fun, and hopefully the opponents will not focus the TD on this fun.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Feb 5 2007, 08:34 PM, said:

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.

Why should I care?

There is no such thing as a perfect bidding system, opening, or defense. I don't care what set of methods that you chose to play. There exists some set of hands that your method will handle well. There exists another set of hands that your methods won't cope with nearly as nicely.

The fact that this second set of hands isn't empty really doesn't concern me that much. On the other hand, if the second set of hands is extremely large, that might get my attention. However, I have yet to hear anyone claim that a 2♣ opening showing either a (some set of strong hands) or (some set of weak hands) is particularly difficult to defend against. Furthermore, I'd go so far as to argue that if its difficult to create a good defense against a method, that suggests that the method has theoretic merit. It should be something that we want to encourage, not stamp into oblivion.

One interesting analogy somes to mind: There are many species of multi 2♦ opening. I've seen a number of treatments in which the 2♦ opening showed either

1. A weak 2 opening in Hearts or
2. A weak 2 opening in Spades or
3. A strong balanced hand with 22-23 HCP or
4. A 4-4-4-1 hand with 17-24 HCP

My impression is that most people who play a multi have been migrating to a "weak only" bid with no strong adjuncts. Multiplexing the weak and the strong hand types isn't nearly as efficient.

In a similar fashion, I've seen a number of multi-type 2♣ openings. One favorite seems to be using 2♣ as either a game forcing hand or a weak in Diamonds. Back when I was experimenting with Ice Relay, I used to play a 2♣ opening that showed either

1. 22 - 23 HCP balanced
2. a weak 2 in Diamonds
3. Preemptive with 5+ Spades and 4+ Hearts

These methods don't seem to be particularly popular, however, I've never heard that they were impossible to defend against.

[Winstonm]

Here you sit in second seat with: Kxx, AQ10xx, KJx, xx.

RHO opens 2C:

He may have: AQJ, xxx, AQx, AKQx and his parner xxx, KJ9x, xxxx, xx.
He may have: x, x, AQ, AKQxxxxxx

You in second seat are at a tremendous disadvantage as you are forced to guess what hand is held - if you pass, the action may be at 3n when it is your turn to bid again. If you bid now, you can get killed. And if you pass, you are brutalized by the opener's who chose 1C, either natural or systemic - as all those tables everyone gets to bid 1H with your hand.

I believe the ACBL needs to adjust their regulations of 2C that it is only a single hand type. Old ACOl used a playing strenth 1-round force hand, but those were natural bids - to try to accomodate those hands into strong 2C caused the problem, IMO.

I would like to see the rule changed to where it is a choice - 2C can be either a trick-taking hand with no point limit, or it can be a strong HCP hand, but it cannot be both. Players have the option of chosing which they want to play.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Feb 6 2007, 05:26 AM, said:

Here you sit in second seat with: Kxx, AQ10xx, KJx, xx.

RHO opens 2C:

He may have: AQJ, xxx, AQx, AKQx and his parner xxx, KJ9x, xxxx, xx.
He may have: x, x, AQ, AKQxxxxxx

You in second seat are at a tremendous disadvantage as you are forced to guess what hand is held - if you pass, the action may be at 3n when it is your turn to bid again. If you bid now, you can get killed. And if you pass, you are brutalized by the opener's who chose 1C, either natural or systemic - as all those tables everyone gets to bid 1H with your hand.

I believe the ACBL needs to adjust their regulations of 2C that it is only a single hand type. Old ACOl used a playing strenth 1-round force hand, but those were natural bids - to try to accomodate those hands into strong 2C caused the problem, IMO.

I would like to see the rule changed to where it is a choice - 2C can be either a trick-taking hand with no point limit, or it can be a strong HCP hand, but it cannot be both. Players have the option of chosing which they want to play.

This posting is insane

First: I don't believe that this opening style is likely to be effective. I think that you are obsessing way too much about the difficulty in overcalling this 2♣ opening and ignoring the fact that its going to be extremely difficult to design any kind of reasonable advance structure over this opening. I suspect that the side emplying this opening is going to shoot themselves in the foot more times than not.

