keylime Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Greetings :D I have a simple question. Had a BBO member ask me if I'd open 2♣on this hand: AKQxx AKxxx x xx This hand make me think a bit. Who would consider this a psychic? Who would consider it kosher? What does NBO's look upon this? Is there a standard used? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 In the ACBL, any opening which shows 15+ HCP is considered "Strong", so it would be legal to agree to open this 2♣. I believe it is off center enough to need an alert. In general, 2♣ shows either a balanced hand too strong for 2NT or a hand with about 9 tricks with some defense, so that[hv=s=sakqxxxxxxhxxdxcx]133|100|[/hv]is not a 2♣ bid even though it has 9 tricks. Your example hand has enough defense, but is not likely enough to have 9 tricks to be a sound 2♣ opener. While it is reasonable to assume a fit in one major or the other, it is not reasonable to assume a double fit. I would not consider this a psychic, just an overbid. The hand is worth about 8 tricks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr1303 Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Hi everyone My understanding of the rules of bridge were that you weren't allowed to psyche an artificial strong opening. Anyway, I think the hand is worth an acol 2♠, if you play them, or some other opening that only needs trump support to make game. But I think 2♣ is an overbid. A 1♠ opening, followed by a 3♥ rebid should be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bearmum Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 WELL here in Australia it is NOT allowed to psyche a conventional bid - SO IF playing Standard American (or SAYC as MOST folks mean SA to be) - or EVEN STANDARD AMERICAN YELLOW CARD - where 2C is artificial bid -- than NOT allowed to PSYCH a 2C opener :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Greetings :D I have a simple question. Had a BBO member ask me if I'd open 2♣on this hand: AKQxx AKxxx x xx This hand make me think a bit. Who would consider this a psychic? Who would consider it kosher? What does NBO's look upon this? Is there a standard used? Opening 2♣ on the hand i question probably isn't a pysche. From my perspective, this is not a "gross" distortion regarding offensive strength. With this said and done, opening 2♣ is a VERY bad bid. Players should strive to avoid 2♣ openings with 2 suited hands. However, people have the right to play bad bridge. In any case, the NBOs seem unable to reach consensus regarding whether a 2♣ opening on AKQ87652A4326 is legit. Like always, rulings vary by director and day of the day. I would not want to predict their opinion regarding minimal strength 2-suited patterns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Considering that a 2♣ opening shows a balanced hand too strong for 2NT or an unbalanced hand with about 9 playing tricks, I think you may even open AKQxxxxxx-xx-x-x with 2♣, because you need a 4-0-0 split before you'll make only 8 tricks! And you don't need much from p to make 4♠: 1 Ace or ♥Kx with the Ace in front or ♥KQ. But do you really think opps won't intervene if you have such a hand? Back to the topic: the 5-5 suiter isn't the best hand to open 2♣. You can't show your hand anyway, or not like you want to. That's why I inserted transferpreempts with strong 55+ hands in them, so I could open 3♣ with this hand (preempt ♦ OR GF 55+ ♥-X). After a 3♦ response, I'd bid 3♠ showing 55+ ♥-♠.But if you don't play this stuff, I suggest opening 1♠ is the better option, followed by 3♥ (after a 1NT response, you can even bid 4♥)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joker_gib Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 You only have 16HCP so without special aggreement I will open this hand with 1♠. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Yes, only 16HCP, but you have also only 4 losers, which means almost GF!!! Do you want partner to pass with xxx-Qxx-xxxx-xxx? 4M laydown! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Yes, only 16HCP, but you have also only 4 losers, which means almost GF!!! Do you want partner to pass with xxx-Qxx-xxxx-xxx? 4M laydown! I would not open this hand 2♣, two suiters are notoriously difficult to bid well after a 2♣ opening bid. Second, I don't believe a 2♣ opening on this hand is a gross misrepresentation of the playing stregnth, so while I would not open it 2♣, I would not call a 2♣ opening bid a psyche. As for 4M being a laydown, I doubt it. A 4-1 ♥ or ♠ split will defeat 4♥ and 4♠ respectifully, and a 5-0 split with ruffs beats both of them. Second, with your model hand, I would raise 1M to 2M...but then I have protection of my funky "drury" type bid after any seat opening bid. ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joker_gib Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 Yes, only 16HCP, but you have also only 4 losers, which means almost GF!!! Do you want partner to pass with xxx-Qxx-xxxx-xxx? 4M laydown! :rolleyes: Do you really think that opps will let you play 1♠ and that the bidding is over ? And as Ben says 4M is far from laydown with xxx-Qxx-xxxx-xxx ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 If you have to rely on opps to bid before you can get into a game, there's something seriously wrong with your bridge playing methods!! Anyway, I told I'd open 1♠ as well (the better of two bads), but it seemed like joker was looking only at his HCP, which is wrong (again). Quote: "You only have 16HCP so ... " My example hand isn't the best example hand, but it has to be realistic. Imo, 4M has a good chance when partner has such an awfull hand, so you see he doesn't need much. Here he also has a double fit, where in most cases he will not. "Laydown" was perhaps the wrong word choice, but I really think most of the time you'll have a game available, even if partner hasn't got much... