[jillybean]

I've always followed the pack in writing 2♣ "22+ or 8 playing tricks" on my CC but can't remember opening an 8 trick hand that wasn't also strong 18+ hcp.

Today I opened 2♣ with 13hcp 8 playing tricks in clubs, only to be told that rule only applied to Majors. Who knew

[johnu]

The rule for Very Strong in the ACBL convention charts is:

“Very Strong”: A hand that contains:
i. at least 20 HCP; or
ii. at least 14 HCP and is within one trick of game assuming suits break evenly among the other hands; or
iii. at least 5 Control Points and is within one trick of game assuming suits break evenly among the other hands.

Only 13 HCP? Did you have AAKQ or AKKK for your HCP?

With a major suit, a trick within game is 9 tricks.

Under the Example section

“Strong” / “Very Strong”: The hand AKQJxxx Axx xx x does not meet the definition of
Strong or Very Strong. It is two tricks away from game in spades, and to be considered
within one trick of making 3NT all suits must be stopped.

[jillybean]

I'm not too concerned about what the ACBL says, I was wondering if there was any justification for the "8 playing tricks must be in a major" "rule".
(note rule is used in the same context as "you shall not open 1nt with 2 doubletons")

Perhaps this comment came from a player with gambling 3nt on their card.

this was the hand

5,void,A742,AKQ98632

[mycroft]

Most "mean" "one trick from game" when they say 8.5 playing tricks.

8.5 playing tricks isn't "one trick from 5m" the way it is "one trick from 4M".

That's why minors "need" more.

All of the air-quotes are in there for obvious (to me, upgrading into 2♣, especially without defence, is a 'works against novices' plan that should be treated as highly as "4NT means 'we might have slam'" and "4♣ always Aces is better because we can stop in 4M") reasons.

[johnu]

jillybean, on 2026-May-08, 18:58, said:

I'm not too concerned about what the ACBL says, I was wondering if there was any justification for the "8 playing tricks must be in a major" "rule".
(note rule is used in the same context as "you shall not open 1nt with 2 doubletons")

Perhaps this comment came from a player with gambling 3nt on their card.

this was the hand

5,void,A742,AKQ98632

If not the ACBL (or other organizing authority), then why does it matter? If there are no official regulations for the game, anything goes.

As for the gambling 3NT hand, it qualifies as a very strong hand under the ACBL convention chart.

[jillybean]

It is more of a question about style. Sure, bidding is somewhat shaped by the regulations but we know that many pairs stray from these.
If you aren't hampered by governing body restrictions, what do you do with this hand?

If a gambling 3nt hand qualifies as a very strong hand, this hand must also qualify.

[DavidKok]

1♣.

[TMorris]

1♣. It is never going to be passed out, especially when you are 1 0 in the majors amongst other reasons.

[mikeh]

jillybean, on 2026-May-08, 23:55, said:

It is more of a question about style. Sure, bidding is somewhat shaped by the regulations but we know that many pairs stray from these.
If you aren't hampered by governing body restrictions, what do you do with this hand?

If a gambling 3nt hand qualifies as a very strong hand, this hand must also qualify.

I do not agree. Many players simply do not know the rules of the game. Others, unfortunately, know them but have your attitude towards them…rules are for other players. Pull a stunt like opening 2C with this hand, and get a good result against me and the TD is being called and you can kiss that good result away. I’d probably call even if you got the bad result a 2C opener deserves because I trust do not like players who take illegal actions.

The rules are not optional and an attitude that is based on you believing rules are for suckers isn’t going to work well when playing against people who believe in abiding by the rules.

Of course, I’d never dream of opening 2C with this hand. You have a partner. If that partner s in any sense a good player, you will often lose control of the auction when partner has a good hand and drives to a hopeless slam or doubles the opps in a high level major suit contract that is cold because your 2C opener took only one defensive trick.

I have zero respect for the illegal 2C bid and would have almost the same lack of respect were 2C merely a bad call rather than an illegal one.

[jillybean]

Thanks Mike, and the others up thread for clarifying "8 playing tricks" is actually 8.5 playing tricks, one trick away from game in a Major.
I assume this also applies to a hand I want to play in nt?

I played this hand in the Main Bridge Club on BBO and thought at the time it was the closest to a strong "8 playing trick" hand I had seen.
I was playing with a friend, our result was a disaster because of course I misled my partner, end of experiment. The ensuing comment about "8 playing tricks in a major" made me question my comprehension in writing "22+ or 8 playing tricks on my CC"

I have not been playing a lot of duplicate bridge for years in part due to the fact that I am one of the suckers to whom the Laws apply.
I am playing a couple of BCD games at the local Sectional next weekend with some very keen but new to Duplicate players. We have already talked about table etiquette and we will have our Convention Cards available. I'm not concerned with disclosure, we only have J2nt and drury on the card so our opponents will most likely know what is going on and I will of course mention any FTA at the end of the auction.
I do however shudder at the table etiquette that we will face and I am very hesitant at calling the Director.

Please get off my back about my ethics.

[mycroft]

Show me where it's illegal, please?

It's *Alertable*, sure; and if you can show a credible path to damage *from the failure to Alert*, you'll be protected.

(Okay, on the Basic/+ charts it's illegal. Mostly so that newer players don't get into the habit against players who give a free run to a 2♣ opening. When I play in the GNT-B, I'll call on it, same as I'll call on 1♣-p-1♥ showing spades.)

[DavidKok]

The other week partner and I had related issues on a 2♣ auction:

---

Sitting North I felt confident I could count out partner's hand as (I thought) we had agreed not open 2♣ on hands like this, in addition to expecting a club control for the natural 4NT. Also partner's failure to bid 3♠ over 2♥, setting trumps, denied a self-sufficient suit. 6♦ was not a success.
I really don't get why people want to open 2♣ with these shapely hands. Maybe it's just excitement - people want to trot out a gadget for the sake of showing they heard of the gadget?

[pescetom]

 DavidKok, on 2026-May-09, 11:27, said:

The other week partner and I had related issues on a 2♣ auction:

---

Sitting North I felt confident I could count out partner's hand as (I thought) we had agreed not open 2♣ on hands like this, in addition to expecting a club control for the natural 4NT. Also partner's failure to bid 3♠ over 2♥, setting trumps, denied a self-sufficient suit. 6♦ was not a success.
I really don't get why people want to open 2♣ with these shapely hands. Maybe it's just excitement - people want to trot out a gadget for the sake of showing they heard of the gadget?

I don't like the idea of Responder to 2♣ showing his own strong suit naturally, but that is a side issue.
I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong in putting strong unsupportable single suited hands through 2♣, in particular a major, so long as they jump to impose trumps, and that jump is still valid over natural "interference" by partner. It's a legitimate albeit not automatic of methods.
I'm not thrilled with the natural alternative of the first suit rebid being 5+ and not promising a second suit.
Had South rebid 3♠ imposing trumps over the hearts misfit and North bid 4♥ denying minor controls, we would stop safely in 4♠ knowing we lose the first two tricks in clubs.