Second: Lets assume that your correct. This random undisciplined 2♣ is the be all and end all of openings. Why the hell should you (or for that matter, the ACBL) go and ban a bid because its good/effective. Should system regulations really be used to protect inferior bidding methods that can't otherwise compete?

If players are able to effectly describe/disclose their methods, they should be allow to use them in "real" competition.

[Winstonm]

Quote

This posting is insane

Don't sugarcoat it Richard - tell it like it is.

Here is my contention, wrong I'm sure.

The ACBL (not me, them) states you cannot psyche a "stong 2C opener"; however, that same organization fails to define what this means other than allowing both playing trick hands and strong HCP hands to open 2C.

This is also a more useful tactic at matchpoints than imps, especially team imps where the match is long. At matchpoints, you play 2 boards and then on to the next set of opponents.

If you agree to open any 7 trick hand 2C and so mark it on your card, it becomes legal. The ACBL has said you cannot psyche a strong 2C but leaves it to the bidder to determine what "strong" means. Because of this, the rule is ridiculous.

By defining the hands as "trick-taking hands", partnerships could evolve a system where 7 trick hands are opened 2C, such as xx, xxx, AKQJxxx, x.

The point is there is no risk to opener's side - if LHO has a hand that might need to get into the auction and does, opener can still compete in his diamond suit with no risk - all the risk of bidding falls on overcaller, who might be bidding into a 22 point NT under the current rules.

And at mp's, it only takes one steal of a board with a hand like this to win a bunch of marbles.

My point being that IF the ACBL wants to create this rule, then it should be modified to be more exact or done away with completely. As it is now, it is very one-sided. The 2C "strong" is a silly tag, and thus 2C should be no different than any other bid and psyches should be allowed.

So my idea is one or the other - either change the rule to conform to the "strong 2C" the ACBL mentions, or allow psyches of "varying strength 2C". But to try to enforce a ban of a strong 2C psyche under the present rules seems to me ludicrous.

[awm]

To try and resolve this discussion between Winston and Hrothgar, there are basically three issues here:

(1) Methods should be disclosed.

(2) It should not be the case that a poorly disclosed method is somehow legal whereas doing a better job of disclosing the same agreement makes it illegal.

(3) If a particular agreement is allowed, then an alternative agreement which is less unexpected and easier to defend against really should also be allowed.

The legality of a 2♣ opening on xx x x AKQxxxxxx seems to run afoul of these. First off, people who open 2♣ with this hand don't alert it, and their card says something like "2♣ strong" on it. The fact that their interpretation of the term "strong hand" is wildly divergent from what most of us think of as a strong hand allows them to simply not disclose that their 2♣ openings may contain very few high card points and virtually no defense. It seems to me that any pair which frequently opens hands with very few points with a strong 2♣ should have to alert and disclose such an agreement.

Second, the current ACBL rule is that an agreement that 2♣ shows either a strong hand or a weak two in diamonds is not allowed on the general chart (and requires suggested defense on the midchart). We can of course discuss endlessly whether this is a silly rule or a sensible one. However, it seems clear that if an agreement to open 2♣ showing "strong hand or weak two in diamonds" is not allowed when disclosed that way, then simply claiming that the agreement is 2♣ strong and then opening 2♣ with xxx xx AKQxxx xx and claiming that "this looks like a strong hand to me" should not be allowed.

Third, if it's legal to open 2♣ on AKQxxxxxx xx x x with disclosure as "22+ hcp or 9+ tricks" then it should be legal to open a strong 1♣ on the same hand with disclosure as "16+ hcp or 9+ tricks." After all, it's normally easier to compete against the 1♣ opening (one level is available) and the trick-taking hand is not as far removed from the "expected" high card point hand in points. But currently ACBL regulations don't support this.

[Echognome]

Which brings us back around to the simple following question:

If the NBO doesn't define what "strong" means, how can we say that anyone's particular interpretation of the word is wrong?

For better or worse, the EBU has decided what strong means. We can argue all day and night about whether they have got it right, but at least it is very clearly defined.