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joker_gib Posted March 17, 2004 Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 np :blink: I only say that the less HCP you have, the less chance you have to hear "pass-pass-pass" !! :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted March 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2004 There's a reason for this question I asked. About 10 days ago locally a friend of mine had this hand: AKJTx AKxxx x xx For fear of being passed (understand this person is an intermediate, still learning) opened 2♣. They ended up at 4♠ making for a top board. The opponents, who were both "experts" cried foul and wanted to appeal the board. Don't know what came out of it, but with this and the B/I member giving nearly identical hands, started me thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 i could be wrong, but my understanding of the rules is that an appeal of the 2♣ bid would be upheld... i don't know what the committee would do, but i think that hand and the example hand you gave can not be opened 2♣ in acbl land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 As a former club director, my understanding is that it is a judgement call: if I determine that opening such a hand 2C is the partnership's actual agreement, then it is a failure to alert the unusually low playing strength and will adjust if there is damage. If I determine that the player does not have sufficient hand evaluation skill and really thinks this hand is worth 9 tricks, the result stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Seems like acbl land sucks bigtime... Freedom!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted March 18, 2004 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 Some partnerships put this into their description: 2♣ - strong, forcing bid of 21+ HCP OR any hand with 4 or fewer losers OR 8.5 winners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cascade Posted March 18, 2004 Report Share Posted March 18, 2004 There's a reason for this question I asked. About 10 days ago locally a friend of mine had this hand: AKJTx AKxxx x xx For fear of being passed (understand this person is an intermediate, still learning) opened 2♣. They ended up at 4♠ making for a top board. The opponents, who were both "experts" cried foul and wanted to appeal the board. Don't know what came out of it, but with this and the B/I member giving nearly identical hands, started me thinking. Unless there really is a rule that you cannot judge this hand worth 2♣ then I think that these experts need to be hung out somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trpltrbl Posted March 20, 2004 Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 Yes, only 16HCP, but you have also only 4 losers, which means almost GF!!! Do you want partner to pass with xxx-Qxx-xxxx-xxx? 4M laydown! I open 1♠ and I very very doubt that that is going to be passed out with opps having all the minor suit cards and 22 HCP. Mike :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trpltrbl Posted March 20, 2004 Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 There's a reason for this question I asked. About 10 days ago locally a friend of mine had this hand: AKJTx AKxxx x xx For fear of being passed (understand this person is an intermediate, still learning) opened 2♣. They ended up at 4♠ making for a top board. The opponents, who were both "experts" cried foul and wanted to appeal the board. Don't know what came out of it, but with this and the B/I member giving nearly identical hands, started me thinking. It always seem that "experts" cry foul that fastest, if they get a bad brd against not so good players. Get over it, you'll more then likely get it back the next brd. Mike :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted March 20, 2004 Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 Just to confirm the legal side of things, firstly the Laws do not prohibit any psychic bidding - Law 40: http://www.ebu.co.uk/laws_ethics/the_laws/chapter5.asp#law40 Law 40 A. Right to Choose Call or PlayA player may make any call or play (including an intentionally misleading call - such as a psychic bid - or a call or play that departs from commonly accepted, or previously announced, use of a convention), without prior announcement, provided that such call or play is not based on a partnership understanding. Frivolous psyching, suggesting you have lost interest in the competition or are enjoying yourself at the expense of others, is a breach of the Laws. (Law 74A2, 74B1, 74C6) However sponsoring organisations, including my own English Bridge Union, do impose limitations so that you may not psyche a game forcing or nearly game forcing artificial opening. This would include a 2C opener (but probably not a strong club opener) - http://www.math.auc.dk/~nwp/bridge/orangebook/s06.html The ACBL is more stringent, banning psyching of artificial opening bids and/or conventional responses thereto at all levels. It is then down to the Directors to establish whether a bid is a psyche.