At Level 2

Orange Book 11 C 3 said:

A 1♣ opening may have any meaning if it is forcing and promises a minimum strength of at least Rule of 25 or 16 HCP.

And for 2-level bids:

Orange Book 11 G 2 and 11 G 3 said:

You may not play a single opening bid to have a mixture of strong and other meanings at Level 2.

You may play these as any one of the following:

(a) Any strong hand, minimum Rule of 25

Why not make a concrete definition of what is allowed rather than try to regulate based on everyone's individual interpretation?

[hrothgar]

Echognome, on Feb 6 2007, 11:38 AM, said:

Why not make a concrete definition of what is allowed rather than try to regulate based on everyone's individual interpretation?

Comment 1:

I very much agree with the Matt's sentiment. I think that the ACBL would be well served if they developed a simple, straight-forward set of regulations. (The EBU's Orange Book and White Box represent an excellent example of what the ACBL should be doing). I think that the recent exchanges that Adam and I have with "Rulings@ACBL.org" demonstrate the problems inherent with the current system. Adam and I each ask the same simple question to Rulings. We received completely contradictory answers. We were talking to what should be the cream of the ACBL TD staff; neither of had a bloody clue what they were talking about.

Comment 2: I see two reasonable explanations why the ACBL alows the current situation to persist (and believe me, this state of affairs has lasted for a long time)

A. The ACBL is completely incompetent

B. The ACBL sees benefits is a lax regulatory regime. Ambiguities in the regulatory structure permits individual TDs and regulations broad discretionary powers. They get to do whatever they damn well please. There are actually some arguments in favor of this type of approach. Many people would argue that a flexible regulatory structure is a good thing and that decision making should devolve down to the local level. (Indeed, the WBF makes precisely this argument about its relationship with sponsoring organizations).

I think that there is some truth to this argument. However, I think that this type of system requires a strong foundation. Its more essential that ever that the basic terms like "Convention" and "Strong" get defined in a clear and unambiguous manner.

[Winstonm]

Echognome, on Feb 6 2007, 03:38 AM, said:

Which brings us back around to the simple following question:

If the NBO doesn't define what "strong" means, how can we say that anyone's particular interpretation of the word is wrong?

For better or worse, the EBU has decided what strong means. We can argue all day and night about whether they have got it right, but at least it is very clearly defined.

At Level 2

Orange Book 11 C 3 said:

A 1♣ opening may have any meaning if it is forcing and promises a minimum strength of at least Rule of 25 or 16 HCP.

And for 2-level bids:

Orange Book 11 G 2 and 11 G 3 said:

You may not play a single opening bid to have a mixture of strong and other meanings at Level 2.

You may play these as any one of the following:

(a) Any strong hand, minimum Rule of 25

Why not make a concrete definition of what is allowed rather than try to regulate based on everyone's individual interpretation?

This is my basic contention - if an organization creates a rule it has the further responsibility to define the rule.

[blackshoe]

It is my understanding that Edgar Kaplan was of the school mentioned in Hrothgar's option B, and that is probably the reason for the present state of affairs.

Either way, I don't believe the ACBL is going to do a damn thing to change the status quo unless they get an awful lot of complaints from players at all levels.

I doubt experts use the loophole granted them on the 2 club opening, because they know damn well it's a stupid idea to have that much variance in your only forcing opening bid. So the ACBL likely won't get complaints about it from that level of play. Novices are likely to either miss what's going on altogether, or to adopt the strategy themselves, not knowing any better. Complaints to the ACBL from that level are also unlikely. It's intermediates who might complain - but most just won't. So the ACBL continues with the status quo. And those of us who would like to compete against the weak variant of this bid are screwed, because we rarely will have a hand that also has some safety competing against the strong variant.

Sometimes this game sucks.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Feb 6 2007, 05:01 PM, said:

It is my understanding that Edgar Kaplan was of the school mentioned in Hrothgar's option B, and that is probably the reason for the present state of affairs.

Edgar Kaplan certainly favored a system that provided Kaplan with as much discretionary power as possible. My impression is that this system worked quite well so long as Edgar was on the scene to fine tune the system. However, I don't think that his system works nearly as well know that he's gone.

The United States Army is the basis for a lot of organization studies. The Army is very large, however, it still managed to function quite efficiently. The traditional description of the army's organization structure is that it was "designed by geniuses to be run by idiots". Please note: This isn't an attempt to deprecate the average grunts. Rather, it is an explicit recognition of the fact simple and logically consistent systems tend to be more robust.

Returning to ACBL land... A system designed to give full reign to the many talents of Edgar Kaplan probably can't run by mere mortals, let alone "luminaries" like Mike Flader and Rick Beye.

[jtfanclub]

hrothgar, on Feb 6 2007, 08:44 AM, said:

Many people would argue that a flexible regulatory structure is a good thing and that decision making should devolve down to the local level.

But it's a horrible thing when you're playing in a limited event in the Nationals, and get told that some bid is illegal or requires an alert, and then you go to the next event, and somebody else is using it, and get told, no, it isn't illegal or require an alert, what are you talking about? Worst of all is the 'relay systems' being banned- nobody knows what a relay system is. And there is no precedent to work from, no site or book that explains in detail what has been allowed in the past.

2♣ is one of the smallest problems in the ACBL. I doubt it will ever be fixed.

[bid_em_up]

jtfanclub, on Feb 6 2007, 11:05 AM, said:

2♣ is one of the smallest problems in the ACBL. I doubt it will ever be fixed.

And unfortunately, if the smallest of problems can never be fixed, how can one hope for the larger problems to ever be corrected?

[pbleighton]

"And unfortunately, if the smallest of problems can never be fixed, how can one hope for the larger problems to ever be corrected?"

You can't.

Peter

[mycroft]

hrothgar, on Feb 6 2007, 08:12 AM, said:

The traditional description of the army's organization structure is that it was "designed by geniuses to be run by idiots".  Please note:  This isn't an attempt to deprecate the average grunts.

I am a sysadmin, and a problem solver when it comes to computer communication problems. I am good at that - possibly even genius level. I am a decent bridge player, and a competent or better director. I suck at management, and freely admit that (and sales? Hey, I tell the truth). On the other hand, one of my friends can turn a computer on, if someone is there watching to make sure he does it right. But he can make the most beautiful and functional woodwork and cabinetwork; and managed to do well when asked to manage more of the same.

We hire grunts to fight and fight well; and junior officers to lead grunts well. We then promote those junior officers to command roles that require organization and management. They are, by and large, as good at management as I am. "Designed by geniuses to be run by idiots" is the most sensible way to do that - especially as hiring from the outside is somewhat frowned on in Military circles.

In other words, we are all lusers in some fields. Good organizations hire as best they can, but should still build to this standard anyway.

Michael.

[mr1303]

Back to Matt's point about the EBU's rule of 25 minimum. It annoyed me no end when I saw people open 2C on something like AKxxxxxxx and describe it as 8 playing tricks etc. etc. and then explain their choice of opening as "wanting to pre-empt both majors".

I'm glad to say that they can no longer do that without having an Ave- / Ave+ ruling against them.

[helene_t]

keylime, on Feb 5 2007, 06:42 PM, said:

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).
[.....]
Thusly, some definition of a strong 2C opening is sorely needed. [....]

The below may be irrelevant to an ACBL discussion, but under WBF definitions, a system with certain kinds of nebolous 1♦, e.g. "unbal, no 5-card major" is HUM if it does not have a strong 1♣.

As for 2♣, it doesn't matter if you call it "strong" or not, as long as it guarantees 10 points. Just anounce it as "at least nine tricks" and it's ok to open 2♣ with
AKQJxxxxx-x-x-xx.

[helene_t]

blackshoe, on Feb 5 2007, 07:06 PM, said:

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?

That's not my point. If opps really have the agreement to open 2♣ with some kind of hands that would make it a BSC (in a BSC-free event), or if they don't disclose their methods, it's fine to call the TD of course.

My point is that most of the times, opps are trying to double-shoot after a succesful bad bid.