------ Back to the hand in question, personally I think opening 2♣ is silly but clearly not a psyche. I also do not have a high opinion of "experts" who feel that this is a psyche by an intermediate and your description makes it sound like bullying. As I'd say to the BIL members ... I think you'll find it easier to open these hands 1♠ in the long term. Cheers Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishovnbg Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 As a former club director, my understanding is that it is a judgement call: if I determine that opening such a hand 2C is the partnership's actual agreement, then it is a failure to alert the unusually low playing strength and will adjust if there is damage. If I determine that the player does not have sufficient hand evaluation skill and really thinks this hand is worth 9 tricks, the result stands. ------------------------ Hi former director! :P ------ If they have agreements to open distributional hands with 2♣, failure to alert can lead to penalty, if cause damage to the innocent competitor. ------ If they don't have such agreements, then decision depend of country/regional/club rules. By WBF rules such hand must have 3hcp more than average (13+hcp) and must be close to game, so hand in example is not alertable. By ACBL rules I don't know, but if what I read is true, is also not alertable - enough defense and close to game enough because both majors. Shortly, by any rules I know and read, it is not a psyche, but hand evaluation. ------ The general mistake of most directors, as I posted many times, is they fogrot that are not players, but directors. The director's decision can't be based on individual characteristics of competitor and fail to make right bid, because lack of knoledge (in this case right hand evaluation) do not exuse the competitor. --------------------------------------------- Misho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishovnbg Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 Seems like acbl land sucks bigtime... Freedom!!! -------------------------------------Hi Frederick! ------ If you like the freedom, come to Bulgaria, you will find here any kind of freedom, probably more freedom than you like, wild freedom. :P -------------------------------------- Misho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothy Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 The general mistake of most directors, as I posted many times, is they forgot that are not players, but directors. The director's decision can't be based on individual characteristics of competitor and fail to make right bid, because lack of knowledge (in this case right hand evaluation) do not exuse the competitor. i agree with you Misho although would like to alter your comment a bit...copyright withstanding :P 'The director's decision can't be biased B) on individual characteristics of competitor and fail to make right bid, because lack of knowledge (in this case right hand evaluation) do not exuse the competitor.' The point i am making is that it is difficult for a director (esp. in local competitions/drives when most of players are familiar with each other's styles) to make a call on a particular hand by a particular competitor if that competitor has a tendency to make off-centre calls regularly, and judge it simply in the context of that particular hand in isolation. Also, my fellow Britain, cardsharp, made a valid point about the 2♣ psyche controversy, at least in UK. A hand similar to the one that started the thread came up in latter stages of national competition and aroused a lot of debate as to whether to strengthen the rules regarding a 'psyche' of a 2♣ opener (the person in question recently opened a 1NT with a 2 count and ended up making 1 trick (on a defensive error) hee hee... with opponents at other table in 6♠X -1 in a very reasonable contract: cost him the match) . Two nationally-recognised TDs who play at my club, and seem to have some sway in the corridors of power, cant agree on the matter B) so little chance of a resolution there !!! The crux of the argument seems to be as to what constitutes a GF bid and whether it is possible to remove any subjective assessment as to whether one is or not, which in itself, of course, is ludricrous. A player may make a 2♣ GF bid genuinelyassessing it as GF, irrespective of his/her level, whereas another person may never think it is. The operative word here is genuine in the sense that a person makes a bid knowing it is in breach of any law put forward... P.S. Misho i wish to disagree with you about Bulgaria being FREE!!! Bought a coffee in Sofia for 4.8 leva!!! :D: not FREE in my books. What was even more frustrating was that i had ordered a sandwich and a coke :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mishovnbg Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 ------------------------------------ Hi slothy! "P.S. Misho i wish to disagree with you about Bulgaria being FREE!!! Bought a coffee in Sofia for 4.8 leva!!! : not FREE in my books. What was even more frustrating was that i had ordered a sandwich and a coke." ------ I never mention nothing about money... Only about freedom, like in "wild, wild west" in the past :D . You paid so cheap for coffee, because was in Sofia :P . Come to Varna, resort "Golden sands", really great, fine sands, not deep waters, no sharks or any venomous creatures or plants... And probably will understand why I wrote that in Sofia is very cheap... -------------------------------------------------------Misho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.