[blackshoe]

The problem we are trying to deal with in this thread is that in the ACBL, the requlations regarding permitted meanings of an artificial 2♣ opening are ambiguous. The relevant regulations are these:

ACBL General Convention Chart said:

ALLOWED OPENING BIDS

[snip]

3. TWO CLUBS ARTIFICIAL OPENING BID indicating one of:
a) a strong hand.
a three-suiter with a minimum of 10 HCP.

and

ibid said:

DISALLOWED

[snip]

2. Psyching of artificial or conventional opening bids and/or conventional
responses thereto.

I dismiss the psyche question, because most often when a bidder opens 2♣ with an unexpected hand, he doesn't, as you say, know what he's doing, therefore is not psyching.

Option b in the first quote should also be dismissed as not germane to this discussion. We are left then, with a player who contends to be opening 2♣ with "a strong hand". The dilemma arises because the ACBL nowhere defines what constitutes "a strong hand".

Back in Goren's day, people played natural strong twos. "Strong" was defined by Goren as, basically, at least 22 HCP. When North America adopted the Acol method of an artificial 2♣ opening for such hands, the meaning of "strong" did not change. The problem is that over time, people started using the shorthand "22+ balanced or 8 1/2+ playing tricks" in describing their 2 ♣ opener, and the clueless began interpreting "8 1/2+ playing tricks" as any such hand, regardless of high card strength. There is room for judgement, true, as to how many HCP is still "strong" in this context, but the current ACBL position seems to be "if the bidder thinks it's "strong" then it is" - iow there is no longer an objective criterion. The problem is further complicated by the apparent ACBL position that the usage is no longer sufficiently unusual as to require an alert for that reason. So a player faced with an opposing 2♣ opening has the following choices:

1. Assume it really is "strong" - ie, has about half the HCP in the deck
2. Assume it really is "weak" - ie, 8 1/2+ playing tricks, but few HCP.
3. Always ask about style.

Of the three, I prefer the third, but there is still a problem - the people of whom you are asking the question have no clue what you're asking, and no clue how to fully disclose their methods. This leaves you with a fourth option: simply pass throughout, and pray they screw it up. Sometimes they will. Sometimes they won't. Sometimes, as has happened to my team mates, you misdefend because you don't know where the high cards are. On balance, opponents playing these methods get away with their "mistake" more often than not. And I don't think that's fair bridge.

BTW, I'm not talking about high level bridge here - quite the opposite.

Addressing your point about BSC - if an opponent opens 2♣ in the ACBL with hand with 8 1/2+ playing tricks, and few HCP (a hand that would be BSC under other SO's rules), you will probably not get redress in the ACBL because there is no objective criterion for what constitutes "a strong hand".

As for the double shot, well, I understand (and share) the distaste for the idea that one might try to gain first at the table, and then if that fails through a ruling. But there is no law (or regulation) AFAIK against the double shot, and besides, just because it looks like a double shot doesn't mean it is one. Much as I dislike the idea of gaining through a ruling when I failed to do so at the table, I also dislike the idea that opponents are gaining because they are getting away with some questionable practice. It's not my purpose to teach them good bridge, merely to prevent their bad bridge, often coupled with inadequate disclosure, from gaining for them. I am not saying that bad bridge should always end in a bad result, btw, only that bad bridge coupled with inadequate disclosure shoudl always do so.
On a side note, I don't think the parenthetical (15+ HCP) description of "strong" in item 7 of "responses and rebids" in the GCC necessarily means that "strong" in the description of the 2♣ opener can be that low. Certainly 22+ HCP is within the set 15+ HCP. I think the 15+ bit is intended to encompass strong 1♣ (or 1♦, for that matter) openings.

As a criterion for what constitutes "strong" in the context of a 2♣ opener, I like Soloway's "more quick tricks than losers". IOW such a hand ought to have some defensive as well as offensive values. However, if the ACBL wants to allow a very wide ranging 2♣ opening, that's within their purview - but they ought to damn well make it clear that they're doing so. Currently, they don't, until you run across it at the table.